Bill Overview
Title: Safe Equitable Campus Resources and Education Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill requires the annual campus security report provided by institutions of higher education to current and prospective students and employees to address the needs of individuals with disabilities. Among other requirements, the report and its related materials must (1) be made available free of charge, in a timely manner, and in accessible formats to individuals with disabilities; (2) include current campus policies that ensure that their needs are included in emergency response and evacuation procedures; and (3) include an assurance that campus security personnel and others receive training about working with these individuals.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with disabilities attending or working in higher education
Estimated Size: 6000000
- The bill affects institutions of higher education, which exist worldwide.
- These institutions are required to address the needs of individuals with disabilities in terms of campus security and accessibility.
- Individuals with disabilities are the primary target of this legislation, ensuring they receive necessary accommodations.
- Globally, there are approximately 1 billion people living with disabilities, but the subset relevant here is those attending or potentially attending higher education institutions.
- This is a subset of the global population, focusing on those seeking or currently in higher education.
Reasoning
- The budget is designed to be spent on ensuring that institutions of higher education accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities, focusing on security and accessibility.
- We assume a diverse population, including students with different types of disabilities such as physical, cognitive, or sensory impairments.
- Other individuals include campus staff and faculty with disabilities who would benefit from enhanced safety and accessibility protocols.
- The policy is particularly significant in institutions with less developed infrastructure for disability support, while those with existing high standards may see minimal impact.
- We need to represent how different demographic groups perceive such support, including age, occupation, and personal experiences.
- Not everyone will experience an immediate increase in wellbeing scores, particularly if they already feel supported or are in environments that exceed minimum compliance.
- The policy might indirectly affect people without disabilities by promoting overall campus security understanding and implementation.
Simulated Interviews
Undergraduate student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful about these changes because I sometimes feel overlooked during campus safety drills.
- Accessible formats for resources will make it easier for me to keep track of safety updates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Campus IT support (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Training campus security in communication techniques with people like me seems overdue and necessary.
- I expect better response times and understanding during emergencies.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate student (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved this is getting attention. Sometimes evacuation plans don't account for mobility needs.
- It's reassuring to know security personnel will get specific training.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Faculty member (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is necessary, but I fear implementation might be rushed or not well communicated.
- I've faced challenges during emergencies where additional support was needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freshman student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a great initiative. It should make campus a safer place for everyone—not just those with disabilities.
- It's good to know my roommate will have extra assurance during emergencies.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Campus administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in resources allocated for training and documentation is beneficial.
- This adds to the complexity of my role but is a necessary step forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
PhD Candidate (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative should help students like me who often feel neglected in safety scenarios.
- Hopeful about increased awareness and accommodation.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Junior professor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This aligns perfectly with the curriculum I teach. It'll provide real-world context for students.
- Increased training will prove valuable, though my direct wellbeing impact may be minimal.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Senior student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about new resources highlighting disability needs in emergencies.
- This will contribute positively to our group’s advocacy efforts.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate research assistant (Columbus, OH)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feeling assured that people are trained in understanding diverse needs is comforting.
- The availability of resources in accessible formats is essential for effective communication.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4100000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4500000, High: $6800000)
Year 10: $6500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $7500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Most costs would be absorbed by higher education institutions, many of which are publicly funded or subsidized, potentially increasing public expenditure in education indirectly.
- The positive impact on inclusivity and accessibility might not have immediately measurable economic returns but can foster a more equitable educational environment.