Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement to specify an effective period of a transfer of Post-9/11 educational assistance to a dependent.
Description: This bill removes the requirement that an individual transferring a Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance entitlement must specify the period for which the transfer must be effective for each dependent who is designated to receive the transfer.
Sponsors: Rep. Murphy, Gregory [R-NC-3]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
Estimated Size: 3700000
- The bill affects individuals who are eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which include veterans who have served after September 11, 2001.
- It specifically impacts those veterans who wish to transfer their educational benefits to their dependents.
- Dependents designated to receive educational benefits from veterans will also be directly impacted.
- There are approximately 3.7 million Post-9/11 veterans eligible for such benefits.
- Not all eligible veterans will have dependents or choose to transfer benefits, reducing the actual target population.
Reasoning
- Not every eligible veteran has dependents or will make use of this benefit transfer, thus reducing the actual user base.
- The wellbeing impact varies depending on current access to education for dependents and the ease of the transfer process.
- Some families will benefit greatly, especially those with multiple dependents seeking education.
- Budget constraints will limit the number of dependents who can receive benefits, which means that not all potential recipients will be served.
- The policy might make a big difference initially as it simplifies the process and provides more flexibility.
- Some potential users might not feel any impact if they do not plan to transfer their benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Veteran transitioning to civilian employment (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is great. I have more freedom to decide how best to use my benefits for my kids over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired military officer (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm happy under this new policy as it makes the process simpler. My son's college plans won't be hindered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Active duty service member (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally, this policy doesn't change anything right now, but it might be useful down the line.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Veteran, small business owner (Florida)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might have been more helpful a few years ago. It's not impacting me significantly now.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Veteran, works in tech support (New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled with this policy. It provides us the flexibility we need to best support our child's education over the years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Veteran turned logistics manager (Washington)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy does help, but as my kids are quite young, I plan to use the benefits for myself first.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Air Force, now a school teacher (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even without this policy, we were managing fine. It doesn't affect us very much.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Veteran, works in tourism (Hawaii)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sets us up better for the future flexibility in education planning for our kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Active duty soldier with college plans (North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a forward-thinking policy that gives my new family more options for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Veteran, freelance writer (Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn’t affect me yet, but having this option available might be beneficial in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $135000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $175000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Year 10: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy provides increased educational opportunities for dependents of veterans without specifying the use timeline, increasing flexibility.
- Historically, when barriers to benefit usage are reduced, uptake by eligible individuals tends to increase.
- Administrative costs might be higher initially to inform veterans about new opportunities and modifications.
- Veterans and families may reconsider educational plans, possibly delaying immediate use upon the elimination of transfer timelines.