# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Impactful Ninja is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more Learn more .

Hey fellow impactful ninja ?

Stay impactful,

While roadside zoos recently have been in a negative light for their animal rights violations, raising awareness of this global issue, animal cruelty is happening even in some of the most-loved, respected, accredited zoos all over the world. While many more laws now exist that regulate wild animals' possession and exhibition, the situation appears to have remained unaddressed for captive animals. So we had to ask: How can we stop animal cruelty in zoos?

You can help stop animal cruelty in zoos by petitioning your local government to make animal protection laws and donate to animal rights organizations. There are also numerous campaigns against animal cruelty in zoos that you can support or start your own campaign.

If you want to help save animals that are captive in zoos from mistreatment and abuse, this article has several ways for you to take action. No matter who you are or where you live, there is something you can do to help put an end to animal cruelty in zoos all over the world.

Investigate Your Local Zoos

If you have zoos near where you live, do your own personal investigation into their standards. You can contact them by email or phone to inquire about enrichment standards and whether the animals are given time and space to socialize. And you can ask them about what kind of conservation projects they are participating in or what kind of research they may be looking into.

Further your investigation and visit the zoo to see for yourself if what they say is true. Take note of animal demeanors and take pictures of animals, exhibits, or anything that shows potential signs of mistreatment.

It's important to hold zoos accountable for their responsibility to the welfare of their animals. You can reach out to your local zoo and request that they address any issues or shortcomings and better its practices. And encourage others to do the same.

Report Problems or Concerns

If you have a roadside zoo in your neighborhood or a local zoo that appears to be abusing, mistreating, or poorly caring for its animals, report these issues to local and federal authorities. You can call your local police department to make a report. Also, communicate this to the USDA (in the United States), as they are the federal institution responsible for zoo inspections.

You can also inform your county animal protection organization and local city or district politicians working for the zoo's region to express your concern. If they have the resources available, they may also take a look into the problem.

It doesn't hurt to report the zoo to various animal rights groups and nonprofit organizations, as they may help address the issue, too. For example, Born Free USA, a nonprofit fighting to help captive animals, has a form you can fill out online to report problematic zoos in your area. You could also try contacting ASPCA and the ALDF and request their help to spread the word or investigate the issue.

Educate Others and Get Them Involved

There has been a growing concern for the welfare of animals used for entertainment. More recently, many were exposed to some of the critical conservation and welfare issues occurring in roadside zoos by watching Netflix's Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness, which documented problems with public encounters and captive breeding with exotic and wild animals.

However, many are still clueless and don't even know anything bad is happening.

Be a vocal advocate for zoo animals and help educate othersabout the various issues animals in captivity are still facing today.

And while animal welfare concerns exist with all systems of captivity, when it comes to zoos, there are significant differences respecting animal welfare between smaller private zoos that are unaccredited and larger zoos and sanctuaries that have accreditation. It's important to make this distinction and ensure others understand it as well when you discuss this detail.

The small, unaccredited zoos, commonly called roadside zoos, generally operate as a business for profit, often with a focus on entertainment instead of education and conservation. Plus, animals are often made to live in small enclosures or cages and provided limited enrichment or socializing opportunities.

By contrast, larger zoos attempt to mimic animals' natural habitats and environments and only keep animals in enclosures for limited times in the day, and many receive accreditation. However, these zoos are not devoid of their own issues, as many still mistreat animals by abusing or ignoring exhibit standards and laws.

Taking the time to inform others can help grow the movement to end animal cruelty in zoos by raising awareness and getting others active in the cause.

Donate to Organizations Fighting for Animal Rights

There are many organizations out there that are fighting for animal rights. Some groups are dedicated to the problem at large, though you can find some that are focused more pointedly on combating animal cruelty in zoos. Depending on where you live, there may be a local group to support that is actively fighting against problematic zoos in your area.

Larger organizations often are all-encompassing of animal rights and do various charitable acts on a global scale. Some animal rights groups may get some government funding or occasionally receive some financial assistance. But for the most part, these associations are supported with donations from other concerned animal lovers such as yourself. Here are a few animal rights groups fighting for animals worldwide that need your support:

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): While their reputation has dulled a bit over the years, they do a lot to help animals in captivity.

Animal Aid: This UK-based organization concentrates on rescuing abused animals and relocating them, but they also work hard to educate the public and report on zoos with issues.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF): This group files lawsuits for animals in active need of help and provides legal representation on behalf of our furry friends.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA): This group is dedicated to ending animal cruelty in zoos and aquariums.

Born Free USA: This nonprofit organization helps animalis, in captivity or in the wild, to be able to live their lives according to their needs. And, through their online form, you can report problematic zoos in your area to help them fight for these captive animals.

It should be noted, the ASPCA, in particular, has an official Position Statement on Zoos and Aquariums wherein it describes the necessary conditions that zoos and aquariums must meet in their exhibitions to be supported by the organization. The ASPCA believes that accredited and legitimate venues can greatly add to field conservation efforts that support the preservation of natural habitats for wild animals.

