Redesigning Postsecondary Finance: The Humanization Model for Results-Oriented Education Subsidies – Research & Podcast Series 2026

Research & Policy Disclaimer
This report is published by Di Tran University – The College of Humanization for research, policy analysis, and public education purposes only. It is intended to contribute to informed discussion on postsecondary finance, workforce development, and accountability-driven public investment.

This document does not constitute legal advice, regulatory guidance, or a solicitation for participation in any public or private funding program. All legislative language and policy frameworks presented herein are conceptual and illustrative, designed to inform policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders.

Di Tran University does not seek to receive, administer, or disburse public subsidies under the models described. DTU’s role is limited to independent research, policy design, and outcome evaluation in service of transparency, human dignity, and proof-of-work education systems.

Executive Summary

The current architecture of postsecondary education and workforce development in the United States is primarily predicated on an enrollment-based funding mechanism that prioritizes institutional throughput over individual mastery and labor market success. Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), public funds are largely disbursed at the point of entry, creating a system where institutional revenue is decoupled from student success. This structural misalignment has contributed to the accrual of over $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt, stagnant completion rates, and a widening skills gap that threatens national productivity.¹

This report, authored by the research consortium at Di Tran University – The College of Humanization, proposes a fundamental paradigm shift: the Humanization Model. This model advocates for a results-oriented, graduate-based reimbursement system where public subsidies are contingent upon verified outcomes. By transitioning from a “payment for intent” system to a “reimbursement for results” framework, the Humanization Model treats the graduate as the primary economic actor—the owner of their loan, effort, and eventual reward.

The core contribution of this report is the design of a Graduate-First Reimbursement System characterized by the following mandates:

• No public funds are disbursed at enrollment.
• No institution receives subsidies directly from the government.
• All subsidies are reimbursed directly to the graduate or applied to debt after verification of completion, licensure, and employment.
• Verification utilizes real-time state unemployment insurance (UI) wage records, IRS documentation, and state licensing board databases.

This transition is framed not as an austerity measure, but as an accountability-driven investment in human dignity. It asserts that adult learners possess the agency to manage their educational journeys and that public tax dollars should reward proven contribution rather than mere attendance. The report includes legislation-ready proposals for the Kentucky General Assembly and the United States Congress, designed to integrate seamlessly into existing statutory frameworks while radically realigning the incentives of the American education-to-workforce pipeline.

Policy Talking Points for Legislators

• Payment for Success, Not Attendance: Current policy pays schools for “butts in seats.” The Humanization Model pays for “graduates in jobs.” It ensures that taxpayer dollars are only spent on education that works.
• Restoring Human Dignity: By treating adult learners as responsible agents who earn their subsidies through effort and completion, we move away from a culture of dependency toward a culture of achievement and proof of work.
• Protecting the Taxpayer: With over $120 billion in annual federal student aid at risk, the government must stop subsidizing programs with high dropout rates and low-wage outcomes.¹ This model eliminates the public cost of failure.
• Empowering the Entrepreneur: Traditional models focus on W-2 employment. The Humanization Model explicitly recognizes self-employment, LLC registration, and 1099 income as equal outcomes, rewarding the American spirit of innovation.²
• Modernizing Data Infrastructure: By leveraging existing systems like KEWES and KUIP in Kentucky, we can automate the verification of outcomes, reducing administrative burden while increasing program integrity.⁴
• A National Competitive Advantage: A workforce funded by results is a more skilled, motivated, and productive workforce. This model is a blueprint for maintaining the United States’ position as the world’s leading economic power.⁶

I. Problem Analysis: The Systematic Failure of Enrollment-Based Subsidies

The existing postsecondary finance system in the United States is built upon a foundation of enrollment-triggered disbursements. This mechanism, primarily governed by Title IV of the Higher Education Act and various state-level appropriations, creates a fundamental disconnect between the financial health of educational institutions and the actual success of their students.

