How Financial Support From Parents Relates to Students’ Basic Needs – Inside Higher Ed

Report on the Intersection of Generational Wealth, Basic Needs Insecurity, and Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education

Introduction: A Challenge to Sustainable Development

A recent study by the Institute on Higher Education Policy (IHEP) reveals a critical link between intergenerational wealth, parental financial support, and the basic needs security of college students. The findings indicate that a majority of students experience food or housing insecurity, conditions that directly undermine several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This report analyzes these findings and their implications for achieving sustainable and equitable educational outcomes.

Disparities in Financial Support: An Obstacle to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The IHEP analysis, using data from the 2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, highlights significant racial and ethnic disparities in the financial support students receive from their families. This gap in familial contributions perpetuates systemic inequalities, creating barriers to educational attainment for marginalized groups.

Key Findings on Financial Support by Demographic

• Over 50% of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), Black, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI) students reported receiving no financial support from their families for college expenses.
• Asian American students were the most likely to receive parental contributions, with one-third receiving over $10,000.
• Nearly one-quarter of white students received over $10,000 from their parents.
• These patterns underscore how intergenerational wealth, which varies significantly across racial lines, directly impacts a student’s financial stability and, consequently, their ability to succeed in higher education, challenging the core principles of SDG 10.

Basic Needs Insecurity: A Direct Threat to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The lack of financial support translates directly into high rates of food and housing insecurity, which are significant impediments to student retention and academic success. This situation demonstrates a failure to meet fundamental human needs, which are prerequisites for achieving quality education.

Analysis of Food Insecurity (SDG 2)

• Food insecurity was most prevalent among AI/AN, Black, and NH/PI students, regardless of the level of parental support they received.
• Even among students who received some financial aid from family, over 40% still reported experiencing some level of food insecurity.
• Notably, over one-third of Black students who received substantial parental support (over $25,000) still faced moderate food insecurity, indicating that familial support alone cannot overcome systemic barriers to achieving Zero Hunger.

Analysis of Housing Insecurity and Homelessness (SDG 11)

• Across all racial and ethnic groups, one in ten students with no parental financial support experienced homelessness within a 30-day period.
• While increased parental support correlated with lower rates of homelessness for white and Asian American students, the impact was less significant for other groups.
• This gap highlights that housing security is not solely dependent on family contributions, pointing to broader systemic issues that conflict with the aims of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), particularly target 11.1 regarding access to adequate and affordable housing.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations for Advancing the SDGs

The evidence demonstrates that reliance on intergenerational wealth to fund higher education is an unsustainable model that exacerbates inequality and prevents progress toward key SDGs. Students should not have to depend on family wealth to avoid hunger and homelessness while pursuing an education. To create a more equitable system aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, the following actions are necessary:

1. Strengthen Financial Aid Systems: Bolster programs like the federal Pell Grant to ensure they provide adequate support that covers the full cost of attendance, including non-tuition expenses like food and housing. This directly supports SDG 1 and SDG 4.
2. Disrupt Wealth Inequality: Implement policies that address the root causes of wealth disparity, ensuring that a student’s opportunity for quality education is not predetermined by their family’s economic status, in line with SDG 10.
3. Institutional Support for Basic Needs: Universities must develop and scale robust support systems to ensure all students have secure access to food and housing, creating an environment where they can thrive academically and contribute to a sustainable future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article discusses financial insecurity, lack of stable housing, and homelessness among college students, which are all dimensions of poverty.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The article explicitly addresses the issue of students “lacking sufficient food” and reports on the prevalence of “food insecurity” among different student populations.
• SDG 4: Quality Education – The core topic is higher education, focusing on issues of affordability, access, retention, and completion, which are central to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – A primary theme of the article is the disparity in educational opportunities and outcomes based on race, ethnicity, and intergenerational wealth, directly linking to the goal of reducing inequality.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – The article highlights the lack of “access to stable housing” and the experience of “homelessness” among students, which relates to the goal of ensuring access to adequate and affordable housing for all.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article identifies college students as a group experiencing poverty dimensions like food and housing insecurity.
  • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable. The article mentions the federal Pell Grant program as a form of financial support that needs protection, which functions as a social protection system for students from low-income backgrounds.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The article directly addresses this by stating a “majority of college students report lacking sufficient food” and that “more than 40 percent still report some level of food insecurity” even with financial support, identifying students as a vulnerable population.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article’s focus on the need for “increased affordability in college,” particularly for low-income students, and the analysis of how financial barriers impact retention directly relates to this target.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity… or economic or other status. The article’s central finding is that “the likelihood that students receive support from their families varies significantly by race and ethnicity,” leading to unequal opportunities for success in higher education.
  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome… The article highlights how “intergenerational wealth transfer can result in inequities in student success” and calls for “efforts to disrupt wealth inequality and how it impacts student retention and completion.”

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services… The article points out that students lack “access to stable housing” and that “one in 10 students with no parental support experienced homelessness in the past 30 days,” directly addressing the issue of inadequate and unaffordable housing for this population.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Indicator: Prevalence of homelessness. The article states, “one in 10 students with no parental support experienced homelessness in the past 30 days.” This can be used to measure progress on housing security.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  • Indicator: Prevalence of food insecurity. The article provides specific data, such as “more than 40 percent [of students who receive some financial support] still report some level of food insecurity” and “Over one-third of Black students with parental support of $25,000 or more said they were at least moderately food insecure.” These percentages serve as direct indicators.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  • Indicator: Student retention and completion rates. The article implies this indicator by stating that basic needs insecurity “can threaten student retention” and that wealth inequality “impacts student retention and completion.”
  • Indicator: Affordability of non-tuition expenses. This is implied by the recommendation that “financial aid covers nontuition expenses.” Measuring the gap between aid and total cost of attendance (including housing and food) would be the indicator.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Indicator: Amount of financial support received from family, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The article provides data points for this, such as “one-third of [Asian American] respondents indicating they received over $10,000” versus other groups.
  • Indicator: Prevalence of basic needs insecurity, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The article notes, “food insecurity was most common among AI/AN, Black and NH/PI students,” providing a clear way to measure inequality of outcome.
  • Indicator: Family income levels, disaggregated by race. The article compares family incomes for students receiving high support, noting “White students… reported family incomes of $218,000, but American Indian and Alaska Native students… came from families earning approximately $125,000.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insidehighered.com