Bill Overview
Title: Helen Keller National Center Reauthorization Act of 2021
Description: 2 This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind.
Sponsors: Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]
Target Audience
Population: People who are deaf-blind
Estimated Size: 50000
- The primary purpose of the Helen Keller National Center is to support individuals who are deaf-blind, providing them with resources to improve their quality of life.
- The population includes both youths and adults who have both severe hearing and vision impairments.
- The prevalence of deaf-blindness is quite rare compared to other disabilities, but it still affects thousands of individuals globally.
Reasoning
- The Helen Keller National Center Reauthorization Act continues to fund and support services specifically for individuals who are deaf-blind. The bill also affects a very specific population subset, primarily those who directly benefit from these services or are eligible to participate in them.
- The funding limits impose a constraint on the number of people who can be significantly affected given the large national estimate of people who are deaf-blind.
- To reflect the common reality for most US citizens, I included a range of people—from those directly benefiting heavily from the policy to those who will not experience any direct benefits due to not being part of the target population. This acknowledges that the vast majority of US citizens are not directly impacted, while the affected population receives varying levels of benefits based on their engagement and proximity to services.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization is a lifeline for those like me who are deaf-blind and rely on services from the Helen Keller National Center.
- I hope the center can expand its employment support programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Social Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization is crucial to ensure that increased awareness and support continue for the deaf-blind community.
- It also needs to focus on integrating more advanced technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continued funding will help maintain the programs I rely on for communication and mobility.
- It's vital for older individuals like me to have access to these resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The support from the center has been transformative, giving my life direction.
- Funding for technology and academic resources is especially important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this help maintain essential services but need to ensure innovation and growth.
- Volunteer-based programs should be emphasized for sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Denver, CO)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recognition and continued support for deaf-blind veterans would be great.
- The center plays a vital role in my life, maintaining its funding is important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Software Developer (Boston, MA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy doesn't directly affect me, I'm glad support continues for those who need it.
- Awareness initiatives and community involvement can foster inclusivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Fitness Instructor (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding helps create more opportunities for family activities and adaptive sports.
- Emotional support services are equally important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Direct services from the Center make daily life bearable.
- More resources should be funneled into mobility aids and training programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Marketing Specialist (Detroit, MI)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thankful hearing more positive impacts on the community I support through my work.
- Policies like these enhance community ties and encourage volunteerism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $13000000)
Year 2: $12250000 (Low: $11250000, High: $13250000)
Year 3: $12500000 (Low: $11500000, High: $13500000)
Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $14000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $16000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The target population for services includes 50,000 deaf-blind individuals nationally.
- Funding levels will support program maintenance and potentially slight expansions to accommodate increased service demands.
- Given inflationary pressures, funding increases have been aligned to cover rising operational costs.