Social Security is only designed to replace about 40% of the average retiree’s income, leaving two options — either dramatically reduce your standard of living, or create additional income from other sources.

While annuities are certainly one way to create an income stream, there are some downsides to this popular approach. Specifically, annuities often have high fees, and better returns can often be achieved elsewhere.

With that in mind, here are five retirement income strategies that could be smart options for you to supplement your monthly Social Security checks.

As the name implies, a reverse mortgage works in the opposite manner of a traditional mortgage. Instead of making monthly payments to a bank and building equity in your home, the bank makes payments to you in exchange for your equity.

Reverse mortgages are available to homeowners 62 and older who own enough equity in their home to justify the loan. Upon obtaining a reverse mortgage, the lender makes payments to you and interest begins to accumulate on the outstanding balance.

However, you’ll never have to pay back the reverse mortgage unless you sell your home. Reverse mortgages are generally paid off through the sale of a home, either during the borrower’s lifetime or after death.

To be clear, there are some downsides to reverse mortgages. Even so, in many cases, reverse mortgages can be a smart way to create an income stream without touching your retirement nest egg.

When it comes to creating retirement income, I’m a fan of maintaining a properly allocated investment portfolio of stocks and bonds.

We’ll get to stock investing later, but there are some basic problems with bond investing, especially that bonds pay extremely low interest rates on a historical basis.

The concept of a bond ladder can help you still get current income, while also allowing yourself to boost your future income if rates rise.

Here’s a simplified explanation of how a bond ladder might work. Let’s say that you have $100,000 to invest, so instead of putting it all in 10-year bonds, you would put 20% in bonds that mature in two years, another 20% in four-year bonds, and so on. The result is that you’ll get the higher income of some longer-dated bonds, but every two years, you’ll have $20,000 to put to work at the then-current long-term rates.

This is the most “outside-the-box” way to create retirement income on the list, but it has become more popular recently. For example, a retired couple who plans to retire to a beach town might buy a bed and breakfast.

The “buy a business” route can be an especially good option because it can help cure another issue commonly encountered in retirement — boredom. Operating a business can keep you active and engaged.

There are clearly some downsides of this option. For example, owning your business can be a risky way to make money, and not all retirees are physically capable of running a business. However, this is an interesting option for entrepreneurial-minded retirees.

Investing in real estate can produce excellent income, and can also increase your net worth over time. And thanks to the power of leverage (mortgage financing), retirees don’t necessarily need a ton of money to get started.

There are several risks to be aware of. Vacancies, bad tenants, and unexpected maintenance issues are just a few of the uncertainties. However, for many people, the reward potential can definitely outweigh the risk. In fact, investing in rental properties is a big part of my own retirement planning strategy.

Last, but certainly not least, stock investing can be an excellent way to generate a growing income stream in retirement.

A smart approach for retirees is to focus on dividend growth stocks — in other words, stocks that not only pay dividends, but have a solid history of increasing their dividend payments. For example, Procter & Gamble has an above-average 3.7% dividend yield and has increased its payout for 62 consecutive years. Stocks like this pay more than you can get from many intermediate-term investment-grade bonds, with the added probability of rising income over time.

If you aren’t comfortable with choosing individual stocks, you can invest in diverse assortments of these companies through mutual funds and ETFs.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

The best choice for you depends on your risk tolerance, the level of involvement you want to have, and other factors. While it’s likely that not all these suggestions are ideal for you, my point is to get you thinking about alternatives before putting your retirement nest egg into an annuity or other fixed-income strategy.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 21, 2018: 10:22 AM ET

High returns aren’t the only factor to consider when choosing your investments.

A tax-efficient portfolio can save you enough on your tax bill to nicely compliment your investment returns. Take a look at your own portfolio to see if you’ve implemented the following tax-shrinking tips.