The Title IV Entitlement and Institutional Insulation

The Federal Student Aid (FSA) office functions as a performance-based organization (PBO) responsible for managing approximately $120.8 billion in annual aid.¹ However, its status as a PBO is primarily focused on administrative efficiency and loan servicing rather than the educational outcomes of the 9.9 million students it serves.¹ Because Title IV funds are disbursed based on enrollment status, institutions are incentivized to maximize recruitment and retention of “eligible” students regardless of their likelihood of completion or the labor market value of the chosen program.

This enrollment-based trigger has several deleterious effects. First, it insulates institutions from the risk of student failure. When a student drops out or fails to find employment, the institution retains the tuition paid via federal grants and loans, while the student remains burdened with debt and the taxpayer loses the investment. Second, it encourages “churn”—a cycle of enrolling high-risk populations without providing the intensive support necessary for completion, as the primary financial objective is met at the moment of disbursement.

The Carnegie Unit and the Myth of Seat-Time

At the heart of the enrollment-based model is the Carnegie Unit, a time-based measurement that equates learning with hours spent in a classroom.⁷ Originally designed to standardize faculty pensions in the early 1900s, the Carnegie Unit has become the dominant proxy for academic progress and the primary basis for accreditation and funding.⁹

The reliance on seat-time creates a rigid, industrial-era delivery system that is increasingly incompatible with the needs of adult learners and the modern economy. It masks the quality of learning, as passing grades can often be achieved through attendance and minimal effort rather than demonstrated mastery of skills.⁹ Furthermore, time-based systems act as a barrier to innovative, flexible models such as competency-based education (CBE) and short-term certificates, which may allow a student to demonstrate proficiency much faster than a traditional semester schedule allows.⁷

Risk Displacement and the Failure of SAP

The current regulatory safeguard intended to ensure student success is Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP). However, SAP is often a “lagging indicator.” Research indicates that 25% to 40% of first-year Pell recipients have performance low enough to risk losing aid, but the consequences of SAP failure often do not manifest until the student has already incurred significant debt or is nearing the end of their eligibility.¹¹

While SAP serves as a warning, it does not solve the fundamental issue of risk displacement. Institutions are not held financially accountable for the high attrition rates of their students. Instead, the “college experiment” is subsidized by the public until the student fails, at which point the student is often left worse off than if they had never enrolled. This system effectively subsidizes attrition and inefficiency rather than success.¹²

WIOA and the Limitations of the ETPL

Even in the workforce development sector, which is ostensibly more focused on outcomes, enrollment-based thinking persists. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) utilizes the Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL) to manage federal training funds.¹³ While WIOA tracks performance metrics like median earnings and credential attainment, training providers on the ETPL often receive funding only if and when participants enroll.¹³

The market-based voucher system of WIOA is intended to foster consumer choice, but choice is often hampered by imperfect information on program quality. While sites like TrainingProviderResults.gov aim to provide transparency, the underlying funding mechanics still reward the act of training rather than the result of placement.¹⁴ This leads to a proliferation of short-term programs with varying degrees of labor market relevance, often funded by tax dollars without a guaranteed return on investment.

Evidence of Misaligned Incentives

The cumulative evidence from decades of enrollment-based funding shows that:

• Outcomes are secondary to recruitment in institutional business models.
• Risk is unfairly shifted to the most vulnerable actors: the students and the taxpayers.
• The “dosage” of current performance-based funding (PBF) models—typically less than 10% of state appropriations—is insufficient to drive systemic change.¹⁶
• High attrition rates, particularly in community colleges and vocational programs, represent a massive waste of public capital.¹²

System Component	Current Enrollment Model	Humanization (Results) Model
Funding Trigger	Enrollment / Seat-Time	Completion / Licensure / Placement
Institutional Accountability	Low (funds kept regardless of outcome)	High (revenue depends on graduate success)
Primary Financial Actor	Institution (receives check from gov)	Graduate (receives reimbursement/debt relief)
Data Verification	Self-reported attendance	UI wage records, IRS transcripts, Licensing boards
Risk Bearer	Taxpayer and Student	Institution and Private Capital Markets

¹

II. Comparative Models and Best Practices

To design a superior alternative, the research consortium at Di Tran University has analyzed several successful pilots and alternative funding structures that prioritize verified outcomes over attendance.

