Bill Overview
Title: Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Coordination Improvement Act
Description: This bill requires certain actions to increase federal oversight of proprietary (i.e., for-profit) institutions of higher education (IHEs). Specifically, the bill establishes the Proprietary Education Interagency Oversight Coordination Committee and sets forth its duties and membership. The bill also directs the Department of Education (ED) to collect and track student complaints regarding the services or activities of any proprietary IHE that is eligible for federal education assistance. Further, ED must publish a warning list for parents and students that is comprised of proprietary IHEs that have engaged in certain activities, including those that have been sued for financial relief or have pending claims for borrower relief discharge.
Sponsors: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: Students enrolled in for-profit institutions of higher education
Estimated Size: 1800000
- The bill targets proprietary (for-profit) institutions of higher education, which are institutions that operate for profit rather than as traditional public or private non-profit colleges and universities.
- These institutions enroll students who are often non-traditional and may include a higher proportion of low-income, minority, or adult learners seeking career-oriented education.
- Government data shows that around 7-8% of postsecondary students in the U.S. are enrolled in for-profit institutions.
- The global for-profit higher education market is significant, with these types of institutions present in various forms around the world, suggesting a substantial global population could be affected.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on increasing oversight of proprietary educational institutions in the U.S., impacting approximately 1.5 to 2 million students who are currently enrolled at such institutions.
- The budget limitation means the program needs to be efficiently executed, reaching significant portions of this group, especially those in vulnerable economic positions.
- Well-being scores may shift due to improved transparency and protection from sub-par educational practices, though some may feel negative impacts due to increased regulations possibly increasing tuition costs or reducing program availability.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I chose this school because it offered a flexible schedule that fit my work needs.
- I've heard horror stories about debt and low job prospects after graduation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Tech Support Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have concerns about the accreditation of the program and post-graduation support.
- More oversight might ensure better program quality.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Unemployed (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been tough dealing with the debt and looking for jobs when my school shut down.
- This policy seems like it would have helped prevent my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
High School Graduate (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about taking out loans without knowing the outcomes.
- If this helps make things clearer, I'm all for it.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems irrelevant to me, but I support measures that help people avoid scams.
- For-profit colleges have a mixed reputation.
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 |
Part-time worker (Nashville, TN)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Oversight could ensure my degree actually helps me find work in my field.
- I'm apprehensive about tuition costs rising due to increased regulations.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulating these schools is essential for student protection.
- While I wouldn't be directly affected, it's a necessary step.
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 |
High School Student (Denver, CO)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hearing more about schools before attending is helpful.
- The policy seems like a good move for more transparency.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Registered Nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There needs to be assurance about educational quality given the costs involved.
- I hope this policy discourages misleading claims from schools.
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 |
Freelance Photographer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I felt my education didn't fully prepare me for the industry as promised.
- If this policy had been in place, things might have been different for me.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The administrative cost of maintaining the oversight committee needs to be justified by the expected benefits in oversight improvements.
- Long-term strategic goals should include demographic-specific support for students affected by changes in proprietary IHE operations.
- The implications for state-level educational institutions should be considered, especially in areas heavily dependent on for-profit education.