Bill Overview
Title: Expanding Disability Access to Higher Education Act
Description: This bill establishes and revises programs to increase access to higher education for students with disabilities and increase their graduation rates. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Education (ED) to award additional funds under existing TRIO programs (i.e., programs designed to identify and support disadvantaged students) to increase the number of individuals with disabilities served by such programs; award grants to institutions of higher education to establish offices of accessibility on their campuses to support students and staff with disabilities; and collect data on students served by TRIO programs and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, including with respect to student persistence in such programs, graduation rates, postsecondary enrollment rates, and supports provided to enrolled students. The bill also directs the Government Accountability Office to review and report on how ED and TRIO program agencies identify and support students with disabilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Wild, Susan [D-PA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Students with disabilities seeking higher education
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill aims to support students with disabilities by enhancing access to higher education and improving their chances of graduation.
- Globally, it can be estimated that people with disabilities make up approximately 15% of the population according to the World Health Organization.
- Not every individual with a disability will seek higher education, but this act ensures more opportunities and support systems for those who do.
- The focus is primarily on enhancing accessibility and support structures in higher education institutions worldwide.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily includes students with disabilities who are pursuing higher education.
- This demographic is assumed to include around 4 million individuals in the U.S., based largely on existing statistics and anticipated trends.
- Not all individuals within this demographic will directly benefit, but a considerable portion, especially those in TRIO programs, are expected to see improvements in educational outcomes.
- Various perspectives need to be covered, ranging from those who derive significant benefits to those who see little impact.
- Budget constraints imply that the most significant impacts will likely concentrate on those directly interfacing with supported educational programs.
Simulated Interviews
college student (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think more support can really help people like me navigate college better.
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 | 8 | 6 |
graduate student (Austin, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having accessible resources on campus would make a big difference in my daily life and studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
education consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing awareness and support for disabilities in colleges is essential. This policy is a step in the right direction.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
freshman college student (Burlington, VT)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often struggle with coursework. Additional support would really help me stay in college.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
university sophomore (Boston, MA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The campus has done a lot already, but more funding could bring more inclusive tech.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
junior college student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The added accessibility on campus would most likely make learning more manageable.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
part-time student (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing work and study is tough. More support could mean I finish my degree faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
community college counselor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding should help community colleges support students with disabilities better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
recent graduate (San Diego, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great, but I wish these changes had come earlier during my studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
early career professional (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will empower more students to complete their education, something every institution should strive for.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 2: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's success heavily relies on the effective establishment and operation of offices of accessibility and program enhancements on university campuses.
- Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes will be essential to ensure funds are utilized efficiently and the desired increase in graduation rates is achieved.
- There may be considerable variation in the cost of accessibility offices and data collection based on the size and location of higher education institutions.