Bill Overview
Title: HBCU RISE Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a pilot program to increase capacity for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that are designated as high research activity status to achieve very high research activity status. High research activity status (known as R2 status) and very high research activity status (known as R1 status) are classifications by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. In carrying out the pilot program, DOD must award grants for key areas of scientific research to HBCUs that are classified as high research activity status institutions. DOD may expand the program to other HBCUs beyond those that are classified as high research activity status if DOD determines that the program can support such an expansion. DOD must annually establish a list of key areas of scientific research for which grant applicants may seek funding.
Sponsors: Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with HBCUs
Estimated Size: 1800000
- The bill targets HBCUs aiming to move from R2 to R1 status, thus impacting those institutions directly by potentially increasing their research funding and capabilities.
- African American students, who are the primary demographic of HBCUs, may see indirect benefits from improved resources and research opportunities.
- The faculty and staff at HBCUs with R2 status will be directly involved in the grants, impacting their work environment and research opportunities.
- If the program expands beyond R2 HBCUs, all HBCUs could be impacted, but initially, only those at R2 status are major targets.
Reasoning
- The HBCU RISE Act directly impacts historically Black colleges and universities, aiming to boost their research capabilities. This can potentially improve education quality and economic opportunities for students and staff affiliated with these institutions.
- Consideration of how students, faculty, and the broader community around these HBCUs perceive this change and how it impacts their wellbeing is crucial.
- The policy is specifically targeted, with a limited number of universities initially eligible, meaning many in the community might not see impacts until further expansion is feasible.
- Budget constraints necessitate focusing on institutions that are close to achieving R1 status, potentially leaving some institutions with less direct benefit in the initial stages.
Simulated Interviews
Undergraduate Student (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for increased research funding makes me excited about more opportunities to engage in meaningful research.
- Currently, opportunities are limited and competitive; this might broaden my chances.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Research Professor (Durham, North Carolina)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents an opportunity to secure more funding for my research projects.
- Funding can enhance the research output and infrastructure of our institution.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Administrative Staff (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more grant opportunities, our workload might increase, but it's a positive challenge for our university.
- I see this as a chance to strengthen our institution's academic standing.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding can mean better resources for my experiments and potentially more personal development.
- There's uncertainty if the policy will reach our department though.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding HBCUs is an essential step toward equity in higher education, but it's important that the funds are efficiently used.
- Monitoring the outcomes of such policies can be crucial to inform future expansion.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Community Outreach Coordinator (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could indirectly bring more resources to our programs if the universities strengthen.
- It's vital we ensure this funding reaches a wide audience, including our collaborative efforts.
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 |
Recent Graduate (Jackson, Mississippi)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the funding improves graduate programs, it might encourage me to return for more studies.
- I hope to see a noticeable improvement in research capacity and opportunities for future students.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
HBCU Alumni Association President (Savannah, Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive move, but truely elevating our institutions demands sustained efforts beyond just research funding.
- The impact will be long-term, hopefully engaging more alumni in support activities.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Private Sector STEM Professional (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in HBCUs' research capabilities can produce graduates better equipped for industry challenges.
- I see this as increasing potential partnerships with our company and HBCUs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Department Chair at an HBCU (Nashville, Tennessee)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced funding options can revolutionize our infrastructure and faculty recruitment.
- I'm keen to see how our department's research output improves over the years.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $45000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $46000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $51000000)
Year 5: $47000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $52000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The number of HBCUs initially classified as high research activity status will determine the initial scope of the program.
- The success of the pilot program may lead to further legislative actions to expand similar initiatives.
- Consideration of the broader impact on U.S. higher education and its global competitiveness.