The Texas State Technical College (TSTC) Returned-Value Formula

The TSTC Returned-Value Funding Formula is perhaps the most robust example of outcomes-based funding in the United States. Established in 2011, this model dictates that TSTC’s state appropriation is determined entirely by the wages of its former students.¹⁸

The mechanics of the TSTC model involve a sophisticated “Value Add” calculation:

1. Cohort Definition: The system tracks students who completed at least nine credit hours.¹⁸
2. Wage Tracking: TSTC sources annual wages for these students using state unemployment insurance (UI) wage records.¹⁸
3. Inflation Adjustment and Minimum Wage Deduction: The formula subtracts an annualized full-time minimum wage ($15,080) from the graduate’s actual earnings to isolate the economic value added by the technical education.¹⁸
4. Institutional Appropriation: The state appropriates a percentage of the additional state tax revenue generated by these increased wages back to the institution.¹⁸

The results of this model have been transformative. Median first-year wages for graduates increased by 45% over eight years, and the college routinely closes programs that do not perform well in the workforce, reallocating those resources to high-demand fields.¹⁸ This “business unit” approach to education ensures that the institution’s survival is inextricably linked to the prosperity of its graduates.

The GI Bill: An Idealized yet Cautionary Model

The Post-9/11 GI Bill represents an “idealized” financing plan because it provides comprehensive coverage of tuition, housing, and books.¹⁹ Research indicates that student veterans using these benefits often perform better than their non-veteran peers, with higher graduation rates and demonstrable labor market results.²⁰

However, the GI Bill also serves as a cautionary tale. Because it functions as a traditional voucher system where funds move at enrollment, it has been targeted by low-quality institutions.¹⁹ Veterans have reported experiences with “incompetent and inexperienced” instructors, outdated curriculum, and “factories” where passing grades are given for minimal effort just to keep the federal funds flowing.¹⁹ This highlights the necessity of the Humanization Model’s core tenet: subsidies must follow completion and placement, not just the act of enrollment.

Loan Repayment Assistance Programs (LRAP) and Outcome-Contingent Relief

Various university-led LRAPs, such as those at Duke, Rutgers, and Colorado Law, provide a structural blueprint for outcome-contingent support.²² These programs are typically structured as “forgivable loans” where the debt is forgiven if the graduate remains in qualifying employment (such as public interest law) for a specified period.²²

These programs demonstrate that:

• It is administratively feasible to track a graduate’s career progress and salary for the purpose of financial support.²³
• Direct-to-graduate assistance can effectively incentivize individuals to enter high-need, lower-paying, or public-service fields.²²
• Employer certification and tax documentation are reliable methods for verifying continued eligibility.²³

Apprenticeship Reimbursement and Pay-for-Success

Apprenticeship models, particularly those that offer wage reimbursements to employers for the “extraordinary costs” of training, provide a precedent for state-facilitated workforce investment.²⁶ In these models, the subsidy is tied to the act of working and learning simultaneously. Similarly, “Pay-for-Success” (PFS) contracts in the social sector ensure that government payments are only made when a service provider reaches a predetermined, verified goal.

By extracting the best practices from these models—TSTC’s wage tracking, LRAP’s direct-to-graduate support, and PFS’s risk-shifting—Di Tran University has designed the Humanization Model as a comprehensive solution for the entire postsecondary sector.

III. The Humanization Model: A Result-Oriented Architecture

The Di Tran University Humanization Model is built on a single, uncompromising principle: “No public funds move without documented results.” This model shifts the graduate to the center of the economic equation, treating them as an empowered adult with the agency to invest in their own future.

The Graduate-First Reimbursement Mechanic

In the Humanization Model, the government no longer pays the institution. Instead, it offers a “Humanization Credit” to the student. The student chooses their provider and secures financing—through private capital, bridge loans, or institutional “income share” deferment. The government’s role is to reimburse the graduate or pay down their debt once the “Proof of Work” is established.

