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: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Students with disabilities in higher education
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill focuses on students with disabilities in higher education, aiming to increase their access and graduation rates.
- It involves TRIO programs, which are federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those with disabilities.
- The bill also emphasizes creating offices of accessibility on campuses, which would directly impact students with disabilities by providing tailored support during their education journey.
- Globally, the number of individuals with disabilities is significant; WHO estimates around 15% of the global population has some form of disability.
- The target population is students with disabilities currently or potentially attending higher education institutions worldwide.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on improving accessibility to higher education for students with disabilities, a group historically underserved and facing unique challenges.
- With roughly 19% of U.S. undergraduates reporting disabilities, the target pool of potential beneficiaries is significant, necessitating a budget-aware approach to reach the most impactful changes.
- TRIO programs and accessibility offices will provide tailored support that could improve not only academic outcomes but also personal wellbeing over time, enhancing graduation rates and satisfaction.
- Some students may not be directly impacted by this policy, either because their institutions already offer comprehensive support or they do not require additional assistance, highlighting the need for diverse simulation scenarios.
- Consideration of costs related to establishing and operating accessibility offices versus adding supplemental funding to TRIO programs represents a crucial balance for maximizing impact under budget constraints.
Simulated Interviews
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The support I currently receive is limited and often misaligned with my needs.
- Increased support and tailored resources would significantly enhance my academic experience.
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 |
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to better technology and specialized tutors through the policy could greatly support my studies.
- Currently, I face significant challenges with my coursework due to insufficiently accommodated course materials.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An office of accessibility would help with understanding and support from faculty and peers.
- Social barriers are major challenges; this policy could bridge some gaps.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Current support is minimal; expanded resources could improve inclusion and success.
- Better communication tools and interpreter access would be a game-changer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Educational Administrator (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional funding will strengthen our programs, allowing us to better support students' unique needs.
- We're excited about the possibilities the policy opens for expanding our reach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accessibility improvements could significantly reduce physical and logistical barriers.
- I often struggle with participating fully in campus activities and classes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Focused support through this policy could help manage my academic workload better.
- Currently, I lack the organizational support I need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved mental health support systems would be greatly beneficial.
- Navigating higher education with severe anxiety without comprehensive support is challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Staff (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide us the resources we need to make meaningful improvements.
- We are currently understaffed and unable to meet all student needs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional supports, especially with access to adaptive technologies, would enhance my learning experience.
- Currently, there are significant gaps in the support I receive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $460000000, High: $560000000)
Year 3: $520200000 (Low: $468000000, High: $572000000)
Year 5: $541208000 (Low: $486108000, High: $596308000)
Year 10: $593501400 (Low: $533351400, High: $653651400)
Year 100: $1249613348 (Low: $1124652013, High: $1374574683)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring sufficient funding and resources for new accessibility offices in higher education institutions.
- Potential challenges in increasing TRIO funding in current budget constraints.
- Long-term benefits versus short-term costs need thorough analysis.