The ASPCA also makes a distinction between accredited zoos and aquariums, which focus on education and conservation, and roadside menageries, which subject wild and exotic animals to poor exhibition conditions. Moreover, the organization believes that rigorous standards be met to provide suitably humane care for the captive animals.

The ASPCA is supportive of animal exhibitions in zoos and aquariums if venues meet the following conditions:

The venue employs individuals who are trained and educated in how to tend to the needs of the animals in their care, including physical and psychological needs

Animal enclosures must meet or exceed AMA standards, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) must enforce these standards

Venues push themselves to meet the more precise requirements needed for accreditation by the AZA

Zoos offer displays that are educational and highlight the themes of wild habitat destruction, endangered species, and biodiversity reduction

Venues exhibit behaviors of humane treatment to their animals by meeting all physical needs, providing appropriate and safe social groups of animals, and using positive reinforcement methods for the training needed to assist in medical procedures, and providing beneficial mental stimulation to animals in confinement

Venues participate in breeding programs under strict control and take responsibility for all animals and any offspring, even after they have left their direct care, with "surplus" young prohibited other than to ensure social groupings and gender balances; no venue should transfer surpluses to "canned hunts," medical research facilities or auctions, and no consideration should go to placing animals in the care of private individuals.

Contact Local Government and Advocate for Change

In the United States, only two federal laws-the Animal Welfare Act and the Endangered Species Act -are in place to protect captive animals' welfare, such as those in zoos. Indeed, most things requiring law and government enforcement occur more effectively at the local level. And local laws are most important for combating animal cruelty in zoos.

Some zoos can get away with animal cruelty and see no or very little reprimand because there are no laws or restrictions prohibiting them from their actions. Even if there are local or state animal protection laws in place, exceptions are made for farm animals, laboratory-testing animals, and even wildlife. And depending on the language and context of the law, zoos can be made legally exempt from these laws.

In the U.S. alone, approximately 2,400 zoos are home to hundreds of thousands of animals, many of which do not have legal protection. Exhibitors are required to obtain a license and abide by Animal Welfare Act standards; however, these standards have received criticism for not being sufficiently protective of animals in captivity.

Furthermore, federal laws often are poorly enforced, which results in large numbers of repeat violations in zoos that continue to exhibit animals outside of compliance with the law.

Since state and local laws differ in their capacity, severity, and enforcement, many fail to override the Animal Welfare Act exemptions and fill the gaps in legislation it left behind. What's more, only a few zoos seek out private accreditation, and even many private standards are criticized as inadequate and insufficient in protecting animal welfare.

Write, call, email, or otherwise contact your local congress, mayor, or governor and push for legislation that will regulate zoo operations and protect the animals. Research any existing legislation beforehand so you can accurately address the specific problem you have with the law. And be forthcoming about what you want to accomplish. Be sure to cite an evidential point demonstrating your concern, and state what you want to be done about it.

Here's an example of something you could write:
"Governor Jones, I wish to express my concern about our state's animal protection laws. Currently, the state only has legislation that protects domestic, companion animals, and family farm livestock; however, there is nothing that explicitly protects the rights of animals in captivity. The World Animal Protection group recently discovered that animal mistreatment occurs worldwide in many zoos that the public believed to be well-accredited by a trustworthy source. The abuses have resulted in injuries, illnesses, and deaths of animals worldwide. Our state must implement strict measures prohibiting any such mistreatment from being permitted in zoos that are operating in the region. Enclosed, you'll find a petition that has been signed by 1,000 state citizens requesting that animal protection legislation be drawn up to address these concerns. I urge you to consider these matters quickly."
And keep in mind that our elected officials are there to do the work of the people. If there is a large amount of the public voicing concern for something, politicians will feel pressure to act rapidly and work toward making a change. Encourage your family, friends, and other fellow-animal rights activists to also contact mayors and governors and request that laws be put in place that prohibit animal cruelty in zoos.

Host a Fundraiser or Start Your Own Campaign

ASPCA invites you to join them in action and offer support via TEAM ASPCA to help you create a DIY fundraiser or start your own campaign to help animals in need. They offer great tips and resources on how to "turn your compassion into action" so you can take a stand in the fight to end animal cruelty in zoos.

But you don't need to go through any organization to do this. It's easy to sign up for a free website and create a page that highlights your campaign. You can spread the word through social media and host events to raise awareness and recruit others. There are even a variety of ways to set up accounts to collect donations, which you can use to donate to animal rights groups and help fund your campaign.

Fundraisers can be as simple as putting out some postings on social media or hosting small events at the community center or other common meeting ground in your neighborhood. This is a great way to get the word out about animal abuse in zoos and help raise money that you can donate to your favorite organization to help fight against it.

Join an Animal Rights Group

If you want to help stop animal cruelty in zoos more directly, you can join an animal rights group and get active. Check out various national organizations to find a mission you want to support, and become a member of the cause-some may even have local chapters that regularly meet animal cruelty issues.