Investors have plenty of options for tucking away their money. If you do your investing in accounts with built-in tax advantages, such as HSAs, IRAs, and 401(k)s, you can save a bundle on your tax bill. Investments in these accounts don’t generate taxes when you receive dividends from stocks or interest from bonds, and they also won’t incur capital gains taxes if you sell an investment for a profit.

In addition, IRAs and 401(k)s give you a tax break either on the money you put into the account or the money you take out (depending on whether the account is a traditional tax-deferred account or a Roth account). HSAs actually give you a tax break on both contributions and distributions, making them the only triple tax-advantaged account.

These accounts are such a great deal that the IRS has put limits on how much you’re allowed to contribute to them each year. So throw your investing dollars into these tax-advantaged accounts until you hit the annual maximum; then and only then should you focus on building up your standard brokerage accounts.

Certain investments have built-in tax savings. For example, treasury securities are exempt from state taxes (although you will still have to pay federal taxes on the interest).

Municipal bonds take the tax advantage a step further: They are exempt from federal taxes and may also be exempt from state taxes, if the bond was issued by the state you live in. Clearly, if you’re going to buy municipal bonds, look for ones from your state of residence to max out the tax savings.

A tax-advantaged investment is not always the best choice. The bonds that come with a tax break pay lower returns than bonds that don’t, and depending on your situation, the tax break may or may not make up for the lower returns. For example, if you live in a state with high state taxes, tax-free municipal securities are likely to be a good deal — but if you live in a state with no state taxes, the federal tax savings alone likely won’t be enough to turn municipal bonds into a good deal.

The big selling point of municipal bonds is their potentially high tax break — but if you put a municipal bond in an IRA, the tax advantage disappears. Why? Because you don’t pay taxes on any bond interest that’s deposited into an IRA, whether it’s from a municipal bond or not. Thus, putting municipal bonds in a tax-advantaged account is a waste of money.

Similarly, real estate investment trusts (REITs), while a great investment, can expose you to high taxes because of the very high dividends these securities are required to generate. Tucking your REITs into a tax-advantaged account such as an IRA neatly erases this disadvantage, since the copious dividends that REITs produce will not be taxed as they come in.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

Matching up investments and accounts correctly can protect you from the drawbacks of heavily taxed investments while allowing you to take full advantage of the tax breaks that other investments enjoy. And that can lead to a considerably more pleasant experience on April 15 every year.

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 7, 2017: 9:44 AM ET

Michael Wall has $3,600 at stake in the debate over Obamacare subsidies.

Wall is one of the 4.7 million Americans closely watching dueling court decisions released Tuesday on whether the government can subsidize premiums for people who bought health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Wall pays $657 a month on premiums for Obamacare health coverage. The government would subsidize about $300 a month, or $3,600 a year. Americans like him are anxiously waiting to see how it all plays out in court.

Anything could happen.

Obamacare recipients who have already received their government subsidies may be on the hook to pay it back if one court ruling is upheld that wipes out tax credits that subsidize health insurance on the federal healthcare.gov exchange. A second ruling okayed the subsidies.

Wall has been wary of the controversial politics around Obamacare, which is why he decided to wait to get his subsidy when he files his 2014 taxes next year.

“I didn’t want any uncertainty,” said Wall, 59, of Atlanta. “I didn’t want to have to worry about paying the government back.”

Related: Split decisions on Obamacare

Obamacare has been a boon for Wall, who retired in late 2012 after nearly 40 years in the airline industry, primarily at Delta Airlines.

Decades of loading freight and passengers on airplanes in the early morning hours was stressful work and Wall wanted to retire early without worrying about healthcare expenses.

Wall deals with minor health issues, including complications from surgery on a torn leg tendon.

Related: I’m quitting my job. Thanks, Obamacare!

Delta kicked in a nice enough incentive package of $100,000 for medical expenses that Wall decided to retire early.

He gets a monthly pension of $1,300 and each month.

Wall Obamacare premium is cheaper than the $800-plus he was paying for his employer-sponsored health care coverage through COBRA.

While his lifestyle is hardly lavish, Wall said he can live without the subsidy. But he’d be happy if it comes.

