We held a one-day conference on The Lack of Access to Higher Education last year, October 4th, 2007, at Baruch College School of Public Affairs. It was an inspiring event to discuss not just the structural, racial and financial problems about access to college but also innovative solutions that some states and universities have implemented to help students get into college.

We began with Martha Lampkin from the Lumina Foundation that deserves so much credit for recognizing this problem and providing funding to colleges and universities that create programs to solve this issue. And then we heard from Kati Haycock from the Education Trust, a place that conducts research and analysis about the issues around access. They were both excellent speakers and we were encouraged that perhaps there is something to be done about the fact that millions of young people do not know who to apply, are discouraged from applying, and cannot afford to attend college.

We then had a panel of folks who ran college discovery programs. What a treat! Goundwork from Brooklyn and Grand Street Settlement House from Manhattan both told the story of neglected schol youth who entered college thanks to caring staff. Executive Director Margarita Rosa described the “silo” effect; that is, how elementary and secondary schools too often turn away help from community based organizations. Schools do not necessarily collaborate with community partners; rather, schools often exist in their own “silos.”

Then our luncheon had Chancellor Matthew Goldstein from the City University of New York and President Free Hrabowski from the University of Maryland, Baltimore Campus. Both talked about their efforts to increase young people’s chances to attend college. It was so inspiring; they brought down the house.

In the afternoon, we met in workshops that talked about finance, access, and transition to trade information and deepen our understanding of how we can solve these issues. Of course, we then had a reception and talked for hours. What a day!

What did we learn? We learned that there are serious efforts by many organizations to solve the issue of both access and retention. That many organizations are far ahead of government actions to solve these issues. And that we have a long way to go. We had a wonderful audience but too few elected officials who don’t give these issues much attention although they are capable of lipservice to issues of access and retention. Too few school people attended. And we need both to solve these problems.

Red Hook is a neighborhood in Brooklyn right on the water with an incredibly active port on the East River of New York City. Red Hook has a rich maritime tradition – the movie, “On the Waterfront,” was filmed there, and the docks still bustle with container cargo from dozens of large ships. One of the few industrial zones left in the City, many Brooklynites are fighting against high-end real estate developers who see luxury housing rather than shipping docks in Red Hook. Why waste their beautiful views with jobs?

The Red Hook port is owned by the Port Authority, not by the City of New York. The city has tried to acquire the waterfront in Red Hook. City officials would like to see high-end real estate developed on the waterfront in Red Hook; in their minds, container shipping simpy doesn’t provide enough jobs.

City officials may lose out to saner heads, particularly Congressman Jerry Nadler. Congressman Nadler would like to see the city’s economic base far more diversified than it is now. We are far too dependent upon Wall Street, and we are all too familiar with the fact that Wall Street is cyclical economy. Keeping the one remaining port in New York City has become a high priority to many in Brooklyn and to the Congressman. The Congressman has worked to change the view of local officials – “They are warming to maritime uses, I definitely feel that.” (1) Nadler sees the rapid growth in shipping industry throughout the world influencing city officials to recognize the need in the city to maintain and strengthen the city’s shipping industry. The Daily News issued a stinging editorial against the city’s handling of Red Hook’s docks: “If these geniuses had devoted as much energy to eliminating vermin as they have to getting rid of American Stevedoring Inc. (ASI), New York would be rat-free.” (2) A week earlier, 20 elected officals, including Reps. Jerry Nadler and Anthony Weiner, Senator Chuck Schumer, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and City Controller Bill Thompson, wrote to the Port Authority and Governor Spitzer who controls half of the votes on the Port Authority’s board urging that ASI get a 10 year lease.

Several of these politicians are planning on running for mayor. With the changing political landscape, Congressman Nadler may yet win a 10-year struggle to make the city understand the importance of diversification.

(1) Brown, Elliot. 11/1/07. In Shift, City is Promoting Expansion of Maritime Industry. New York Sun.

(2) New York Daily News editorial, 10/7/07. A Waterfront that Works, page 40.

The U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRW) and the accompanying block grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which became the most dramatic restructuring of federal aid to mothers and children since its beginnings in the Great Depression of 1929 (Personal Responsibility Law 1996). These laws limited welfare to a total of five years over an individual’s lifetime. TANF effectively allowed only one year of post secondary education, and only vocational education was accepted under the statute. Although TANF did not specifically prohibit welfare recipients from attending any other type of higher education program, the statute put states under such enormous pressure to fulfill work requirement quotas so that it became a practical impossibility for states to offer four years of higher education to their welfare recipients. The states were mandated to have 50% of welfare recipients working by FY2002. Consequently, states had a strong disincentive to help welfare recipients attain higher education. The Catch 22 was recognized: “If you’re on welfare, you probably need more education in order to get a good job – a productive job that will move you out of poverty and dependence and off welfare. But if you stay in classes to get the training you need for the good job, you will lose the welfare benefits that support you while you go to school” (Buffalo News 1997, 2B). Fundamentally, the work-first ideology “emphasized rapid entry into the labor force and penalized states for allowing long term access to education and training (Adair 2003, 248).