Also, look for local groups in your area who may be staging public protests or boycotts; you can take part to help bring awareness to the cause and fight for animals in your own community.

Stand With WAP for Higher Standards From WAZA

An investigative report published in 2019 by World Animal Protection (WAP) entitled " The show can't go on" discovered widespread animal mistreatment occurring in 1,241 venues associated with the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA).

According to WAZA guidelines, members are not to include animals in any display, show, or interactive experience where they are made to perform unnatural or demeaning behaviors. Nonetheless, WAP found 75% of zoos and aquariums affiliated with WAZA were offering irresponsible animal-interaction experiences to their visitors, including forcing captive animals to tricks and using them as props for photos.

WAP is taking action to end this abuse throughout the world's supposedly credible zoos and aquariums and calling out the CEO of WAZA and the President of the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums), urging them to protect wildlife by implementing higher standards in animal welfare and strictly enforcing them at accredited venues.

You can sign and send the email WAP has written to demand that WAZA revoke membership from all its venues currently providing irresponsible attractions to their visitors. We must insist that WAZA do its job as the global alliance of "the world's leading zoos and aquariums."

Furthermore, until WAZA responds to these demands or animal welfare drastically improves, WAP urges everyone to avoid patronizing these venues:

SeaWorld - San Antonio, USA

Jungle Cat World - Canada

African Lion Safari - Canada

Sea World - Australia

Puy du Fou - France

Zoo D'Amnéville - France

Cango Wildlife Ranch - South Africa

Mystic Monkeys & Feather Wildlife Park - South Africa

Zoo Marine - Portugal

Avilon Zoo - Philippines

Dolphin Island (Resort World Sentosa) - Singapore

Ichihara Elephant Kingdom - Japan

Final Thoughts

The best ways to help stop animal cruelty in zoos are to raise awareness and get active in the fight. Joining an animal rights organization is a great way to get involved, help expose issues, educate others, and even lobby governments to change animal protection laws. Even if you can't dedicate time to this, you can always donate money to groups working to end animal cruelty. It doesn't matter what you do to help; it only matters that you do something.

Stay impactful,

Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways How You Can Stop Animal Cruelty in Zoos - Impactful Ninja

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While roadside zoos recently have been in a negative light for their animal rights violations, raising awareness of this global issue, animal cruelty is happening even in some of the most-loved, respected, accredited zoos all over the world. While many more laws now exist that regulate wild animals' possession and exhibition, the situation appears to have remained unaddressed for captive animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internet & “Stupidity” - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the internet is reprogramming our brains. Opponents say technophobia fuels debates about the internet making us stupid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Electoral College has profound effects on the way campaigns are run and elections are won. The Electoral College artificially divides the country into "safe states" and "swing states." Safe states are states where one of the two major political parties has a large advantage and their candidate is likely to win that state's electoral votes regardless of the candidate running for President. Swing states are more politically divided and could potentially go either way in a presidential election. Swing states end up being the primary battleground for candidates because whichever candidate performs better in swing states is likely to prevail in the election. That's why candidates spend approximately 90 percent their time campaigning in about a dozen swing states.

The Electoral College also makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidential election while losing the popular vote. This has happened five times in our nation's history-1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016-and it is likely to happen again in the near future. Though Americans' support for the Electoral College has changed over time, for decades more Americans have wanted to get rid of the Electoral College than keep it.

How to fix the Electoral College

There are two ways of effectively replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote. The first option is passing a constitutional amendment to achieve that goal.

Constitutional Amendment

Though a constitutional amendment would be the most direct way to get rid of the Electoral College, passing that amendment would be extremely difficult because most swing states will not want to give up their outsized influence in the presidential election. And since 38 states are needed to ratify an amendment, it is unlikely that enough swing states will voluntarily support a proposal to reach that threshold. Fortunately, there is another way to elect our next President by popular vote instead of through the Electoral College.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The Constitution gives states the power to choose their electors in the manner they see fit. Most states currently award all their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state (although Maine and Nebraska choose theirs through proportional representation). However, because states have significant freedom in choosing their electors, states can award all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, which is the basis for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Created by John R. Koza, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement in which states pledge to award all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. For example, if presidential candidate Jane Doe wins the national popular vote and New Jersey has joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, then New Jersey will award all of its 14 electoral votes to Jane Doe, even if Jane Doe does not win the popular vote in New Jersey. When enough states join together in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it would ensure that the candidate who wins the popular vote always wins enough electoral votes to become President.

Today, 270 electoral votes constitute a majority of electoral votes, so once states totaling 270 electoral votes join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the candidate who wins the national popular vote will also win enough electoral votes to become President. The Compact does not take effect until that threshold of 270 electoral votes is reached.

The good news is that many states are already on board with the plan. To date, sixteen states and the District of Columbia have joined the Compact, for a total of 205 electoral votes. Once additional states with 55 electoral votes join the Compact, it will go into effect and the next President will be the winner of the national popular vote. But we need your help to get the Compact across the finish line!