“I’m not rich but I’m not in poverty,” said Wall, and Obamacare gives him an affordable peace of mind.

CNNMoney (Washington) First published July 22, 2014: 3:21 PM ET

The hotel industry is using free tuition to try to lure — and keep — workers.

The American Hotel and Lodging Association is rolling out a pilot program this month that offers an online associate’s degree at no cost to workers and an online bachelor’s degree at a subsidized cost.

The goal is to attract and retain good employees.

“We’ve had eight years of growth and job creation, but at the same time we have a labor shortage,” said Katherine Lugar, president and CEO of the industry group.

There are currently more than 700,000 job openings in the hospitality sector, according to government data.

So far ten hotel brands and management companies have come on board — including New Castle Hotels and Resorts, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts and Red Roof Inns.

Related: Hospitals offer big bonuses, free housing and tuition to recruit nurses

It’s up to the companies to pay the cost of the degrees. But the American Hotel and Lodging Association has partnered with Pearson to make the process easier. The education company negotiates with schools for lower prices, said Jim Homer who heads Pearson’s AcceleratED Pathways program. They also vet the degree programs, making sure they are at accredited, nonprofit colleges.

The funding and eligibility requirements for the benefit will vary by company. Not all will offer a bachelor’s degree options, but those that do will subsidize the cost. For example, a worker with no previous college credits may end up paying about $24,000 for the bachelor’s degree, Homer said. An associate’s degree would be free to the employee.

The average student pays about $10,000 each year in tuition in fees (without room and board) at an in-state public college when pursuing a bachelor’s degree, according to The College Board. A two-year degree costs $3,520 a year, on average.

Related: Student loan payments are the new employee perk

At Wyndham, all employees at its managed properties will be eligible after 12 months of employment. The company will cover the full cost of tuition, fees, and books needed to finish an associate’s degree. It may extend the program to bachelor’s degrees in the future, said Becky Walnoha, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Wyndham Managed Hotels.

While Wyndham previously offered a tuition reimbursement benefit, the new program will pay the money up front.

At New Castle, six employees are expected to qualify for the pilot program at first, said Gerry Chase, the president and COO at New Castle Hotels and Resorts.

“They have to qualify to be selected. They have to be someone who shows initiative and we could see in management in the future. But they won’t be required to stay with the company,” he said.

The industry association said many managers and executives have worked their way up from entry level positions — which don’t often require college degrees. It puts the industry in a unique position to provide a pathway to higher education.

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 9, 2018: 9:22 AM ET

Earlier this year, Uber hired its first ever chief diversity officer, following a string of sexual harassment claims and other PR crises for the brand. Last month, after a year plagued by controversy, the NFL posted a job opening for a head of diversity and inclusion.

Diversity officers are popping up at many other high-profile companies, too. The titles may vary — “director of diversity and inclusion,” “chief equality officer” or “head of diversity, inclusion and belonging” — but more organizations are realizing this is something that matters to their employees. It even merits an entire position (or sometimes, even its own department).

According to data from Indeed, demand for the roles has increased significantly in just the last few years. Between 2017 and 2018, Indeed postings for diversity and inclusion positions had increased by nearly 20%.

But what does a diversity officer do?

Diversity and inclusion roles require expertise in three important areas: employee recruitment, retention and engagement. Diversity and inclusion go hand-in-hand, which is exactly why you see them in so many of these job titles. In diversifying a company workforce, leaders then also have to make sure employees from underrepresented groups feel welcome.

“All these efforts have to be connected,” says Mary Pharris, director of business development and partnerships at Fairygodboss, a job review site for women. “Because then you get a disconnect with what you’re doing in the recruitment process, which ultimately affects how you retain employees.”

Focusing on diversity and inclusion isn’t just a good PR move, something to implement in the wake of a crisis. Instead, says Pharris, it’s a proven investment in company success.

