HB 1143
In CommitteeHouse
College grant award amounts
Concerning Washington college grant award amounts.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill changes how much students can receive through the Washington College Grant by tying award amounts to whether colleges sign a nondiscrimination affidavit and adjusting maximum grant levels annually based on wage growth. It also restricts increased grants for institutions with unresolved discrimination findings.
- Updates the definition of 'Maximum Washington College Grant' to set fixed baseline amounts for different types of institutions (e.g., $9,739 for private four-year nonprofits, $2,823 for two-year for-profits) and requires annual increases up to the 'tuition growth factor' starting in the 2025–26 academic year.
- Introduces a new requirement that institutions sign an affidavit confirming they meet specific nondiscrimination standards in student access, program operations, and employment; institutions that sign receive higher grant caps than those that do not.
- Exempts theology programs and campus ministry departments from the nondiscrimination requirements in the affidavit.
- Bars institutions subject to certain discrimination settlements or court orders from receiving increased grant caps unless they have fulfilled settlement terms or taken significant corrective steps, as verified by the Washington State Human Rights Commission.
- Allows institutions still in active litigation with the Attorney General to continue receiving annual increases while the case is pending.
- Sets the grant cap for apprenticeship program participants equal to the cap for two-year institutions, covering tuition, fees, supplies, and equipment.
Who is affected
- Students seeking financial aid through the Washington College Grant program — Students at public and private colleges and universities in Washington who receive or may receive Washington College Grant aid; those at institutions that sign the nondiscrimination affidavit receive higher grant awards than those at institutions that do not.
- Institutions of higher education in Washington — Colleges and universities in Washington must decide whether to sign a nondiscrimination affidavit to qualify for higher maximum grant awards for their students; those that do not sign—or are under certain legal settlements—receive lower grant caps.
- Office of Student Financial Assistance — The office must adopt rules, collect affidavits, and verify compliance with nondiscrimination policies to determine grant award amounts for each institution.
- Apprentices in state-approved programs — Apprentices in state-approved programs may receive aid tied to the maximum grant for two-year institutions, covering tuition, fees, supplies, and equipment.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
Requiring institutions to sign a nondiscrimination affidavit covering student access, program operations, and employment strengthens equity and inclusion by ensuring state-funded aid flows to institutions that comply with broad civil rights standards—protecting students from discrimination on protected bases.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)-(c)Bars institutions with unresolved discrimination findings from receiving increased grant awards unless they have fulfilled settlement terms or taken significant corrective steps—creating a financial incentive for institutions to resolve discrimination complaints and comply with state human rights law.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)By tying grant caps to institutional compliance with nondiscrimination standards, the bill encourages equitable access to state financial aid and may improve transparency and accountability across institutions—potentially increasing trust in the fairness of the aid system for students.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a)-(m)
Potential Concerns (5)
Exempting theology programs and campus ministry departments from nondiscrimination requirements creates a carve-out that may permit discrimination in those programs on protected bases (e.g., religion, sexual orientation, gender identity), potentially undermining equal access for students and employees in those departments.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(2)The bill allows institutions under active litigation with the Attorney General to continue receiving annual grant increases while cases are pending, which may delay accountability and allow ongoing discriminatory practices to persist without immediate consequences for state funding.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(1)The bill establishes fixed baseline grant caps for institutions that do *not* sign the affidavit, effectively locking in lower award levels for students at non-signing institutions—many of which serve low-income, first-generation, and minority students—potentially reducing access and affordability for those most in need of aid.
FinancialLean industryRef: Sec. 1(5)(a)-(m)The annual increase tied to the 'tuition growth factor' (median hourly wage growth) benefits institutions that sign the affidavit by allowing their grant caps to rise over time, but institutions that do not sign remain at 2024–25 levels—creating a growing funding gap that disproportionately harms students at non-signing institutions over time.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 1(5)(a)-(m)While apprenticeship grants are tied to two-year institution caps, the bill does not adjust those caps upward for inflation or wage growth unless the apprenticeship program is operated by an institution that signs the affidavit—potentially limiting support for apprentices at standalone or for-profit training providers that may not meet the affidavit criteria.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(5)(m)
Who Is Most Affected
Students at institutions that sign the affidavit may receive higher grant awards, especially as awards increase annually with wage growth; students at non-signing institutions may see stagnant aid levels, widening affordability gaps over time.
Private nonprofit and for-profit institutions must decide whether to sign the affidavit—non-signing institutions risk lower grant caps for their students, which may reduce enrollment and revenue, especially for institutions serving vulnerable populations.
The Office of Student Financial Assistance gains new administrative duties (collecting affidavits, verifying compliance), increasing operational burden but also enhancing its role in enforcing civil rights standards in higher education.
Apprentices in state-approved programs may benefit from increased aid tied to two-year caps, but those at standalone or for-profit providers that cannot or choose not to sign the affidavit may not receive annual increases.
Institutions with unresolved discrimination findings face financial disincentives unless they resolve cases or demonstrate corrective action—potentially encouraging compliance but also creating pressure to settle cases quickly.