1. Eligibility Triggers and Graduated Tiers

Reimbursement is not an “all-or-nothing” event but a graduated process that mirrors career progression:

Tier	Milestone	Verification Source	Rationale
Tier 1: Completion	Graduation or program completion	Integrated State Registry / Clearinghouse	Rewards the effort of finishing the “college experiment.”
Tier 2: Licensure	Passing state/national board exams	State Licensure Board Databases	Ensures the graduate is legally prepared to contribute to their field.
Tier 3: Placement	6 months of verified employment	UI Wage Records / KEWES / KUIP	Validates the labor market value of the education.
Tier 4: Retention	2 years of sustained employment	UI Wage Records / IRS Schedule C	Maximizes the long-term ROI for the taxpayer.

⁴

2. Verification Mechanisms: Radical Transparency

The Humanization Model utilizes existing, automated data streams to verify outcomes without adding significant paperwork for the graduate:

• W-2 Employment: Verified through the state Education and Labor Cabinet’s UI wage reporting systems (e.g., Kentucky’s KEWES/KUIP).⁴
• Self-Employment/Entrepreneurship: Verified through IRS Schedule C (Profit or Loss from Business) or Form 1099-NEC.²
• Licensure: Verified through real-time API connections to state licensing boards for nurses, plumbers, electricians, and other regulated professions.
• Automated Income Verification: Leveraging consent-based platforms like Argyle or Equifax’s “The Work Number” to pull real-time payroll data for immediate reimbursement.²⁸

Equity and Human Dignity in the Humanization Model

Critics of performance funding often fear that it will disadvantage “at-risk” students.¹⁷ The Humanization Model addresses this through “Humanization Premiums.”

To ensure that institutions continue to serve—and succeed with—underrepresented populations, the reimbursement formula includes additional weights for:

• Economically Disadvantaged Students: 25% additional weight for Pell-eligible graduates.²⁷
• Adult Learners (25-64): 50% additional weight for those returning to school to upskill.²⁷
• Nontraditional Career Paths: Immigrants and career-changers receive specialized navigator support and expedited verification to account for non-standard work histories.²⁶

By rewarding the successful completion of these students, the model incentivizes institutions to provide better mentoring, tutoring, and career services, rather than just “enrollment access” which often leads to “debt without a degree”.¹²

Anti-Fraud and Compliance Safeguards

To protect the integrity of the Humanization Subsidy Trust Fund, the model implements rigorous anti-fraud controls:

• Direct-to-Lender Payments: To prevent the misappropriation of funds, reimbursements can be paid directly to the student’s federal or private loan servicer.
• Third-Party Verification: Relying on independent UI records and IRS data removes the opportunity for institutions to “self-report” inflated success rates.¹⁸
• Audit Resolution Process: Regular desk-top reviews and analysis of financial outcomes help identify potential weaknesses or “diploma mills” before they result in questioned costs.³⁴

IV. KENTUCKY STATE LEGISLATION: THE HUMANIZATION SUBSIDY ACT

The following legislative draft is intended for immediate consideration by the Kentucky General Assembly. It aligns with Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) and the authority of the Education and Labor Cabinet.

⸻

AN ACT relating to postsecondary and workforce education finance, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring an emergency.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

The General Assembly hereby finds and declares that:

(1) The current enrollment-based funding model for postsecondary education fails to provide adequate accountability for student outcomes and shifts an unfair share of risk to students and taxpayers.

(2) Human dignity is preserved and enhanced when public rewards follow individual effort, graduation, and productive contribution to the Commonwealth’s workforce.

(3) The Commonwealth must transition toward a results-oriented, graduate-based reimbursement model to ensure the highest possible return on investment for public tax dollars.

(4) Utilizing the Kentucky Employer Web Account (KEWES) and the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Portal (KUIP) provides a secure, transparent, and existing mechanism for the verification of labor market outcomes.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of Sections 1 to 10 of this Act:

(1) “Completion” means the awarding of an associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or an industry-recognized certificate or diploma by a participating institution.