“There’s been study after study that shows diversity is good for the bottom line,” she says. “So by investing in this, companies are doing the right thing. It not only makes your employees happy at the end of the day, but if your employees are happy they’re more likely to stay.”

Ciara Trinidad, program manager for inclusion and diversity at Netflix (NFLX), has learned to keep her eyes on it all.

“This is not just siloed to recruiting and HR,” she says. “It’s the way in sales we talked and targeted the people who would eventually become our customers, the way we treated the people who served us catered lunch … the goal of this job is to eventually work myself out of a job.”

That meant focusing on recruiting, but also on training and developing the talent already at the company — especially those in positions of influence.

“The solvers of this problem are our people managers,” she says. “They’re the ones who set the pace for employees’ personal development. If you don’t invest in them in all the ways you can, it’s not going to work.”

Netflix strives for diversity not just in its employees, but in its programming as well. Her usual day could involve meeting with talent partners, production managers and employee resource groups, talking about what they want in the workplace and what could be better for people like them.

She admits the “working herself out of a job” thing might not be happening any time soon.

In the past, many companies relied on employees from underrepresented groups to spark change from the ground level. Trinidad says her job now is focused on listening to those employees, raising their concerns to the highest levels and implementing policies to help.

“They don’t need to be distracted thinking about how to survive this workplace, how to make it even better for people like themselves,” she says. “They just need to be focused on their job, [and] I need to be focused on building infrastructure so they feel like they can be themselves.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 21, 2018: 11:07 AM ET

I’m in my mid 60s and have about $1.2 million I would like to invest for the maximum income possible for the rest of my life. I don’t care for stocks or bonds because I hate the idea of seeing the value of my savings drop if the market has a correction. And I don’t understand annuities. Any suggestions?—M.B.

You’ve got a number of conflicting wants and needs that you’d do well to sort out if you hope to come up with a sensible plan to convert your nest egg into income that can support you the rest of your life.

You say, for example, that you want “the maximum income possible,” yet you seem bent on ruling out stocks and bonds, investments that, in combination, have a solid record of being able to deliver the size returns you need to generate a high level of income for the long term.

You also express concern about the value of your savings dropping during market downturns. That’s understandable. No one enjoys seeing his nest egg take a hit, especially the gut punch of a severe bear market. But this aversion to seeing even a temporary decline is incompatible with your desire for maximum income. The more you dampen up-and-down swings in the value of your retirement portfolio, the more you reduce your return potential, which makes it tougher to get the higher retirement income you seek. You can’t have it both ways, a shot at maximum income and total stability.

Finally, you say you want this income to last for life. But you then seem to suggest that annuities — a type of investment specifically designed to create a payout you can’t outlive — are a no-go. I agree that annuities can be difficult, sometimes almost impossible, to understand. And I don’t want to suggest that you must own an annuity. Still, if you really want retirement income you can count on for the rest of your life, I think it’s at least worth considering whether an annuity might make sense.

All of which is to say that I think you need to consider setting a more realistic goal when it comes to retirement income — namely, creating a plan that can get you a reasonable amount of sustainable income given your resources, while limiting volatility to a manageable level rather than trying to do away with it altogether.

Related: 4 steps you should take when buying an annuity

The first step toward creating such a plan is to get a handle on how much income you’ll need to cover your retirement expenses. You can do that by going to an online budgeting tool like BlackRock’s Retirement Expense Worksheet, which has room for you to enter dozens of retirement expenses ranging from essential outlays for housing, food, health care and transportation to more discretionary expenditures for travel, entertainment and charitable donations.

Once you’ve toted up your expenses, you can then see how much of those costs you’ll be able to pay for with assured income from sources like Social Security and any pensions. If you haven’t already begun drawing Social Security, you can see what size monthly check you might receive by going to the Social Security Administration’s Retirement Estimator tool.

More likely than not, there will be a gap — i.e., your expenses will exceed the amount you’ll collect from Social Security and any pensions. The simplest way to fill that gap is to draw enough from savings each year to cover the expenses that Social Security and any pensions can’t. Question is, how do you do this without running through your savings too quickly?

