<p>Why is the protected asset limit on FAFSA so much lower for a single parent than for a 2-parent household?</p>
<p>For my age, a 2parent household can protect 45k, while a single parent can only protect 15K.
This makes no sense to me. Even if it was half, it would be too low, since as a single parent I need a larger contingency fund (as there's noone to contribute income etc. )</p>
<p>Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? Does CSS do the same thing?</p>
<p>Because you only have to feed, clothe, house, and afford medical care for one? It does seem unfair, yet you could always find someone to share housing with, etc, to help you out when you are older. Maybe it also figures you may not always be single?</p>
<p>It’s all so mysterious, but to make sense of it you probably need to step back and look at the overall situation. There are benefits and drawbacks for being married/divorced. One benefit you have as a single parent is that FAFSA only considers the income/assets for one parent, and not the other. That seems just as strange as the quirky asset protection that you describe. Maybe the benefits and drawbacks compensate in some weird statistical way.</p>
<p>I’m sure they’ve crunched the numbers every which way, and there’s some kind of rationale. Probably someone here knows the theory.</p>
<p>teachandmom, I’m a family of 3, and have to pay health insurance and maintain a home and support all 3 of us. If the asset protection was only for the parents, then it would at least be half what a 2-parent household gets, but it is only 1/3 of what a 2-parent household gets.</p>
<p>MisterK, to some extent that’s true, but they do consider all child support paid by the noncustodial parent as available, and in my D’s case, that’s all that her other parent is going to contribute anyway.
Also, for the schools that are not FAFSA only, (and most of the private schools that give actual grants are non-fafsa only) they do require information from the noncustodial parent and deem that parents’ income & assets as available.</p>
<p>I know that the rules can’t account for all situations, but this one in particular seems incredibly unfair and irrational.</p>
<p>I agree. I remember reading a post at some point (who knows where, sorry!) that explained this is as a result of an outdated formula that no longer makes sense. I am in the same position. I don’t see how my ability to get a roommate (?!) when I am elderly and my children are gone from my home has anything to do with this. I also feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for 3. I don’t mean to complain because so far things have worked out for my older son and I am crossing my fingers for my son who will start college this fall. But I do agree.</p>
<p>While a bit odd…it is what it is.</p>
<p>Lets say a two parent family making $70,000 combined with one college age child needs to dig into $50,000 in assets. The college age child can earn income and fend for themselves if need be. The two parents may use up their modest assets fairly quickly on two adults to pay insurance, housing, food, etc. A single parent with one college age child with the same income as the other family, same assets, will most likely spend down the assests more slowly fending for just themselves. Not saying this is true in every case, or fair, but maybe that is why a lesser amount is protected for the FA calculation. Just trying to picture what the people who came up with the formula were thinking! Anniezz, sure you are also trying to support 2 kids, but at least the one who is going to college could in fact work to help you out if need be, or at least contribute to their own living expenses by working, right? So they could build their own assets in the process. I know in reality kids work and make very little, but the potential is still there.</p>
<p>Honestly in my feeble little brain…it would seem that single parents should have MORE protected assets. Let’s take a family with two kiddos…the single family could be supporting THREE on one income…while a married couple might be supporting FOUR on two incomes…doesn’t sound right to me.</p>
<p>But it is what it is…</p>