(2) “Council” means the Council on Postsecondary Education.

(3) “Eligible graduate” means a Kentucky resident who has successfully completed a program of study at a participating institution and has documented educational debt or out-of-pocket expenses.

(4) “Humanization Credit” means a contingent public subsidy reserved for a student but disbursed only upon verified completion and career placement.

(5) “Participating institution” means any public university, community or technical college, or accredited private postsecondary provider that agrees to the terms of the Humanization Subsidy Model.

(6) “Verified employment” means documented earnings from an employer registered with the Kentucky Office of Unemployment Insurance or documented self-employment income via IRS Schedule C.

SECTION 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KENTUCKY HUMANIZATION SUBSIDY PILOT PROGRAM.

(1) The Kentucky Humanization Subsidy Pilot Program is hereby established and shall be administered by the Council on Postsecondary Education in coordination with the Education and Labor Cabinet.

(2) The program shall replace enrollment-based state appropriations for participating programs with a result-contingent reimbursement system.

(3) No public funds shall be disbursed to any participating institution at the time of student enrollment or for the duration of the student’s program of study.

SECTION 4. REIMBURSEMENT FORMULA AND ELIGIBILITY.

(1) An eligible graduate shall receive reimbursement from the Humanization Subsidy Trust Fund according to the following tiered schedule:

(a) Fifty percent (50%) of the total eligible subsidy upon verified completion of the program.

(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) upon verified attainment of a required state professional or occupational license.

(c) Twenty-five percent (25%) upon verified employment in the Commonwealth for a period of six (6) consecutive months.

(2) The Council shall establish the base subsidy amounts for various programs, with a premium weight of 1.5x for credentials in high-demand fields such as healthcare, advanced manufacturing, and technology.

(3) An additional 25% weight shall be applied for graduates who are Pell-eligible or nontraditional age students as defined in KRS 164.092.

SECTION 5. VERIFICATION STANDARDS AND DATA INTERGRATION. (1) The Education and Labor Cabinet shall provide the Council with automated access to the KEWES and KUIP UI wage reporting systems to verify the employment and earnings of eligible graduates.⁴ (2) For self-employed graduates, the Council shall accept a certified copy of IRS Schedule C or Form 1099-NEC as proof of placement.² (3) All data sharing and verification shall be conducted in compliance with state and federal privacy laws, including KRS 151B.280 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

SECTION 6. FUNDING AND THE HUMANIZATION SUBSIDY TRUST FUND.

(1) There is hereby created the Humanization Subsidy Trust Fund as a separate restricted fund.

(2) The fund shall consist of appropriations by the General Assembly, federal funds, and private contributions.

(3) Notwithstanding KRS 45.229, any fund balance remaining at the close of a fiscal year shall not lapse but shall be carried forward into the succeeding fiscal year.

SECTION 7. OVERSIGHT, REPORTING, AND RESEARCH. (1) The Council shall designate Di Tran University – The College of Humanization as the state’s primary research and policy incubator for the pilot program. (2) Di Tran University shall conduct an annual longitudinal study on the program’s impact on graduate debt-to-income ratios and state tax revenue. (3) The Council shall submit an annual report to the Governor and the Legislative Research Commission by November 1 of each year detailing the program’s outcomes.³⁵

SECTION 8. PILOT AUTHORITY AND WAIVERS.

(1) The Council is authorized to grant waivers to participating institutions from seat-time and contact-hour requirements in KRS Chapter 164 to facilitate mastery-based and accelerated learning models.

SECTION 9. SUNSET CLAUSE.

(1) The provisions of this Act shall expire five (5) years from the effective date unless reauthorized by the General Assembly.

SECTION 10. EMERGENCY.

(1) Whereas the Commonwealth faces an urgent workforce shortage and a crisis of student debt, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act takes effect upon its passage and approval by the Governor.

⸻

V. FEDERAL LEGISLATION: THE WORKFORCE RESULT & ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

At the federal level, the Humanization Model can be implemented through an amendment to the Higher Education Act (HEA) or a standalone “slide-in” pilot authority under the Department of Labor.