Start by being judicious about withdrawals. If you want your nest egg to last 30 or more years — a reasonable assumption given today’s long life spans — you should probably limit yourself to an initial withdrawal of no more than 3% to 4% of the value of your savings. You can then increase that amount each year by the inflation rate to maintain your purchasing power.

Assuming an initial withdrawal of 4% and annual inflation of 2% would, in your case, translate to withdrawing $48,000 the first year of retirement (4% of $1.2 million), about $49,000 the second year ($48,000 plus 2% inflation), roughly $50,000 the third year ($49,000 plus 2% inflation), etc. You can always withdraw more, but the more you pull out, the greater the chance you may exhaust your savings too soon.

How you invest your retirement savings also plays a role in determining how long your nest egg might last. I get that you have an aversion to seeing the value of your savings decline during periods of market turmoil. To totally avoid that possibility, however, you would pretty much need to invest all your savings in cash equivalents like money-market accounts and CDs. Problem is, these investments generate such low returns that, even if you limit yourself to a withdrawal rate of 3% to 4%, you would still run a not insignificant risk of outliving your savings.

So unless you’re willing to cut back on the amount you withdraw each year — or accept a higher risk of running out of money before you run out of time — you need the more generous returns that a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds (or, more likely stock and bond funds) can deliver.

Related: Should I move half of my savings into an annuity?

That doesn’t mean you have to invest all, or even most, of your savings in stocks. Even a small dollop of stocks, as little as 30% or so, can provide enough return potential to substantially reduce the risk of outliving your savings compared with an all-cash equivalents portfolio. Which means you should have plenty of leeway for finding a mix of stocks and bonds that can get you the retirement income you need without subjecting your nest egg to wild swings in value.

You can get an idea of what stocks-bonds mix might be right for you (and how different mixes have fared in the past) by completing this risk tolerance-asset allocation questionnaire. To see how long your nest egg might last at different withdrawal rates and with various combinations of stocks and bonds, check out this retirement income calculator.

Up to this point, we’ve been talking probabilities of how long you might be able to draw a given amount of income from savings, not certainties. But there is a way to create income that’s guaranteed to last as long as you do: buy an annuity. Granted, annuities can be complex and confounding. But there is one type that, relative to other annuities at least, is fairly easy to understand: an immediate annuity.

You turn over a lump sum of savings to an insurer and in return get monthly payments for life. Today, for example, a 65-year-old man who invests $100,000 in an immediate annuity would receive about $550 a month for life; a 65-year-old woman would get $530 a month; and a 65-year-old couple (man and woman) would receive about $470 a month as long as either is alive. (This annuity calculator can show you how much income you’d receive based on your age, sex and amount invested.)

But even this relatively straightforward annuity comes with conditions you need to understand, one of the most significant being that in return for guaranteed income for life you typically give up all or most access to the money you’ve invested. Which is one reason I think anyone who feels they might want more guaranteed income than Social Security alone will provide should consider this two-pronged strategy: Invest enough of your savings in an annuity so that the annuity’s payments along with income from Social Security and any pensions will cover all or most essential expenses; then invest the rest in an appropriate mix of stocks, bonds and cash you can draw on as needed to pay any additional expenses. If such a strategy appeals to you, be sure to check out these tips for choosing an annuity before committing to one.

Given the wariness expressed in your question, you may very well decide that even a relatively conservative mix of stocks and bonds — in conjunction with an annuity or not — isn’t right for you. And that’s fine. I’m sure you won’t have trouble finding advisers suggesting plenty of other ways to go. Remember, though, that any realistic strategy to convert savings to sustainable retirement income will necessarily involve trade offs and compromises, not mention varying levels of fees. Just make sure that before you sign on, you know exactly what those trade offs, compromises and fees are.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 23, 2018: 10:17 AM ET

President Donald Trump may talk a lot about creating jobs, but there’s one kind he wants to eliminate: Tax preparers.

