This analysis examines alternative ways to use the approximately $6 billion now spent annually on Pell Grants to produce higher maximum awards for low-income students. The need for such alternatives is based on the rapidly declining value of the maximum Pell Grant as a percentage of college costs. A table offers 5-year baseline projections under the current allocation formula. The paper then evaluates each of seven alternative allocation formulas; (1) "frontloading" the awards or limiting Pell Grants to first- and second-year students only; (2) exclusion of all students attending proprietary institutions; (3) frontloading plus exclusion of proprietary students; (4) targeting awards on lower-income students and families by raising the assessment rates on income; (5) exclusion of students enrolled in less than one-year programs; (6) exclusion of students enrolled in less than two-year programs; and (7) eliminating all awards smaller than $600. Tables compare the seven alternatives for cost savings, maximum grants possible, and changes in the distribution of grants among public, private, and proprietary institutions. Discussion highlights major differences and effects of each of these alternatives. The paper concludes that a case can be made for each of these options but all demonstrate that, within current budgetary limits, greater access can be achieved than the current allocation formula permits. (DB)