Comparison of Post-9/11 GI Bill® and Pell Grant Administration

Summary

This report compares and contrasts the administration of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill®)—enacted as Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252)—and Federal Pell Grants, as authorized by Title IV-A-1 of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides educational assistance payments to eligible servicemembers and veterans, and their dependents. One of its primary objectives is readjustment of veterans to civilian life and the workforce. The federal Pell Grant program provides grant aid payments to eligible and financially needy undergraduate students, regardless of military service record. One of its primary objectives is to increase postsecondary education access of low-income individuals. The report investigates whether the administrative processes supporting Pell Grants can provide lessons for achieving more timely, efficient, and student-friendly administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, thus ensuring that it achieves its policy objectives with respect to educational achievement of the target population.

There are several differences between the programs and their administration. Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility is contingent on service in the uniformed services, whereas Pell Grant eligibility is contingent on financial need. Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits must be used within several years of discharge from active duty, whereas Pell Grants can be used at any stage of an individual’s life. The Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit was designed to meet most costs of education, whereas the Pell Grants were designed to meet a portion of an individual’s financial need. Eligible individuals may receive both benefits concurrently.

When comparing the administrative processes of the programs, there are at least three important considerations. One is the difference in the number of beneficiaries/recipients—estimates indicate there were fewer than 1 million Post-9/11 GI Bill participants and more than 9 million Pell Grant recipients in FY2014, which leads to economies of scale and greater familiarity for Pell Grant administrators. Another is the greater variety of programs of education approved for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which increases administrative complexity. Finally, while the Post-9/11 GI Bill went into effect in 2009, the Pell Grant administrative processes are more mature, having been developed and administered for decades.

There are areas in which the Post-9/11 GI Bill processes and procedures arguably could be improved if compared to the Pell Grant program. The key area would be a larger investment in system automation and internal controls to more fully automate the processes and maintain them with respect to ongoing legislative changes. For example, Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility determinations could be more fully automated. VA systems could choose the most advantageous GI Bill programs based on applicant information. Exact payments and unmet costs may be estimated for Post-9/11 GI Bill participants prior to enrollment to encourage informed enrollment. Providing payments to educational institutions to disburse to students may eliminate an extra processing step by the VA and speed payments and adjustments. Overpayments of Post-9/11 GI Bill payments could be resolved through deductions from subsequent Post-9/11 GI Bill payments or other VA benefit payments.

However, there may be underlying issues that prevent or hinder improvements and may suggest a limited advantage from them. For example, a single lump sum housing allowance payment before the start or at the beginning of the academic term may help pay early housing expenses; however, it may increase the incidence and amount of overpayments and debts.