“I want to put H&R Block out of business,” Trump said on the campaign trail.

“H&R Block probably won’t be too happy,” he said again in February.

Trump is confident that his tax plan will simplify the code enough to make individual filing a snap “If we can do it on one page,” Trump said at a press conference on Monday. “Now, in some cases, it may be two pages.”

In fact, Trump thinks it will be so simple that some taxpayers will be able to do away with their accountants altogether. But so far, tax professionals don’t seem very worried.

Trump is taking aim at a huge industry: The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports there are 70,000 tax preparers in the U.S., which may be an undercount. (H&R Block (HRB) claims 70,000 “tax professionals” in its own franchises, and that doesn’t include all of the tax lawyers at big firms like PricewaterhouseCoopers and Accenture). According to a study by an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, Americans spend $200 billion a year just filing their federal income taxes.

Yet despite Trump’s promise to render professional tax preparers obsolete, the GOP’s tax plan will still leave them with plenty of work to do.

The so-called Big Six’s Unified Framework — a nine-page statement of principles agreed to by the White House and Congressional leaders — does a few things to make the tax code less complex. It would compress the existing seven individual tax brackets down to three, eliminate “most” itemized deductions and get rid of the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax.

On the corporate side, it would drop the overall corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, while scrapping some deductions and exemptions for specific industries.

Related: The White House explains itself: Why corporate tax cuts mean higher wages

But those measures don’t affect most Americans, only 30% of whom choose to itemize rather than take the standard deduction, according to the Tax Foundation.

At the same time, the plan envisions other changes that would make filing taxes more complex.

For example, it expands the child tax credit and adds a $500 credit for dependents like elderly parents, while maintaining exemptions and deductions for mortgage interest, retirement savings, higher education, and charity. (The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has pooh-poohed the GOP’s promise to enable individuals to file their taxes on a postcard, pointing out that plenty of worksheets would still be required to figure out how to fill out that postcard’s fields.)

On the corporate side, the Big Six plan adds a new loophole, which allows businesses to expense their new investments. All of these exemptions may or may not serve as valuable incentives, but they don’t help simplify the tax code.

Meanwhile, the GOP introduces a large dose of complexity by proposing to tax “pass-through” businesses — which include sole proprietorships and partnerships — at 25%, rather than the top individual tax rate of 39.6%. This reduced rate will incentivize businesses to restructure themselves as pass-throughs if they can.

“Any time you get any kind of rate differential for different sources of income, you warm the hearts of every tax planner everywhere,” says Joe Thorndike, a tax historian with the non-profit research firm Tax Analysts. “That’s great for them, because that’s going to create an enormous opportunity to reorganize.”

Trump’s team argues that by cutting the corporate tax rate to 20%, it will make it less attractive for big multinational corporations to lower their taxes through complicated accounting maneuvers like transfer pricing and earnings stripping. Many economists agree.

Related: The IMF says Trump won’t deliver tax reform

“A somewhat lower rate would both reduce incentives to profit shifting and also help smaller firms compete better with their larger counterparts,” says Fatih Guvenen, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has studied corporate tax practices.

However, another part of the GOP plan — known as “territorial taxation” — would make profits earned overseas tax-free forever, which will always compare favorably to even the lowest corporate tax rate. That creates an incentive in the other direction, to classify income as foreign rather than domestic, explains Tax Policy Center senior fellow Steven Rosenthal.

“There are aspects of the Big Six framework that will create new gaming,” Rosenthal says.

So even if big corporations stop spending money on complex accounting maneuvers that help shift their profits around, they will still need tax lawyers for plenty of emerging lines of business.

“I’m not too terribly worried the tax business is going to change dramatically,” says Ramon Camacho, a principal in the international tax practice at RSM US. “But there’s always something else to do. Just move into litigation!”

