This report, "State Tuition, Fees, and Financial Assistance Policies for Public Colleges and Universities: 2010-11", examines the philosophies, policies, and procedures that influence decision-making regarding public college and university tuition, student fees, and student financial aid programs. This report also provides information related to general higher education affordability issues. The intent of this report is not to provide actual tuition costs, but to focus on the policies that establish those tuition, fees, and aid amounts. Other sources, including the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, the College Board, and the National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS data, make tuition rates and revenue publicly available. This report is the seventh in a series of updates by State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) on this topic. The "2010-11 State Tuition, Fees, and Financial Assistance Policies" survey was administered in late summer 2010 by the national association of SHEEO. State fiscal officers from each state were invited to respond to the survey. Forty-six responses from 45 states were received. This report provides a summary of the survey responses. Michigan and New Jersey both responded that they would not be participating in this round of the survey due to ongoing policy conversations in their state. Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington did not respond. While reviewing the report, it is important to be mindful that there are nuances of the policy process that are impossible to capture in any single survey or report. The survey responses do not fully reflect the development of the policy process over time, the intensive behind the scenes work of institutional, state agency, and legislative staff, or the hours of public discourse that go hand in hand in setting tuition, student fees, and financial assistance levels in each state. The responses broadly highlight state policies (both formal and informal), similarities and differences across the states, and how environmental factors might influence changes in these policies. The survey responses also delineate the entities that have a formal role in tuition, student fees, and financial aid policies. Appended are: (1) List of Data Providers; and (2) State Tuition, Fees, and Financial Assistance Policies 2010-2011 Survey Instrument. (Contains 13 tables and 3 footnotes.).

The United States is rapidly transforming into one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Groups commonly referred to as minorities-including Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, and Alaska Natives-are the fastest growing segments of the population and emerging as the nation's majority. Despite the rapid growth of racial and ethnic minority groups, their representation among the nation's health professionals has grown only modestly in the past 25 years. This alarming disparity has prompted the recent creation of initiatives to increase diversity in health professions. In the Nation's Compelling Interest considers the benefits of greater racial and ethnic diversity, and identifies institutional and policy-level mechanisms to garner broad support among health professions leaders, community members, and other key stakeholders to implement these strategies. Assessing the potential benefits of greater racial and ethnic diversity among health professionals will improve the access to and quality of healthcare for all Americans.

In the United States, postsecondary educational attainment positively correlates to the probability of a person being employed and the amount of money they earn (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). Financial aid programs attempt to help students afford, remain in, and finish their postsecondary pursuits, but Levin (1989) asserted some forms of assistance produce more significant results than others. On one hand, researchers have found the more financial aid a student receives, the higher their chances are of being retained year over year or completing their studies (Bettinger, 2015; Castleman and Long, 2016; Millea and others, 2018; Upton, 2016). On the other hand, researchers have found financial aid to have little to no impact on retention or completion (Carruthers and Özek, 2016; Hawley and Rork, 2013; Welch, 2014). Further investigation was necessary to find and promote financial aid programs that can unequivocally improve postsecondary educational attainment. Although researchers have studied various financial aid programs, the financial aid fee at Florida's public postsecondary 2-year institutions stands out for its uniqueness and vagueness. This exceptional program is a mandatory charge students pay, but it is also financial assistance awarded to students. Florida's state colleges have considerable discretion to choose how much financial aid fees they charge and how to use the resulting revenue to award financial assistance (Florida K-20 Education Code Act, 2002a; Florida K-20 Education Code Act, 2002b). This dissertation was significant because it sought to fill an apparent gap in the literature by questioning how Florida's state colleges implement the financial aid fee-from both the fee and financial assistance perspectives-to address affordability, retention, and graduation problems. A mixed-method design was used to answer the central research question of how Florida's public state colleges implement the financial aid fee. Research was divided into three stages to triangulate findings. In Stage 1, public financial aid fee information available on the internet was collected from all 28 of Florida state colleges. Stage 2 involved surveying financial aid and business office staff from 25 of Florida's state colleges. Finally, a purposefully selected sample of 12 respondents from the second phase whose colleges met predetermined peer analysis criteria was interviewed in a semistructured format during Stage 3. Results suggested many college officials have not assessed, adjusted, or thought about their financial aid fee implementation for years. Those who have are sometimes suppressed by unwritten rules imposed by legislators. Accordingly, Florida's public state colleges seem to be implementing the financial aid fee in an uncomplicated and unconscious manner. Top-level executives appear practically responsible for financial aid fee decision making, despite stakeholders with different titles located within various departments being involved with implementation. Indicators insinuate athletics plays a pivotal role at numerous colleges, but politics, mission and vision, return on investment, "large rocks," "doughnut holes," and logistics are salient financial aid fee considerations. State politicians are advised to rescind unwritten tuition and fee rules, amend existing financial aid fee statutes, and create authority for colleges to charge a distinct athletic fee. Institutional administrators should improve financial aid fee communication and branding, evaluate program efficacy, and include a wider array of stakeholders in implementation processes. Researchers are asked to expand upon this study's foundational implementation knowledge by causally investigating financial aid fee outcomes.