If you support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact there are two ways you can help us move forward. First, support our efforts with a donation so we can continue to advance this cause. Second, if your state has not yet joined the Compact, contact your state representatives and urge them to do so by visting our friends at https://www.nationalpopularvote.com and entering your zip code on their home page. Fixing the Electoral College is an important step in making government work again, so please support the campaign and make a difference today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Fix The Electoral College - Citizens Take Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to fix the Electoral College and elect our next president by popular vote with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solutions for Undocumented Immigrants | George W. Bush Presidential Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Approximately 10.5 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States. Deporting all undocumented immigrants would require identifying, apprehending, detaining, adjudicating, and transporting millions of people back to their home countries. It would take up to 20 years and cost somewhere in the range of $100 billion to $300 billion. And, it would have a negative effect on the U.S. economy and our programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Policymakers at the state and federal levels are clamoring for solutions to problems with minors and social media. In March 2022, in his State of the Union address, President Biden talked about "the harms of social media" on children and called on Congress to ban targeted advertising and strengthen privacy protections for children.Joe Biden, "State of the Union Address As Prepared for Delivery," March 1, 2022, Office of CA Governor Gavin Newsom, "Governor Newsom Signs First-in-Nation Bill Protecting Children's Online Data and Privacy," September 15, 2022, Ashley Gold, "Kids' Privacy Online Gets Year End Push in Congress," European Commission, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/01/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-delivered/. In September, California passed a bill, the first of its kind, that adds myriad new requirements to online platforms in order to keep users under 18 safe. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/15/governor-newsom-signs-first-in-nation-bill-protecting-childrens-online-data-and-privacy/. As of the end of 2022, three major bills in Congress have advanced through Senate and House committees that focus on or include portions intended to protect teens on social media. Axios, November 16, 2022, A Digital Decade for Children and Youth: The New European Strategy for a Better Internet for Kids, May 11, 2022, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A212%3AFIN. Even with these significant events, this summary accounts only for the more serious proposals and enacted laws. Many more could be included. https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/kids-privacy-online-congress-yearend-push. Finally, all member states in the European Union adopted the Digital Services Act, which requires platforms "to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of children on their services."

Much of this action can be credited to calls for stricter regulations coming from pundits, organizations, and the media. The documentary film Center for Humane Technology, "The Facebook Files," The Social Dilemma debuted in 2020 and has since garnered an estimated 100 million views. The Social Dilemma (2020), film facts and resource page, accessed December 20, 2022, https://www.humanetech.com/the-social-dilemma. The Wall Street Journal, September 2021, accessed December 20, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039. It is a topic of society-wide importance. Wall Street Journal' s publication of "The Facebook Files" in September 2021 prompted congressional hearings and high-profile interviews with former Meta employee Frances Haugen, and it brought to light Meta's internal research on the effects their services might have on teens.

Clearly policymakers want to do something about minors and social media. What are the problems they are seeking to solve, and what are the solutions that will keep children and teens safe online?

Lawmakers are currently most concerned about three issues on this topic: negative mental health effects, privacy (mostly in the realm of targeted advertising), and illegal content such as CSAM (child sexual abuse material) and drugs.

Policymakers at all levels of government should be concerned about the negative impacts new technologies might have on children and teens. Throughout history there are many examples of government officials recommending state action to prevent or correct harms against minors in the context of emerging technologies. As populations in the United States moved from rural to industrial occupations, labor unions and governments were at their best when advocating for workplace protections for and then bans on workers under a certain age. On the other hand, policymakers wasted a lot of time on concerns over comic books and video games.Igor Pantic, "Online Social Networking and Mental Health," Adam H. Smiley and Matthew Fisher, "The Golden Age Is behind Us: How the Status Quo Impacts the Evaluation of Technology," Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, Castro and McQuinn, Adam Thierer and Michael Wilt, "Permissionless Innovation: A 10-Point Checklist for Public Policymakers" (Mercatus Policy Brief, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, March 2016), Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 17, no. 10 (October 2014): 652-57, Psychological Science 33, no. 9 (September 2022): 1605-14, The Privacy Panic Cycle: A Guide to Public Fears about New Technologies (Washington, DC: ITIF, September 2015), Panic Cycle. The nature of the first half of this cycle can lead to overreaction, which will likely mean worse problems and certainly stymie future benefits. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/permissionless-innovation-10-point-checklist-public-policymakers. https://itif.org/publications/2015/09/10/privacy-panic-cycle-guide-public-fears-about-new-technologies/. These panic cycles, as the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation describes them, proceed through four phases for many new technologies: trusting beginnings, rising panic, deflating fears, and moving on. Between rising panic and deflating fears there is the height of hysteria. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221102868. Policy responses often follow a predictable "panic cycle," which usually ends in a healthy assimilation of new technologies into society. https://doi.org/10.1089%2Fcyber.2014.0070. The level of skepticism and scrutiny is already high for new technologies.