And what about the H&R Blocks of the world? They’ve already been building software that allows taxpayers to file their returns from the comfort of their couches, no human assistance required. In the meantime, they don’t seem all that worried about Congress deregulating them out of their jobs. Any change in the tax code, after all, creates demand for professional advice.

“It could be simpler, but there’s no scenario where it would be simple, the U.S. tax code,” said H&R Block CEO Tom Gerke on the company’s most recent earnings call. “Every time we get into one of these reform processes, we can’t resist adding to it as well.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published October 19, 2017: 8:58 AM ET

More than 6.8 million Americans will get a refund from their health insurer this summer.

Total value of the rebates will be $332 million, with an average of $80 going to each family. They’ll be issued by August 1.

Thank the Affordable Care Act for the windfall. Under one of the law’s provisions, insurers must issue refunds if they spend more than 20% of what customers pay in premiums on administration and marketing expenses, instead of medical care.

Related: Thankful for Obamacare

Insurers were first required to issue these refunds in 2012, shelling out a total of $1 billion to consumers. The total dollar amount of refunds has decreased each year since then, as insurers have adjusted to charging less for premiums and operating more efficiently. Insurers paid back $504 million to customers in 2013.

The market for individual insurance policies has made the biggest gains in efficiency, spending 11.5% of premiums on overhead costs last year, down from 15.3% in 2011.

Individuals will either receive a check in the mail, a direct reimbursement to a bank account, or as a discount to future premiums.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 24, 2014: 3:43 PM ET

A sharp decline in the number of international student visas has many of America’s colleges and universities on edge — and some say the Trump administration’s tough stance on immigration might be partly to blame.

The number of F-1 visas issued to foreign students seeking to attend college and other types of academic institutions in the United States decreased by 17% in the year that ended September 30, 2017, according to recent State Department data.

“The current administration’s ‘America First’ mantra is causing [international students] a great deal of anxiety and fear,” said Earl Johnson, vice president of enrollment and student services at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma. “Also, the cost of college tuition, on average, has gone up 40% in the last 10 years. It’s weighing on them.”

That’s bad news for schools that have large international student populations. Nearly 20% of the University of Tulsa’s 4,400 enrolled students hail from overseas.

Johnson said his school has experienced declines in international enrollment for a few years now and it is starting to hurt revenue. The university has even placed a school official in China to recruit more students from overseas.

F-1 visa approvals were trending higher for nearly a decade when they peaked at more than 600,000 in 2015. But they have dropped off dramatically since.

The United States issued a total of 393,573 F-1 visas in fiscal 2017, down from 471,728 in 2016. The government did not release the total number of F-1 visa applications it receives in a given year or how many applications were rejected.

The biggest decline in visa approvals in 2017 was seen among students from Asian countries, particularly those from China and India which typically account for the largest number of F-1 visas.

Related: College tuition is still getting more expensive

A number of factors could be driving the declines, said Allan Goodman, president of the nonprofit Institute of International Education.

While students are evaluating the cost of studying in the US versus somewhere else, they are also tuning in to the political rhetoric on immigration. “Inevitably, it does lead them to ask, ‘Will I be welcome here?” said Goodman.

But there are other factors that are also playing a role, he said. In China specifically, a 2014 change in visa policy allows Chinese students to obtain an F-1 visa for a five-year period instead of one, freeing them from having to renew their visa each year. That change alone could contribute to the recent declines, said Goodman.

Worldwide competition for international students is also heating up, he said. The United States used to account for almost half of all international students worldwide. Now about 24% of all international students come here, said Goodman.

Instead, they are going to countries like Canada, Germany and Australia, which are making it easier for international students to stay in the country after they graduate and become part of the workforce.

Related: Despite DACA uncertainty, these Dreamers are still determined to go to college

Meanwhile in the United States, the government’s tougher stance on its popular H-1B foreign work visa, a common visa pathway for highly-skilled foreign workers, is making it harder for new graduates to remain in the country and could be deterring overseas students from applying to American colleges.

