Bill Overview
Title: Higher Education Access and Success for Homeless and Foster Youth Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 This bill requires certain actions to support access to higher education for children and youth who are homeless or in foster care. Among other provisions, the bill requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) participating in financial aid programs to give priority to these students for any on-campus housing during and between academic terms. Further, the bill requires IHEs to designate a staff liaison to assist these students with support services, programs, and community resources in a variety of areas, including financial aid and housing. The bill also requires these students to receive in-state tuition rates at public IHEs. Under current law, some states offer these students in-state tuition or provide them with tuition waivers.
Sponsors: Rep. Clark, Katherine M. [D-MA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Children and youth who are homeless or in foster care
Estimated Size: 600000
- The bill specifically targets children and youth who are homeless or in foster care, impacting their access to higher education.
- Homeless and foster youth often face significant barriers to accessing higher education, including financial challenges and lack of support systems.
- The legislation seeks to provide these youth with priority access to on-campus housing, which can significantly alleviate housing instability during their studies.
- The provision of staff liaisons dedicated to supporting these students can enhance their ability to navigate financial aid and access necessary services.
- By ensuring in-state tuition rates, the bill substantially reduces the financial burden on these students, making higher education more accessible.
Reasoning
- The budget and program size constraints imply that not all homeless or foster youth will receive the full benefits of the policy initially; however, the infrastructure (e.g., staff liaisons, policy enforcement) may become more available over time.
- Due to limited resources in the first year, the policy might mainly impact youth located near or attending public institutions that already have some existing supportive measures in place.
- The policy aims at long-term sustainability and access improvements, which suggests a progressive realization of the benefits over the 10-year period.
- It is important to represent individuals who fall within the policy’s target essentially, those in foster care or experiencing homelessness, especially those likely to pursue higher education.
- Simulating a range of ages and circumstances (e.g., foster youth about to age out, already in college, or younger children with college ambitions) offers a broader scope of the policy's potential effects.
- Understanding barriers these individuals face, such as financial, logistic, and psychological, helps to adjust the policy's scope and methodology for evaluation.
Simulated Interviews
College Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a former foster youth, finding secure housing during college breaks is a constant worry.
- The policy could really make a difference by providing me with stable housing all year round.
- Navigating college bureaucracy is hard without guidance, a designated liaison would be invaluable.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
University Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Paying out-of-state tuition has been incredibly difficult.
- On-campus housing year-round would relieve a huge burden.
- Having someone in the university who understands my unique challenges could improve my academic success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
High School Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sounds like it could really make college a possibility for me.
- Knowing there is housing help means one less thing to worry about.
- I wish this kind of support was available sooner in high school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who aged out of the system, having a reliable place to stay during difficult times would change everything.
- In-state tuition could reduce my debt significantly.
- Lacking a support network in school has made everything harder.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Apprentice (Austin, TX)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If I had known this would be in place, I might have stayed in college.
- Securing affordable tuition could make returning more feasible for me.
- A liaison to help would provide much needed direction and support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High School Senior (Detroit, MI)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for in-state tuition eases the financial concern for college.
- Access to housing ensures I can focus on my studies.
- I'm hopeful for the added support network.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Part-time Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program might have kept me from taking a gap year.
- Affordable housing is crucial for my return to school.
- An advisor who knows my situation would be supportive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tuition assistance would lighten my load a lot.
- Having secure housing makes juggling work and studies easier.
- With a point person at school, I could better manage my academic plan.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
High School Sophomore (Denver, CO)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that college will be an attainable dream.
- The support this policy offers gives me confidence for my future.
- It's a relief knowing that these resources might be available when I start college.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Barista (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The prioritization for housing could draw me back to school.
- In-state tuition is encouraging.
- I've faced barriers without a guide through academic and housing processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $31000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $32000000)
Year 5: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $34000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $36000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy requires significant coordination between federal, state, and institutional entities to ensure effective implementation.
- Long-term benefits in education and social stability for the target youth could offset initial costs.
- Differences in state and institutional readiness to adapt to the new requirements might affect implementation speed and cost variances.
- Possible necessity for supplementary funding to institutions to cover changes in tuition structures and additional staffing.