Studies on Mental Health Effects Do Not Warrant Bans

Teens' social media use and the potential negative mental health effects lead current policy discussions. Early concerns about health and well-being for minors on social media focused on inappropriate content and child predators.Anne Barnard, "MySpace Agrees to Lead Fight to Stop Sex Predators," New York Times, January 15, 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/15myspace.html. In 2008, to protect teens and children from predators, the social media platform MySpace led efforts to study age verification and safety features; the results of those studies were then reported to state attorneys general. This effort ended with a final report in 2008 that found:

Technology can play a helpful role, but there is no one technological solution or specific combination of technological solutions to the problem of online safety for minors. Instead, a combination of technologies, in concert with parental oversight, education, social services, law enforcement, and sound policies by social network sites and service providers may assist in addressing specific problems that minors face online.Internet Safety Technical Task Force, Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, December 2008), https://cyber.harvard.edu/pubrelease/isttf/.

Analysis of additional task force reports on the topic came to a similar conclusion.Adam Thierer, "Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment, and Self-Regulation Are the Answer," Nirit Weiss-Blatt, "TECHLASH 2.0: The Next-Gen TECHLASH Is Bigger, Stronger, and Faster," Brian Flood, "Ex-Google Staffer Warns Social Media, Apps Are 'Big Tobacco for Our Brains,'" Progress and Freedom Foundation Progress on Point Paper 16, no. 13 (July 2009), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1433504. The earliest research studying the mental health effects of internet use was in 1998, and research on teens' social media use came later, in 2014.Pantic, "Online Social Networking." The issue really broke out of the academic realm into the popular realm in 2017 when Jean Twenge published her book iGen and wrote a popular article in The Atlantic, "Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?" This work, concurrent with the rise of the "techlash" in 2016, brought the issue of teen mental health effects to prominence and even sparked "techlash 2.0," according to former USC researcher Nirit Weiss-Blatt. Techdirt (blog), November 19, 2021, Fox News, October 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/media/tristan-harris-big-tech-big-tobacco; Franklin Foer, "Facebook's War on Free Will," Guardian, September 19, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/19/facebooks-war-on-free-will. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/11/19/techlash-20-next-gen-techlash-is-bigger-stronger-faster/. Many additional books, articles, studies, films, and advocacy efforts between 2017 and the present date together built to a crescendo, with comparisons to tobacco and claims of the loss of free will.

Teens use social media sites regularly, though habits and popular platforms change over time. In 2022, according to Pew Research, YouTube was the overwhelming favorite, with 95 percent of teens "ever visiting" the app and 19 percent using or visiting it "almost constantly." TikTok, Instagram (owned by Meta), and Snapchat were next in line. Among teens, nearly all of whom have access to smartphones, Facebook (owned by Meta) is only half as popular as Instagram, and Twitter is even less popular.Emily A. Vogels, Risa Gelles-Watnick, and Navid Massarat, "Teens, Social Media, and Technology 2022," Pew Research Center, August 10, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/.

Such near-ubiquitous use, combined with increases in teen suicide and in negative mental health indicators, has prompted inquiries into whether these technologies are having an impact on the mental and physical health of teen users. When a chart showing rising suicide rates is overlayed with rising social media use, the narrative can be quite convincing. However, this could be an oversimplification, given the dozens of factors that put teens at risk of mental health issues. Researchers have yet to adequately isolate social media as a potential cause among the variables."Risk and Protective Factors for Youth," Youth.gov, accessed December 19, 2022, Kyle Orland, "APA Warns against Linking Violent Video Games to Real-World Violence," https://youth.gov/youth-topics/youth-mental-health/risk-and-protective-factors-youth. In fact, the American Psychological Association has changed their official position on the link between violent video games and violent behavior. In 2015 they reported a link between the two, but in 2020 their position was updated to state that there is "insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior." Ars Technica, March 5, 2020, https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/03/apa-warns-against-linking-violent-video-games-to-real-world-violence/.

Despite the headlines and dominant narratives, a conclusive, causal relationship between social media and negative mental health effects for the typical teen user has not been made.Emily Weinstein and Carrie James,Taylor Barkley, "State of the Union Raises an Important Question about Social Media: What to Do about the Kids?," Taylor Barkley, "The Problems of Teen Suicide and Self-Harm Predate Social Media," Behind Their Screens: What Teens Are Facing (and Adults Are Missing) (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2022), 17. The linkage is correlational at best. A summary of evidence linking social media use to negative mental health was provided by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in congressional testimony in 2022. Haidt is a leading proponent of this connection and in his testimony stated, "Correlational studies consistently show a link between heavy social media use and mood disorders, but the size of the relationship is disputed."Jonathan Haidt, "Teen Mental Health Is Plummeting, and Social Media Is a Major Contributing Cause," (Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Privacy and the Law, NYU Stern School of Business, May 4, 2022). The most significant, although still disputed, connection is among females aged 12-15 and 19-21. The Upload (blog), March 4, 2022, https://medium.com/theupload/state-of-the-union-raises-an-important-question-about-social-media-what-to-do-about-the-kids-907faa230025. Even suicide rates-among the most tragic of statistics-do not offer conclusive narratives. Suicide rates among boys in the early 1990s were much higher than they are now. For girls, suicide rates are slightly higher now, but not by a large margin. Benchmark (blog), Center for Growth and Opportunity, June 8, 2022, https://www.thecgo.org/benchmark/the-problems-of-teen-suicide-and-self-harm-predate-social-media/. There are less data on self-harm and depression among teens over time, and there are still questions as to why rates went up or down.Barkley, "Problems of Teen Suicide."