⸻

SEC. __. FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION.

(a) AMENDMENT TO HEA.—Section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(k) HUMANIZATION SUBSIDY PILOT PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program through which states may opt to receive their Title IV allocations as a block grant to fund a Graduate-First Reimbursement Model.

(2) PROHIBITION ON ENROLLMENT DISBURSEMENT.—States participating in the pilot shall ensure that no federal grant or loan funds are disbursed to an institution of higher education until the student has achieved a verified outcome.

(3) DIRECT REIMBURSEMENT.—Funds shall be disbursed directly to the graduate as a post-completion reimbursement or applied as a credit toward the principal of their educational loans.

(4) NATIONAL REBATE SYSTEM.—For graduates in non-participating states, the Secretary shall establish a ‘National Humanization Rebate’ where 20% of a graduate’s loan principal is forgiven for every year of documented work in an in-demand field, verified by federal tax transcripts.”

(b) WIOA PILOT AUTHORITY.—Section 116 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3141) is amended to allow states to use up to 50% of their Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker funds for a “Pay-for-Placement” reimbursement system for Eligible Training Providers.

(c) BUDGET NEUTRALITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that the total federal expenditure for the pilot program does not exceed the projected expenditure under traditional enrollment-based models, accounting for the reduction in loan defaults and increased tax revenues from successful graduates.

(d) RESEARCH PARTNER.—The Secretary shall enter into a data-sharing agreement with Di Tran University – The College of Humanization to evaluate the national scalability of the Graduate-First Reimbursement Model.

⸻

VI. Political and Economic Framing: Human Capital as an Investment

The Humanization Model is grounded in the economic theory of “Human Capital,” which posits that education and training are investments that increase a worker’s capacity to produce output.⁶ Currently, the United States educational system is plagued by what economists call “negative externalities”—situations where the public cost of a failed student far outweighs the private gain for the institution.³⁷

The Productivity Argument

National productivity is the primary determinant of the American standard of living.⁶ Research shows that while investments in physical capital (machines, technology) account for 40% of productivity growth, investments in human capital (education, skills) are responsible for up to 20%.⁶ However, this growth is only realized when the education provides actual skills that the labor market demands.

By funding results (completion and placement), the Humanization Model forces institutions to align their curriculum with the “technological links” of the modern economy.³⁶ This eliminates the “skills gap” by ensuring that every dollar of public subsidy is purchasing a real, productive outcome—a new skilled worker, not just a certificate with no market value.¹²

The Fiscal Case for Accountability

From a budgetary perspective, the Humanization Model is a significant win for the taxpayer. College graduates contribute, on average, $273,000 more in taxes over their lifetime than those with only a high school diploma.⁴⁰ Furthermore, they are 3.5 times less likely to be impoverished and 5 times less likely to be imprisoned, saving the government an estimated $82,000 in lifetime expenditures.⁴⁰

By only subsidizing those who reach the finish line, the government ensures that its $355,000 “net contribution” per bachelor’s degree holder is maximized while minimizing the public loss from dropouts.⁴⁰ This is not “austerity”; it is high-performance public investment.

Graduate Outcome	Taxpayer Benefit (Lifetime)	Gov. Expenditure Savings
Bachelors Degree	+$273,000 more than HS grad	$82,000 lower expenditure
Advanced Degree	+$440,000 more than HS grad	$100,000+ lower expenditure
Humanization Participant	Accelerated by results incentive	Minimized by 0% default rate

⁴⁰

The Human Centered Narrative

At its core, the Humanization Model is about the preservation of human dignity. It rejects the idea that adult learners should be passive recipients of a government-funded “process.” Instead, it honors their agency, effort, and responsibility. It asserts that work, licensure, and entrepreneurship are the ultimate goals of education, and that the fabric of the United States is strengthened when we reward those who contribute to our collective prosperity.

VII. Positioning Di Tran University – The College of Humanization

Di Tran University (DTU) is the intellectual originator and lead advocate for the Humanization Model. DTU is a research-first institution dedicated to the principles of “Proof of Work” and “Radical Transparency.”