While neither the law nor any regulations regarding foreign student visas have changed, the State Department said it has revised its guidance to US consulates that review and approve the applications. The agency said it now emphasizes that the consulates “must refuse” any applicants if they are “not satisfied that the applicant’s present intent is to depart the United States at the conclusion of his or her study.”

“We believe that studying in the U.S. continues to provide the best educational opportunities in the world, introduces international students to networks that provide benefits and advantages well after their studies conclude, and gives graduates a life-long connection to the U.S,” a State Department official said.

“Having international students benefits the United States in many areas, in science and technology, even the number of Nobel laureates we produce,” said Goodman.

And international students add diversity to the classroom, he added. “Most Americans don’t study abroad. At the very least, they get a sense of the outside world from the eight to 10 different nationalities in their classroom,” he said.

“It’s a fairly uncertain time for all higher education institutions in the US,” Johnson said. “Right now we feel the glass is half full. We are seeing a greater number of started applications from students overseas, but we have to wait and see how many complete their applications for the fall.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 12, 2018: 7:33 PM ET

Forty years ago, business leaders couldn’t imagine entire career paths in diversity management, let alone schools offering diversity and inclusion specialties.

But now, chief diversity officers at Facebook, Google and other high-profile companies are taking deeper looks at how companies hire, promote and welcome employees from all backgrounds.

The business world is finally paying attention — and so are prospective leaders.

But what does it take to succeed in this growing field?

“I certainly didn’t grow up thinking ‘I’m gonna be the head of diversity at a company somewhere,'” says Candice Morgan, head of inclusion and diversity at Pinterest. “I didn’t know that was a career path.”

In college, Morgan studied psychology and business, where she fell in love with classes like “Business Across Cultures.” In her psychology classes, she learned more about how cultural and ethnic differences affect the ways we interact. In her business classes, she focused on how companies can help prepare employees for those interactions.

At Pinterest, Morgan works with colleagues beyond the human resources and recruitment teams. She even collaborated on a new product feature released last year, allowing users to filter their search results by skin tone.

She also spends a lot of time talking to employees about their experiences and dreams for their careers. Enabling them, she says, is key to her work.

“I split inclusion work into three areas: are people showing up? Are they developing? And are they advancing into leadership positions?” she says. “All of that is part of the metrics or the output.”

Rosanna Durruthy, head of global diversity, inclusion and belonging at LinkedIn, says she also spends a good amount of time thinking about relationships at work.

“There are still businesses or industries where the [lack of] representation creates ‘onlyness,’ as I describe it,” she says. “They may be the only one who represents their demographic: the only woman or the only person of color.”

But as she tells future diversity leaders, you also have to know the business. What does it take to be successful at this organization? What goals are important to leaders? Are these goals accessible for all employees?

These questions, Durruthy says, are important to understanding the work of a diversity and inclusion officer. They help remake the culture of the company, not just the look of its workforce.

Two years ago, Tufts University launched its diversity and inclusion leadership program, an interdisciplinary program aimed at preparing students for diversity roles across industries. The idea, says Robert Cook, dean of the graduate school of arts and sciences at Tufts, is that students in the program learn from a variety of different fields, all of which can combine to prepare them for a position that’s becoming ever more popular.

“Increasingly, it’s a profession. Increasingly, it’s getting greater attention from all sorts of institutions,” he says. “What we want to do is give people the leadership skills to understand how organizations work, as well as the analytical skills so that they can be effective at their jobs.”

Ciara Trinidad, program manager for inclusion and diversity at Netflix, says she’s learned to appreciate how all these different pieces come together. From there, she says, good diversity and inclusion leaders have to make sure that message permeates all levels of the organization, beyond just the recruitment team or the executive team.

“Companies are like ‘we care so much about diversity and inclusion, but if you were to go and ask a lower-level manager, ‘Why do you care about diversity and inclusion?’ they would have no idea,” she says. “That’s the problem.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported Ciara Trinidad’s title at Netflix.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 22, 2018: 12:03 PM ET