To further complicate the matter, "teens themselves paint a more nuanced picture of adolescent life on social media," as the November 2022 Pew survey on "Connection, Creativity, and Drama: Teen Life on Social Media in 2022" summarized it.Monica Anderson, Emily A. Vogels, Andrew Perrin, and Lee Rainie, "Connection, Creativity, and Drama: Teen Life on Social Media," Pew Research Center, November 16, 2022, "One in five teens say that Instagram makes them feel worse about themselves, with UK girls the most negative." Georgia Wells, Jeff Horwitz, and Deepa Seetharaman, "Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show," Weinsten and James, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/11/16/connection-creativity-and-drama-teen-life-on-social-media-in-2022/. Even in the famous "Facebook files" published by the Wall Street Journal and discussed by Frances Haugen in media appearances and congressional testimony, the number of teens who said Instagram made them feel better about themselves was almost double the number of those who said it made them feel worse. Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2021, Behind Their Screens. https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739?mod=article_inline. Note: Even though the title of the slide says 1 in 5 teens feel worse about themselves, notice that the chart shows 41 percent of teens in the US feel better about themselves because of Instagram-that's 2 in 5 that benefit from it. Experience varies from individual to individual, and teen testimonials reflect this. In a mix of interviews, surveys, and focus groups with educators and teens conducted between 2017 and 2021, MIT researchers Emily Weinstein and Carrie James came to this conclusion about the dominant narrative of negativity: "You've been misled. Alarmist headlines that shape the public narrative about teens and tech often lead us astray."

Nonetheless, these matters are of serious concern and more research is being conducted. However, the tenuous evidence does not warrant strong government action, and if states or the federal government were to enact strong rules, the costs will likely outweigh any potential benefits.

The Harms of Data Collection for Teens Are Not Clear

Privacy for teens is a policy area that Congress and federal regulatory bodies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have already addressed. In 1998, Congress passed the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and delegated enforcement to the FTC. Essentially, Congress decided that any products or services designed for users under the age of 13 need to be compliant with much stricter rules and require parental consent. In effect, most platforms and services are designed for users age 13 and up. There are proposals from policymakers and experts that recommend raising the age threshold of COPPA so its requirements would apply to teens. However, the costs of COPPA would apply to more users, and the age verifications discussed below would apply. Of concern are the growing number of children ages 8-12 who report using social media platforms: 38 percent in 2021, up from 31 percent in 2019, according to Commonsense Media.Victoria Rideout, Alanna Peebles, Supreet Mann, and Michael B. Robb, The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens 2021 (San Francisco: Common Sense Media, 2022), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf.

As is the case for all users, the harms of data collection among teens must be made clear. For instance, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act includes a portion that prohibits targeted advertising to minors known by the platform to be under the age of 17. Outright bans on television advertising to children were famously considered and then rejected by the FTC during the "KidVid" proceedings in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This rulemaking procedure was a three-year process that produced 6,000 pages from stakeholders at all levels of civil society, academia, and government. Ultimately it was not clear that a ban on television advertising for children would be effective or helpful, and the rulemaking was abandoned.William Rinehart, Taylor Barkley, and Aubrey Kirchhoff, "Public Interest Comment on the FTC Trade Regulation Rule on Commercial Surveillance and Data Security" (Public Interest Comment, Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University, November 30, 2022), Adam Thierer, "Advertising, Commercial Speech, and the First Amendment Parity," https://www.thecgo.org/research/public-interest-comment-on-the-ftc-trade-regulation-rule-on-commercial-surveillance-and-data-security/#teens-and-children. Of course, technologies today are more ubiquitous and much more advanced than the television of 50 years ago. However, the base assumptions about advertising to children and its effects are similar. Restrictions then and now would likely diminish the welfare of consumers, including teens. Charleston Law Review 5 (2011): 503-19, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2227084.

Finally, targeted advertising for teens is not universally nefarious. Benefits could include educational opportunities and mental health resources. Targeted advertising can even promote safety on these platforms because advertising can be vetted as age-appropriate. A ban on teen-targeted advertising means teens will likely see advertisements meant for adults. Ultimately, for the policymaker concerned about teen data collection, any system that would restrict teen use of social media for mental health reasons would stand in contradiction to those principles.

More Resources Are Necessary to Enforce CSAM

In most policy areas, policymakers should focus on the clearest and most egregious problem first. As outlined previously, there are three major issues of concern: negative mental health effects, privacy (mostly in the realm of advertising), and CSAM (child sexual abuse material). In a ranked order, CSAM mitigation and the marketing of illegal drugs are incontrovertibly in first place. Next are privacy issues for minors, and last would be negative mental health effects. Such a rank order is not to diminish concerns over privacy or mental health. Rather it is a means for policymakers to focus limited time and energy among myriad competing priorities at the local, state, and federal levels.

