of other lottery-funded education programs (Miller & Pierce, 1997; Eaton 2000,
Rubenstein & Scafidi, 2002; French & Stanley, 2003). While the regressive nature of
KEES is an issue, it is simplistic to critique broad-based merit aid solely on the
regressive distribution of benefits. From a policy analysis perspective it is more
important to determine to what extent KEES is able to meet short- and long-term
goals. To the extent that KEES has been successful in attaining its stated objectives,
the program’s ability to achieve its goals will decline over time. Since the passage of
the KEES legislation, the cost of tuition has more than doubled at Kentucky’s
public universities. Utilization rates have been declining since the beginning of the
program, providing evidence that the program is becoming less effective in serving
as an incentive for attending college in Kentucky.
In part due to revisions in qualification standards and stabilized funding,
Ackerman et al (2005) argue that Nevada provides a model of a merit aid program
that works reasonably well. KEES, however, is an example of a program that is not
structured to maximize effectiveness. Without changes, KEES will not fulfill its
goals of increased access, long-term commitment to postsecondary education, and
the retention of top students. In terms of access, KEES has provided funding for a
significant number of students in Kentucky since its inception. One major problem
is that with increasing numbers of eligible students and static lottery sales, KEES’
ability to offset the cost of college for students will diminish over time.
4
As
presently structured, KEES will continue to be and will become even more limited
in its ability to improve access to college for those who can’t afford it. Likewise, the
financial incentives for remaining in-state will decline relative to tuition rates. In the
end, perhaps the biggest obstacle facing KEES is trying to meet two divergent goals:
Creating an effective scholarship program to keep the best and brightest in state
should look very different from a program designed to increase access to higher
education. By trying to achieve both goals with the same program, KEES is
rendered ineffective at achieving either one.
From a more positive perspective, there are some steps that can be taken to
improve the effectiveness of KEES. The first step is to more clearly define the
primary goal for KEES. Is the primary goal to promote access to higher education
or is it to encourage the best and brightest students to attend college within
Kentucky? If the goal is to keep the best and brightest home for college, it is
necessary to increase the size of awards but significantly reduce the number of
students who are eligible for them. Restricting the number of students who receive
the awards is politically risky considering that broad-based merit aid programs have
emerged as state-level entitlements in many states. A more direct alternative is to
create incentives for residing in the state after college, rather college choice.
If the primary goal is to ensure access, the regressive nature of KEES is a likely
concern. An easy way to mitigate part of the regressiveness is to eliminate the
graduated award structure. Students at wealthier schools would still be more likely
to receive awards but the disparity between average award amounts would
disappear. A more innovative alternative would be to maintain a merit-based
component, but add a need-based multiplier. Theoretically this would address some
of the criticism that broad-based merit programs are not very efficient mechanisms
to increase access to college because large amounts of the aid go to students who
would be attending college anyway. Incorporating a need-based multiplier would
allow the program to target students more efficiently and should lead to a more
efficient use of resources. The students receiving the largest awards would be those
who have the greatest need and have achieved academic success during high school.
4. While utilization rates have dropped since the implementation of KEES, almost 3,000 more students earned awards in 2007 than in 2002. This led to an increase of
over 1,500 students that utilized their awards during the first year following graduation at the end of the 5-year period than at the beginning.
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators 39
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48