Bill Overview
Title: Equality for Families with Disabilities Act
Description: This bill requires state child welfare systems, as a condition of participation in certain federal grant programs, to provide supportive family services and procedural safeguards for individuals with disabilities who are parents, legal guardians, relatives, other caregivers, foster or adoptive parents, or seeking to become foster or adoptive parents.
Sponsors: Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with disabilities who are parents, legal guardians, relatives, other caregivers, foster or adoptive parents, or seeking to become foster or adoptive parents
Estimated Size: 5000000
- There are an estimated 1 billion people in the world living with disabilities, as noted by the World Health Organization.
- Disabilities come in a wide range, including physical, mental, sensory, and intellectual, and can affect individuals across all demographics.
- A significant portion of those with disabilities are parents or caregivers, who could be directly impacted by the bill's provision for supportive services in child welfare systems.
- Foster care and adoption services internationally and within the US are areas where there is direct interaction with child welfare systems.
- People wanting to become foster or adoptive parents will also be directly impacted by these procedural safeguards.
- The US census estimates there are over 40 million individuals in the United States who have a disability.
- The National Council on Disability reports a high percentage of people with disabilities being parents.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to support parents and individuals with disabilities in the child welfare system, which is a crucial step given the challenges they often face.
- Estimating wellbeing changes involves understanding barriers these individuals face without support, and the potential improvements from provided services.
- The budget must stretch across millions eligible, limiting amount per person, hence benefits might vary from substantial to nominal depending on circumstances.
Simulated Interviews
Stay-at-home mom (Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make navigating child welfare easier.
- Extra support services would be beneficial for family in terms of better access to resources.
- Concerned if the funding would reach everyone equally.
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 | 7 | 3 |
Software Engineer (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful but cautious about effective implementation.
- Procedural safeguards are absolutely essential for fair treatment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy would level the playing field in foster applications.
- Supportive services might help with communication barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Teacher (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about ensuring adequate support for kids with disabilities.
- Hopefully, this brings more understanding in the system.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for supportive services could be life-changing.
- Unequal distribution and bureaucratic maze might hinder effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Medical Assistant (Alabama)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Eager to see positive effects on the adoption process.
- Possibly not thorough enough given the policy’s broad application versus limited funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
College Student (Ohio)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could offer a significant lift with careful implementation.
- Worries about funding spread too thin.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Social Worker (New Mexico)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements could ripple through generations.
- Real-world impact depends heavily on state management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired (Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hesitant about how impactful the policy might be for caregivers.
- Proper safeguards imperative for fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Retail worker (Montana)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about the possibility of smoother adoption pathways.
- Risk of resources not being equitably distributed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $660000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $720000000)
Year 5: $650000000 (Low: $520000000, High: $780000000)
Year 10: $700000000 (Low: $560000000, High: $840000000)
Year 100: $800000000 (Low: $640000000, High: $960000000)
Key Considerations
- The varying costs across states depending on existing infrastructure and services for parents with disabilities.
- Potential legal challenges or requirements for states lacking existing programs or policies.
- The challenge of gathering comprehensive data on the targeted population to measure impact and success of the program.