Therefore, policymakers concerned for the safety of minors online should first focus on combating CSAM. To be clear, social media can be a place where CSAM is developed and trafficked, but the problem is much larger than mainstream social media platforms.

Indeed, tech companies of all sizes are engaged in removing known CSAM images and videos thanks to the work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and various voluntary standards and organizations. Since 1998, NCMEC has maintained a cyber tip line for individuals and companies to report CSAM. In 2021 there were 29 million reported instances of CSAM, up from nearly 17 million in 2019.National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Michelle DeLaune, "NCMEC, Google, and Image Hashing Technology," Google Safety Center, accessed December 20, 2022, CyberTipline 2021 Report, accessed December 20, 2022, https://safety.google/stories/hash-matching-to-help-ncmec/. https://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/cybertipline/cybertiplinedata. The sheer volume of images and videos online makes distinguishing CSAM from other images a technical challenge, so NCMEC maintains a library of known CSAM material marked with unique hash values, which are basically digital fingerprints that can be automatically screened. Private companies then use that information, as well as information shared with other companies, to remove the content.

As stated, this issue area can itself be triaged, and there are pitfalls to avoid. Make no mistake: the vileness of CSAM prompts solutions such as bans on live streaming, encryption, or peer-to-peer file sharing. All those technologies are used every day by law-abiding citizens but they are also relied on by CSAM consumers and traffickers. Well intentioned attempts to combat CSAM can result in more harm than good. For example, the EARN IT Act did not outright ban encryption, but the requirements would result in a de facto ban.Riana Pfefferkorn, "The EARN IT Act Is Back, and It's More Dangerous than Ever," Center for Internet and Society (blog), February 4, 2022, https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2022/02/earn-it-act-back-and-it%E2%80%99s-more-dangerous-ever. Yet there are solutions, as mentioned, that retain the technologies' benefits while mitigating harm with increasing effectiveness.

Ultimately, CSAM is a growing problem; the effects are devastating to victims, and law enforcement is already overwhelmed. There remains much to be done.

The Trade-offs of Age Verification Requirements

Fundamentally, any sort of public policy-based ban, restriction, or requirements for minors will require platforms to know the ages of those using their platform. Policy organizations and pundits have suggested states or the federal government place restrictions on minors' access to social media during certain times or fully ban social media use by minors.Clare Morell, Adam Candeub, Jean Twenge, and Brad Wilcox, Adam Thierer, "Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media," Protecting Teens from Big Tech: Five Policy Ideas for States (Charlottesville, VA: Institute for Family Studies, August 2022), Technology Liberation Front (blog), July 5, 2022, https://techliberation.com/2022/07/05/again-we-should-not-ban-all-teens-from-social-media/. Either way, COPPA as currently written means we live in a world where users over 13 need to be verified. https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/final-ifs-eppc-protectingteensfrombigtech-aug2022.pdf. Banning minors from social media assumes the negative effects of social media outweigh the benefits and that any nongovernmental solution is inadequate. This is likely not the case, and outright bans have clear downsides. For example, proposed bills like HB 896 in Texas would prohibit those under 18 from using social media, making any teen who circumvents the age requirement a lawbreaker.

Current industries like the adult entertainment, gambling, and sports betting industries already have to deal with such legal requirements. Any age verification method necessitates more data will need to be collected by the companies or a third-party firm. Far from alleviating concerns regarding minors and social media companies, these efforts may create more problems, certainly on issues of privacy and cybersecurity. Additionally, in order to be compliant, age requirements for social media platforms would mean that all users of that platform will be subject to more data collection. Just as internet users are prompted by most websites to "accept all cookies" due to European regulations, all users of social media platforms would be subject to more onerous age verification methods. On platforms as widely used as social media platforms, everyone would be subject to verification.

There are efforts underway to catalog and track age verification methods, but the results do not look promising. For the paper "Making Sense of Age Assurance," the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) polled parents and children on seven types of age verification techniques. In order of popularity: parent verification with text or app, self-declaring date of birth, biometric verification, verifying parental identity with ID, verifying child identity with ID, credit/debit/payment information, and audio or video call verification.Family Online Safety Institute, "Online Age Verification: Balancing Privacy and the Protection of Minors," CNIL, September 22, 2022, Making Sense of Age Assurance: Enabling Safer Online Experiences, November 2022, https://www.cnil.fr/en/online-age-verification-balancing-privacy-and-protection-minors. https://www.fosi.org/policy-research/making-sense-of-age-assurance-enabling-safer-online-experiences. The French technology industry regulatory body, Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL), conducted an evaluation of known verification techniques to ensure they include "the following properties: sufficiently reliable verification, complete coverage of the population, and respect for the protection of individuals' data and privacy and their security." The only addition to the list of seven types outlined by FOSI was an "offline verification system" like a single-use scratch card purchased at a supermarket used to verify the age of a user. They concluded "there is currently no solution that satisfactorily meets these three requirements."

