Audit 53483

Finding: The University did not timely or accurately report enrollment changes to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). Criteria: Per 34 CFR 685.309(b), a school shall - (1) Upon receipt of an enrollment report from the Secretary, update all information included in the report and return the report to the Secretary in the manner and format prescribed by the Secretary; and within the timeframe prescribed by the Secretary; and (2) Unless it expects to submit its next student updated enrollment report to the Secretary within the next 60 days, a school must notify the Secretary within 30 days if it discovers that a loan under Title IV of the Act was made to, or on behalf of, a student who was enrolled on at least a half-time basis or failed to enroll on at least a half-time basis for the period for which the loan was intended. Per 34 CFR 668.22(c)(ii), the withdrawal date is the date, as determined by the institution, that the student otherwise provided official notification to the institution, in writing or orally, of his or her intent to withdraw. Condition: Two students who had withdrawn were not reported at the correct last day of attendance. Three students did not have any withdrawal data reported. Two students were not reported as withdrawn within the 60 day timeframe for University's reporting on the roster file submissions. Cause: One student had their withdraw date simply entered into NSLDS incorrectly. Five students were not within the 60 day roster submission timeframe or not yet reported due to University waiting to see if the student would come back for the next term. The last cause was due to school reporting withdraw date as last date of attendance when the student was not withdrawn until over 60 days later due to an investigation. Effect: Noncompliance with federal regulations for enrollment reporting. Questioned costs: None Prevalence: Seven of the 29 students selected randomly and tested were not reported in accordance with NSLDS enrollment reporting. Recommendation: The University should accurately report all student status changes to the NSLDS. In addition, the University should review its policies and procedures to ensure withdrawal dates are accurately reflected in the enrollment management system and enrollment changes are reported timely. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with this finding.

Finding: The University incorrectly calculated Federal Direct Subsidized Loan funds for one student resulting in an under-award. Criteria: Per 34 CFR 685.203(a)(3), a student is entitled to $5,500 in direct subsidized loans after having completed two years of undergraduate education. A student?s award limit is based on the number of years of undergraduate education completed. Condition: One of 40 students selected randomly and tested for awarding was not properly awarded. Under-award of one student by $2,950 of Federal Direct Subsidized Loans. Cause: When initially awarding the student?s direct subsidized loan, the University improperly treated the student?s TEACH grant as need-based aid and reduced the awarded amount of the subsidized loan. An additional subsidized loan was awarded for the summer term; however, there was no recalculation performed when the student dropped a course, resulting in an over-award for this term only. These two items resulted in a net under-award. Effect: Noncompliance of federal regulation of the Federal Direct Loan Program. Questioned cost: The Federal Direct Subsidized Loan award calculated by the University was $2,272. The actual amount that should have been awarded was $5,222, resulting in an under-award of $2,950. Prevalence: One student of the 40 students subjected to Federal Direct Loan testing was not properly awarded. Recommendation: Management should update its internal policies and procedures to ensure the need-based aid calculation is properly performed and reviewed and that recalculations of aid packages are performed when needed. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with this finding.

Finding: The University did not timely or accurately report enrollment changes to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). Criteria: Per 34 CFR 685.309(b), a school shall - (1) Upon receipt of an enrollment report from the Secretary, update all information included in the report and return the report to the Secretary in the manner and format prescribed by the Secretary; and within the timeframe prescribed by the Secretary; and (2) Unless it expects to submit its next student updated enrollment report to the Secretary within the next 60 days, a school must notify the Secretary within 30 days if it discovers that a loan under Title IV of the Act was made to, or on behalf of, a student who was enrolled on at least a half-time basis or failed to enroll on at least a half-time basis for the period for which the loan was intended. Per 34 CFR 668.22(c)(ii), the withdrawal date is the date, as determined by the institution, that the student otherwise provided official notification to the institution, in writing or orally, of his or her intent to withdraw. Condition: Two students who had withdrawn were not reported at the correct last day of attendance. Three students did not have any withdrawal data reported. Two students were not reported as withdrawn within the 60 day timeframe for University's reporting on the roster file submissions. Cause: One student had their withdraw date simply entered into NSLDS incorrectly. Five students were not within the 60 day roster submission timeframe or not yet reported due to University waiting to see if the student would come back for the next term. The last cause was due to school reporting withdraw date as last date of attendance when the student was not withdrawn until over 60 days later due to an investigation. Effect: Noncompliance with federal regulations for enrollment reporting. Questioned costs: None Prevalence: Seven of the 29 students selected randomly and tested were not reported in accordance with NSLDS enrollment reporting. Recommendation: The University should accurately report all student status changes to the NSLDS. In addition, the University should review its policies and procedures to ensure withdrawal dates are accurately reflected in the enrollment management system and enrollment changes are reported timely. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with this finding.

Finding: The University incorrectly calculated Federal Direct Subsidized Loan funds for one student resulting in an under-award. Criteria: Per 34 CFR 685.203(a)(3), a student is entitled to $5,500 in direct subsidized loans after having completed two years of undergraduate education. A student?s award limit is based on the number of years of undergraduate education completed. Condition: One of 40 students selected randomly and tested for awarding was not properly awarded. Under-award of one student by $2,950 of Federal Direct Subsidized Loans. Cause: When initially awarding the student?s direct subsidized loan, the University improperly treated the student?s TEACH grant as need-based aid and reduced the awarded amount of the subsidized loan. An additional subsidized loan was awarded for the summer term; however, there was no recalculation performed when the student dropped a course, resulting in an over-award for this term only. These two items resulted in a net under-award. Effect: Noncompliance of federal regulation of the Federal Direct Loan Program. Questioned cost: The Federal Direct Subsidized Loan award calculated by the University was $2,272. The actual amount that should have been awarded was $5,222, resulting in an under-award of $2,950. Prevalence: One student of the 40 students subjected to Federal Direct Loan testing was not properly awarded. Recommendation: Management should update its internal policies and procedures to ensure the need-based aid calculation is properly performed and reviewed and that recalculations of aid packages are performed when needed. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with this finding.