Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen oversight and disclosures relating to foreign support for institutions of higher education, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill revises oversight and disclosure requirements related to foreign sources and institutions of higher education (IHEs). For example, the bill establishes the Office for Foreign Gifts and Contracts Oversight within the Department of Education. Additionally, the bill requires an IHE to disclose to the office any gift or contract from a foreign source that (1) is valued at $50,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts or contracts within a calendar year (current disclosure threshold is $250,000 or more); or (2) has an undetermined monetary value.
Sponsors: Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN-3]
Target Audience
Population: People in U.S. institutions of higher education
Estimated Size: 3500000
- The bill targets the oversight and disclosure related to foreign support in U.S. institutions of higher education.
- All U.S. institutions of higher education (IHEs) that receive gifts or enter into contracts with foreign sources will be affected by this bill.
- The bill intends to create greater transparency for sizable or undetermined value contributions from foreign entities, lowering the threshold from $250,000 to $50,000 for reporting.
- IHE administrators responsible for compliance, international relations departments, and legal teams with contracts from foreign sources will be directly involved in the adjustments this bill requires.
- Indirectly, foreign entities providing funding or entering agreements with U.S. IHEs will also be affected as their interactions will now be more transparent.
- Students, researchers, and staff involved in or benefiting from foreign-funded programs or projects might see shifts in operation or available funding.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily impacts institutions of higher education (IHEs) with foreign funding, with a focus on disclosure and transparency.
- Administrators, compliance teams, and academics managing foreign funds will face the most significant operational impact.
- A small portion of students and faculty may experience shifts in funding or projects, impacting wellbeing indirectly.
- Most general faculty and students will likely see minimal direct effects; impact severity is primarily on those directly managing or receiving substantial foreign-funded resources.
- Given the economic scope, large institutions or those with significant international engagement will face more changes, while smaller colleges might not be affected.
- The degree of impact will vary across institutions; larger research-focused universities might adjust their administrative structures more significantly than small liberal arts colleges with limited foreign engagement.
Simulated Interviews
Director of International Programs (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think increased transparency is important but implementing these changes will require more resources and adjustment period.
- I anticipate a busy period as we adjust our processes to comply with new reporting requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that some international collaborations might be affected, possibly limiting resources for my research.
- It is important to know where funding comes from, but it shouldn't hinder academic progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University President (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased oversight is a positive step, though it might require substantial administrative overhaul and resource allocation.
- We'll need to ensure this does not deter potential beneficial international collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Undergraduate student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy doesn't complicate my plans to study abroad.
- Important for accountability, but adjustments shouldn't impact students outwardly.
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 |
Compliance Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will require significant procedural updates and training.
- Necessary for transparency, but resources for compliance are critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Research Analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's some uncertainty about how these changes might affect funding availability for research.
- It's crucial to maintain international funding while meeting new rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Legal Advisor (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased regulation is positive for oversight but requires careful legal navigation.
- Advisory work will increase as institutions adapt to new requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Financial Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems justified for transparency, though initial costs for implementation will be high.
- It's important to balance costs with the benefit of increased transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Recent graduate (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is crucial for students to have transparent partnerships and funding sources.
- As alumni, we value knowledge of secure and ethical sources of funding.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with the increasing need for accountability in higher education funding.
- The challenge will be ensuring institutions adhere without stunting beneficial international relations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 5: $8500000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation of the disclosure requirements may create administrative burdens on higher education institutions, necessitating increased funding for compliance activities.
- The effectiveness of the new oversight office will largely depend on adequate funding and staffing to handle potentially increased volumes of reports.
- There may be pushback from educational institutions regarding privacy and the administrative burden of the lowered threshold for disclosure.