Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3606

Bill Overview

Title: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement to specify an effective period of transfer of Post-9/11 educational assistance to a dependent, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill removes the requirement that an individual transferring a Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance entitlement must specify the period for which the transfer must be effective for each dependent who is designated to receive the transfer.

Sponsors: Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Target Audience

Population: Dependents of veterans and servicemembers eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits

Estimated Size: 1800000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Military Spouse (Jacksonville, NC)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This change will make it a lot easier for us to plan our children's education without worrying about splitting periods between them.
  • It removes a layer of stress when making decisions about future education for our kids.

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 7

Veteran Services Counselor (San Antonio, TX)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy simplifies the transfer process for many families I work with. It's a mild stress reliever for them.
  • It's a procedure that was often confusing for the servicemembers I assisted.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

University Admissions Officer (Boston, MA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This change might not directly affect my wellbeing, but it removes an unnecessary hurdle for families, potentially leading to higher educational uptake.
  • I expect to see slightly smoother applications.

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

PhD Student (Seattle, WA)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • For those starting the process, this could make accessing education funding much less daunting.
  • I didn't have an issue before, but it's a welcomed simplification.

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

Undergraduate Student (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I haven't had to deal with the transfer process personally, but anything simpler is better.
  • My parents seem less stressed about managing these benefits for me and my siblings.

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 7

Retired Military Officer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This seems like it would have been helpful when I was dividing benefits among my children.
  • It provides more flexibility for families.

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

Graduate Student (Denver, CO)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I won't have to worry about dividing time with my siblings when using this benefit.
  • Feels like a safety net knowing it won't be as complex.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

High School Counselor (Tampa, FL)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Over the years, I've seen too many families struggle with understanding this process. This should help.
  • Although it doesn’t affect my family directly now, it's a good move.

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

Servicemember (Virginia Beach, VA)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This makes it a lot easier when thinking about my kids' future education plans.
  • The less paperwork and specifications, the better.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

IT Specialist (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While my experience with the benefits transfer wasn't too difficult, I can see this helping others.
  • A good change, but I'm personally neutral in its effect.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Key Considerations