DTU as a Policy and Research Incubator

Unlike traditional institutions that are insulated from outcomes, DTU operates as a national model for accountability-first education. Our framework for the Graduate-First Reimbursement Model was developed through extensive analysis of:

• Labor Market Dynamics: Ensuring that credentials lead to “high-skill, high-wage” careers.⁴¹
• Data Integration: Engineering the connections between educational registries and UI wage records.⁴
• Human Agency: Designing systems that empower individuals to take ownership of their professional lives.

Recommendation for DTU’s Role

We recommend that the Kentucky General Assembly and the U.S. Department of Education engage Di Tran University as:

1. A Federal/State Pilot Partner: To oversee the administrative implementation of the first “Humanization Waiver” states.
2. A National Research Clearinghouse: To provide objective, third-party verification of outcomes for graduates in the program.
3. A Policy Advisor: To assist state licensure boards and accrediting agencies in moving away from time-based “seat-time” standards toward mastery-based “Proof of Work” standards.

Conclusion: A Results-Oriented Future

The United States stands at a pivotal crossroads. We can continue to fund an educational system that rewards enrollment and ignores results, or we can embrace the Humanization Model and build a workforce for the 21st century.

The evidence presented in this report is overwhelming: the enrollment-based funding model is a relic of the industrial age that has failed the modern student and the modern taxpayer. The Graduate-First Reimbursement System—pioneered by Di Tran University—offers a clear, evidence-based, and human-centered alternative. By aligning risk with performance and reward with effort, we can ensure that American education once again becomes the world’s greatest engine of social mobility and national prosperity.

“No public funds move without documented results.” This is more than a policy; it is a moral obligation to the next generation of American workers. We invite the Kentucky General Assembly and the United States Congress to join Di Tran University in making this vision a reality.