Indeed, a wealth of evidence demonstrates that higher education improves the financial opportunities and enhances the quality of life for those who are able to attend college. Ann Reynolds, former Chancellor of the City University of New York, reported: “Our research shows that people with bachelor’s degrees from CUNY earn $690,000 more over their lifetimes than high-school graduates — and, obviously, pay much more in taxes” (Reynolds 1997). A 1995 study by the U.S. Department of Labor concluded that for every year of postsecondary education, earnings increased by 6 to 12% (Boggs 2001). Research demonstrates that welfare recipients benefit significantly from higher education. In 1990, a New York City study found that of 158 former welfare recipients who were college graduates, 83% were working and 87% were off welfare (Gittell 1990). The study was replicated in Illinois, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming with similar results (Dann-Messier 2001). A 1990 Ford Foundation study showed that welfare recipients who completed a two or four-year degree earned significantly more than other former welfare recipients (Boggs 2001). Another study of 253 welfare recipients who graduated from college in 1995 and 1996 found that seventeen months after graduation, 88 per cent of the students were off welfare, and their median wage was $11 an hour. “It appears that the benefits of a four-year college degree … lead to a rapid reduction in welfare dependency” (Editorial, Knight Ridder Newspapers 1998, K8).

In response to the passage of TANF, broad-based advocacy coalitions formed in many states to lobby for meaningful college programs for welfare recipients. These advocacy coalitions, including Democratic and Republican legislators, advocates for the poor, college officials, state and local officials and foundation leaders, rose above partisan politics and became active and far-reaching lobbyists. State by state, these advocacy coalitions wrestled with the problem of creating mechanisms that would allow welfare recipients to pursue four-year college degrees.

However, only a handful of states managed to develop programs that allowed welfare recipients to pursue four-year colleges after the passage of TANF (See Appendix A). What alignment of power, perseverance and good fortune was required to cause these states to implement a progressive educational agenda for their welfare recipients? This paper compares the successes and failures of advocacy coalitions in two states, Maine and New York, where welfare advocates struggled to achieve progressive state welfare higher educational policies, and, in some instances, succeeded in keeping welfare recipients in four-year colleges. Studies of the successes of the advocacy in Maine reveal circumstances that fairly quickly resulted in the development and implementation of a successful program, which was then replicated in other states. The successes in Maine are in stark contrast to those in New York, a state in which advocacy coalitions fought hard, over many years, to eliminate, reduce and contain draconian state and local welfare policies, and managed to win limited opportunities for welfare recipients who wished to pursue higher education. An implementation study of two states’ approach to welfare restructuring can lead to a better understanding of how advocacy coalitions can succeed in getting welfare recipients in college, and what strategies can be used to fight more conservative forces in focus upon work first rather than education.

It is in the strength of the organizations with like values operating as a coalition that can make great strides helping welfare recipients to enter and successfully complete college. Such a framework means that coalitions can reach out to a broad array of organizations in different levels of government and throughout other sectors such as universities, churches, and foundations. Narrow alliances will not be as successful in the state legislatures as organizations broadly based. In order to build a wide-based coalition, members must be willing to reach out and talk to others outside of their traditional circles. Maine demonstrates that wide-based coalition building works. Although New York is much larger, more complex and ethnically diverse, the coalition building was similar. New York demonstrates that, even on very barren soil, successes can be celebrated if members broaden their membership. The mistake coalition building often makes is that there must be complete agreement on every value. Not all members will have the exact same belief systems but their primary belief systems are similar. Organizations may choose to disagree on other subjects but on the subject of the coalition there are shared beliefs.

Higher Education and Minority Men

The American Council on Education has issued its annual report on minorities in higher education. In their latest report (2007), ACE announced that although more black students enrolled in college than previously, blacks continued to “trail whites in the % of 18- to 24-year-old high school graduates enrolled in college. 42.8% of all white 18 to 24 year olds enrolled in higher education while only 32.7% of blacks and 24.8% of Hispanics enrolled.

In addition, there is a dramatic difference between black men and women. Only 28% of black men 18 to 24 were enrolled in college while 37.1% of black women were enrolled. A similar trend exists for Hispanics – 20.7% of men and 29.5% of women.

The report concluded that there are contributing factors that lead to young black and Hispanic men failing to enroll in college. These factors include poverty conditions within which young black and Hispanic men live, preference for immigrants over black males in considering hiring, lack of jobs where most young black and Hispanic men live, poor quality of schools in black and Hispanic neighborhoods, high rate of imprisonment for young black men Hispanics, and welfare reforms that do not help black and Hispanic men get into the workforce.

Yet, there are solutions to these issues if this country’s educational and political leaders are willing to invest in those solutions. President Hrabowski from the University of Maryland, Baltimore Campus, has demonstrated that black and Hispanic men can be attracted to and be successful in college. Hrabowski’s success is dependent upon high school support for minorities including presenting students with college options in the 9th grade through 12th grade. Nicole Hurd at the University of North Carolina directs the National College Advisory Corps that recruits young people to help high school students plan their college searches in 18 high schools across the state. Her work is supported by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. There are other programs across the nation that have also been successful in helping minorities to attend college. But in order for these kinds of programs to be replicated across the nation, our educational and political leadership has to care; they have to make college access a priority.