Job satisfaction among financial aid professionals has been stagnating since the Great Recession. The latest SSS by NAIS State of Financial Aid Survey suggests this may be a result of a persistent gap between practitioners’ priorities and their ability to deliver on these priorities.
This survey was conducted among financial aid practitioners at schools that subscribe to the SSS by NAIS service. In spring 2016, the survey had 372 respondents. In fall 2010, 292 people responded to the survey.
Priorities
In both the 2010 and 2016 surveys, 88 percent of respondents said the most important financial aid objective was “access — providing the opportunity for lower income students who show promise.” The second most important objective cited was “diversity — to ensure the mix of students at your school achieves a specific socioeconomic balance.” In 2016, 77 percent of respondents viewed diversity as extremely or very important; in 2010, 74 percent did.
In 2010, on the heels of the Great Recession, respondents said affordability and enrollment were important objectives of a school’s financial aid program. In fact, 65 percent of respondents reported affordability as extremely or very important, while 54 percent cited enrollment as important or extremely important. The definition of enrollment was “to fill seats that would otherwise be empty.” The definition of affordability was “enticing families who might decide to go elsewhere.” By 2016, the two objectives became less important, with 50 percent citing enrollment and 63 percent citing affordability as extremely or very important.
In the same time frame, the objective of merit and recognition dropped in importance. In 2016, 18 percent said “merit and recognition — providing awards to students who have demonstrated extraordinary achievement or promise” was extremely or very important, down from 23 percent in 2010.
With widespread agreement that noble goals are the key drivers in financial aid work, one might expect to see high levels of satisfaction and positive emotions in accomplishing this work. In 2010, the stress and pressure of managing financial aid in the wake of the recession understandably led to job satisfaction levels that were below par. (For educational institutions, the par is 65 percent, according to research firm InsightLink.) At that time, only 62 percent of survey respondents indicated that they find their work very or extremely satisfying.
Six years later, research on the state of the financial aid professional shows that the needle on satisfaction remains exactly the same. By comparison, the benchmark norm for job satisfaction in elementary/secondary school education is currently 64 percent, while the Society for Human Resource Management reported this spring that “88 percent of U.S. employees reported overall satisfaction with their current job.”
So why hasn’t job satisfaction improved among financial aid professionals since 2010? One possible culprit: Schools are unable to deliver on the preferred objectives of access and diversity as much as they would hope.
Performance
The 2016 survey shows a continuing disconnect between an objective’s importance and a school’s ability to meet the given objective. A case in point, while 88 percent of respondents cite “access” as the most important objective, only 65 percent say their school is doing extremely or very well at meeting it. (In 2010, 66 percent said this was the case.)
Attaining diversity seems to be slipping away to a greater degree. In 2010, 60 percent reported that their school’s financial aid program was achieving the diversity objective extremely or very well. Six years later, just 56 percent believe their schools are able to achieve diversity to this high degree.
For the merit objective, the reverse is true. While only 18 percent of respondents said merit was very important, 24 percent reported that their aid program is meeting this purpose extremely or very well. In these circumstances, it’s not surprising that job satisfaction levels have not improved, as it’s frustrating not to be able to deliver on what you most value.
Job Satisfaction
Much of the frustration stems from having insufficient aid dollars available to meet demand. On the bright side, the 2016 survey shows increased satisfaction with the level of funding available for financial aid. About a third of respondents, 32 percent, said the budget they have is sufficient or more than sufficient to meet demand. Now, one might aspire for 100 percent of respondents to express satisfaction with their budget, but it is encouraging that this result has risen from the 26 percent of practitioners who felt this way in 2010.
Respondents in 2016 also reported that, on average, they are meeting a higher percentage of demonstrated financial need for families (77 percent) than in 2010. Six years ago, respondents said they met 69 percent of need, on average.
Notwithstanding these positive trends, the fact remains that for a majority of schools (68 percent in 2016), the aid budget is insufficient to meet both the overall demand and the full demonstrated need for a typical student. In the 2016 survey, 70 percent of respondents said that the top challenge they face is “difficulty balancing limited dollars with the expanding demand.” Financial aid administrators do not like the aspect of their job that entails telling families “no.” This is especially true when it’s the families they have actively recruited and those who most need the support.
Being hamstrung in achieving cherished objectives creates more consternation for those working in the financial aid field. Over the six-year period, a smaller percentage of financial aid administrators have associated positive emotions with their work. Of the 27 emotions the survey asked about in both 2010 and 2016, optimism was the one that dropped the most. In 2010, 40 percent of people said they felt optimistic, while 26 percent said so in 2016.
Conversely, the negative emotion that respondents expressed the most was irritation. In 2016, 25 percent of people used this term compared with just 18 percent in 2010. Compassion was the No. 1 emotion associated with financial aid work in both 2010 and 2016, topping out at more than 80 percent in both surveys.
School leaders ought to acknowledge and address these shifts in the emotions of their financial aid staff to ensure that they feel valued, supported, and impactful.
Next Steps for School Leaders
To bridge the gap between financial aid objectives and performance, school leaders should:
- Engage in meaningful conversations with the director of financial aid about the desired outcomes for the financial aid season, before the first application is submitted or the first award decision is made.
- Open up frank conversations about how practitioners can replace guilt, irritation, and nervousness with compassion, optimism, and enthusiasm, the hallmark qualities of the work.
- Give financial aid staff clear strategic guidance and priorities on the school’s financial aid investment goals.
- Give staff the time, tools, and training to build confidence in their decision-making.
- Provide staff with the necessary funding to eliminate the frustration of saying “no” too often to the families that meet the access and diversity objectives they most value.