Works cited

1. The Office of Federal Student Aid as a Performance-Based Organization | Congress.gov, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46143
2. What Is a Schedule C IRS form? – TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos – Intuit, accessed January 29, 2026, https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/self-employment-taxes/-what-is-a-schedule-c-irs-form/L7v0iDelI
3. How to Show Proof of Income When Self-Employed – Raleigh Realty, accessed January 29, 2026, https://raleighrealty.com/blog/self-employed-proof-of-income
4. Site Enhancements and Electronic Reporting – Kentucky’s Self-Service, accessed January 29, 2026, https://kewes.ky.gov/Contact/Notice.aspx
5. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Portal (KUIP), accessed January 29, 2026, https://kcc.ky.gov/career/resources/Pages/KUIP-Modernization-Project.aspx
6. Findings From Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report, accessed January 29, 2026, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97939.asp
7. The Carnegie Unit: A Century-Old Standard in a Changing Education Landscape – Lumina Foundation, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/carnegie-unit-report.pdf
8. The Ridiculousness of Seat Time Requirements – Learner-Centered Leadership, accessed January 29, 2026, https://learnercenteredleadership.org/2020/08/09/the-ridiculousness-of-seat-time-requirements/
9. Debunking the Myth of Seat-Time | ExcelinEd, accessed January 29, 2026, https://excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ExcelinEd.Innovation.NextGenerationLearning.SeatTimeReport.pdf
10. Task Force Report – Modernizing Title IV Aid to Encourage and Accommodate Innovation in Higher Education – nasfaa, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.nasfaa.org/uploads/documents/Modernizing_TitleIV_Task_Force_Report.pdf
11. The Consequences of Performance Standards in Need-Based Aid: Evidence from Community Colleges – NIH, accessed January 29, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10923567/
12. Outcome-Based Federal Student Aid Model: A Proposal for Pay-for …, accessed January 29, 2026, https://naba4u.org/2025/08/outcome-based-federal-student-aid-model-a-proposal-for-pay-for-success-funding-research-august-2025/
13. ProgramSearch – ETPL – Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, accessed January 29, 2026, https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/etpl/home/programsearch
14. How States Manage Eligible Training Provider Lists: Findings from a State Survey, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/research/publications/how-states-manage-eligible-training-provider-lists-findings
15. About – TrainingProviderResults.gov, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.trainingproviderresults.gov/#!/about
16. Lessons Learned: A Case Study of Performance Funding in Higher Education | Third Way, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.thirdway.org/report/lessons-learned-a-case-study-of-performance-funding-in-higher-education.pdf
17. THE UNEQUAL IMPACTS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED FUNDING ON INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES IN HIGHER EDUCATION – InformEd States, accessed January 29, 2026, https://policy-lab.squarespace.com/s/InformedStates_Paper_UnequalImpactsofPBFinResources.pdf
18. Aligning State Higher Education Funding with Student Outcomes …, accessed January 29, 2026, https://freopp.org/whitepapers/aligning-state-higher-education-funding-with-student-outcomes/
19. Lessons for Title IV from an Analysis of GI Bill Outcomes – Veterans Education Success, accessed January 29, 2026, https://vetsedsuccess.org/lessons-for-title-iv-from-an-analysis-of-gi-bill-outcomes/
20. National Veteran Education Success Tracker, accessed January 29, 2026, https://studentveterans.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NVEST-Report_FINAL.pdf
21. Student Veterans and the 90/10 Rule – RAND, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4405-1.html
22. Loan Repayment Assistance Program | Duke University School of Law, accessed January 29, 2026, https://law.duke.edu/apply/financial/lrap
23. Loan Repayment Assistance Program – Rutgers Law School, accessed January 29, 2026, https://law.rutgers.edu/admissions/tuition-and-financial-aid/loan-repayment-assistance-program
24. LRAP: Loan Repayment Assistance Program | Colorado Law, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.colorado.edu/law/admissions/financial-aid/lrap-loan-repayment-assistance-program
25. Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP) FAQ – Oregon State Bar, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.osbar.org/lrap/LRAPFAQ.html
26. WIOA Waiver Guidance – EDD, accessed January 29, 2026, https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/jobs_and_training/pubs/wsd24-14.pdf
27. Formula Funding – Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.highered.texas.gov/community-college-finance/formula-funding/
28. Income & Employment Verification for Government – The Work Number, accessed January 29, 2026, https://theworknumber.com/solutions/industries/government-verification
29. Automate income and employment verification for benefits – Argyle, accessed January 29, 2026, https://argyle.com/industries/government-benefits/
30. Title 013 Chapter 2 Regulation 120 • Kentucky Administrative Regulations – Legislative Research Commission, accessed January 29, 2026, https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/013/002/120/
31. 164.092 Comprehensive funding model for the public postsecondary education system – Legislative Research Commission, accessed January 29, 2026, https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=54625
32. Equity in Performance-Based Funding A Literature Review – IBHE.org, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.ibhe.org/fiscal/K_Westbrook_PBF_Deck_version3.pdf
33. SteadyIQ – Income Verification for Public Benefits, accessed January 29, 2026, https://steadyiq.com/
34. Monitoring & Compliance Oversight Policy | WorkForce Central, accessed January 29, 2026, https://workforce-central.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/monitoring-oversight-requirements-policy-signed-with-history-page.pdf
35. chapter 164 – Legislative Research Commission, accessed January 29, 2026, https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/acts/05RS/documents/0164.pdf
36. An Economic Analysis of Graduate Education Subsidies – Mercatus Center, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.mercatus.org/media/66151/download
37. Externalities and subsidization of higher education – EconStor, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/79993/1/VfS_2013_pid_476.pdf
38. Do Place-Based Policies Matter? – San Francisco Fed, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2015/03/enterprise-zone-economic-incentive-tax-subsidy-place-based-policies/
39. An Economic Analysis of Graduate Education Subsidies | Mercatus Center, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.mercatus.org/students/research/public-interest-comments/economic-analysis-graduate-education-subsidies
40. How do college graduates benefit society at large? – APLU, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/societal-benefits/
41. US departments of Labor, Education issue guidance for State Plans to align education and workforce development systems, accessed January 29, 2026, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20260126