Inside the Study: The Guinn Center’s Report on the Native American Fee Waiver

In 2021, the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) introduced the Native American Fee Waiver Program, offering financial support to eligible Native American students at NSHE institutions by waiving tuition and fees. As a relatively new program, the research around the impact of the Native American Fee Waiver is limited.

The Guinn Center conducted a study on the Native American Fee Waiver, slated for release on January 21, 2026, to address existing knowledge gaps regarding its implementation and effectiveness. The research draws on interviews with administrators and students who have interacted with the fee waiver, as well as data analysis, to gain a deeper understanding of how the program is working and inform policy recommendations that could improve outcomes.

Former Guinn Center Director of Education Dr. Anna Colquitt joined our Communications Intern Jianna von Savoye to discuss her team’s findings for this study. Their conversation highlights the positive impacts of the Native American Fee Waiver as well as institutional and cultural barriers that limit its effectiveness.  ‍

Interview

Savoye: Let’s talk about the report you completed on the Native American Fee Waiver. Can you tell me a little bit about why you decided to research this topic and about the cultural significance of the Native American fee waiver?

Colquitt: NSHE offers a Native American Fee Waiver, along with several other fee waivers, which allow Native American students to have their fees waived at NSHE institutions. This was expanded a few years ago to be offered to all federally recognized tribes, rather than just Nevada tribes, which was a significant expansion that increased access for students. This project arose because when something is new, we tend to examine its implementation. We did the same thing with school funding. When we make changes in education, we like to see how they play out. For this project, we also sought to identify the barriers that prevented students from utilizing the fee waiver and hindered administrators from implementing it. The goal of this research was to understand the experiences of students and administrators in processing fee waivers, identify any remaining barriers, and determine areas of improvement.  

Savoye: What aspects of Native American Fee Waiver implementation are successful so far? What positive effects have we seen?

Colquitt: We interviewed students across several NSHE institutions, and the student feedback on how it changed their lives, their family's trajectory, and truly gave them hope for a future they did not previously have is instrumental. That is the goal of the fee waiver, and it is being met. I think it's more than just student success and students having this experience; they are also giving hope to their community. That's something we heard over and over again, and we hope it shines through in our report.  

Savoye: It’s clear to see what an important program this is for these students and their communities, but being new, there’s bound to be room for improvement. According to your research, what institutional barriers have Native American students faced when applying for the fee waiver?

Colquitt: It varies by institution, but a common theme is that students often do not know who is responsible for helping them through the process. The University of Nevada, Reno is unique in having a designated office where students know where to go and who will provide support for them. Still, at many other institutions, numerous departments are involved in the actual processing of the fee waiver, creating barriers for students in identifying whom to ask questions to and who can provide assistance. Role confusion was a common issue that arose for both administrators and students.  

Another issue from the administrator’s perspective is that the institutions are not receiving the necessary funding to carry out this program, so it is largely self-funded, which is a barrier to implementation.

Students also expressed a lack of cultural understanding institution-wide. A significant theme that emerged repeatedly was the need for training, professional development, and skills to meet the unique needs of these students, as well as the cultural understanding that differs from that of some of the other students they serve at these institutions.  

Once a student receives the fee waiver, there is very little, if any, additional support provided to them throughout the duration of their higher education journey. That is a significant gap, and we have heard about it from both students and administrators.  

Savoye: How can universities build more cultural awareness and trust with Native American communities and tribes?

Colquitt: Ensuring that those responsible for processing the fee waiver are trained to be culturally responsive to the needs of the Native American community is a key theme that we frequently heard in our research. Additionally, the relationship aspect with the tribes themselves and their leadership is vital. It’s not just important for students to be aware of the Fee Waiver, it's important for the community to be aware, as a significant amount of information comes from tribal leadership. This responsiveness can also improve understanding of the needs of tribal communities. Over the course of this study, we learned that these relationships are crucial for students to develop trust in institutions and to feel confident about attending and receiving a fee waiver.  

Savoye: What sort of policy changes to the fee waiver do you think, based on your research, would have the most significant impact on the program's effectiveness and improve it overall?

Colquitt: Our research found that having a dedicated office or designated authority responsible for processing fee waivers would have a significant impact. Also, streamlining eligibility. We found that identifying eligible students can be quite complex. Figuring out a streamlined process for identification is more of an institutional policy than a legislative one, but it's an important one. Then, the last finding I'll mention is standardizing data collection. Data feeds into understanding and identifying eligibility, but it's a crucial aspect in all regards because institutions currently keep track of their data in separate systems. Some are using an Excel spreadsheet. Some have established sophisticated methods for tracking data, but streamlining these processes and having clear ways to track data is essential, not just for identifying eligible students, but also for understanding the success of students in the fee waiver program.  

Savoye: Are there any limitations to your research or areas that you'd like to explore more?

Colquitt: Yes. The limited availability of data was a significant barrier. There are massive gaps on a statewide level. The Native American population is largely missing from the data we collect, and there is no systemic solution to capture it. This limits our ability to see what the state landscape looks like. I would say that's our most significant limitation.  

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

‍