To illustrate the trade-offs, it is helpful to examine only some of the potential steps necessary to implement the most popular method among parents and children in the FOSI report: "parent verification with text or app, e.g. form, text verification, app push notification to approve."Family Online Safety Institute, Emma Llansó, "Coalition Letter on Privacy and Free Expression Threats in Kids Online Safety Act," Center for Democracy and Technology, November 28, 2022, "More than 90 Human Rights and LGBTQ Groups Sign Letter Opposing KOSA," Center for Democracy and Technology, November 28, 2022, Making Sense. In this hypothetical scenario, a platform could require all users who denote their age under 18 to supply the contact information or app of a parent. Of course, age verification would need to be reliable for the parent or alleged parent with the contact information or app. In such a case, it would be the parents or alleged parents who need to provide a more vigorous form of identification, which poses privacy and security risks. It would put platforms in the role of verifying parenthood status of millions of individuals. Furthermore, implementation of this method would require children to alert their parents de facto by signing up for the platform's services. There could be cases like those of LGBTQ+ youth or youth in abusive parental situations who might not have the ability to safely alert their parents when signing up for a service or app. Indeed, this is precisely why over 90 groups wrote a letter of opposition to the Senate Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). https://cdt.org/insights/coalition-letter-on-privacy-and-free-expression-threats-in-kids-online-safety-act/. As Emma Llanso at the Center for Democracy and Technology said about KOSA, the same can be said for parent verification: it presumes parental oversight is "universally a good thing." https://cdt.org/press/more-than-90-human-rights-and-lgbtq-groups-sign-letter-opposing-kosa/.

In all likelihood, age verification consistent with the principles of reliability, complete coverage, privacy, and the Constitution is impossible to achieve. All current methods have trade-offs. However, firms are working on implementing solutions with those trade-offs in mind. For example, Meta is currently experimenting with age verification tools on Facebook Dating and Instagram.Erica Finkle, "Bringing Age Verification to Facebook Dating," About Facebook, Meta, December 5, 2022, https://about.fb.com/news/2022/12/facebook-dating-age-verification/; "Introducing New Ways to Verify Age on Instagram," About Instagram, last modified October 13, 2022, https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/new-ways-to-verify-age-on-instagram. Lessons can be learned from industries like online gambling on the challenges and successes of user age verification. Policymakers can use their platform to gather information on functional experiments and to convene practitioners for collaboration. KOSA contains a provision directing the multiple federal agencies with relevant jurisdiction to do just that.Kids Online Safety Act, S.3663, 117th Cong. (2022). However, forcing platforms to comply with new age requirements before an effective age verification solution is found is likely to result in more data collection of teens or in teens losing access to platforms they use and enjoy.

What Should Policymakers Do?

Although the harms in mental health and data collection are disputed, the following are some of the many actions policymakers can take to keep teens safe on social media.

Allocate more funding to law enforcement to combat CSAM at the federal, state, and local levels. Law enforcement agencies are overwhelmed by the amount of CSAM material."What Is Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)?," RAINN, August 25, 2022, "Wyden, Gillibrand, Casey, Brown, and Eshoo Introduce Legislation to Fight Online Child Exploitation," Wyden.senate.gov, press release, May 6, 2020, https://www.rainn.org/news/what-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam. Among other provisions, the Invest in Child Safety Act would allocate 5 billion dollars to the Department of Justice and allow the hiring of more personnel at the FBI and NCMEC to deal with the caseload.https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-gillibrand-casey-brown-and-eshoo-introduce-legislation-to-fight-online-child-exploitation. The Child RESCUE Act would establish a federal working group to assess the problem and make recommendations to Congress.

Provide more resources and training for officers at the federal, state, and local levels who handle CSAM cases. For officers at all levels working on cases, sufficient mental health support needs to be made available. One study indicated that stigma against mental healthcare was "the most widely acknowledged barrier discussed in relation to police wellness."Kimberly J. Mitchell, Ateret Gewirtz-Meydan, Jennifer O'Brien, and David Finkelhor, "Practices and Policies around Wellness: Insights from the Internet Crimes against Children Task Force Network," Frontiers in Psychiatry 113, no. 931268 (June 2022), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.931268/full. Policymakers can use their platform to push back against this stigma.

Companies should be given more time to report instances of detected CSAM. The END Child Exploitation Act would "increase the amount of time-from 90 days to 180 days-that a provider must preserve the contents of a report" made to the CyberTipline managed by NCMEC.

Policymakers should empower those closest to the teens who need help, be they parents, caregivers, educators, or teens themselves. Policymakers can and should use their public platform to educate parents, caregivers, and minors on safe social media practices. Parents, caregivers, and local communities, regardless of any future policies, will remain at the front lines of helping teens stay safe online. According to the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI), three out of four American parents believe the primary responsibility for their teens' online safety rests with the parents, and two out of four believe it is primarily the government's responsibility; however, at similar rates, parents want the tech companies and governments to support their efforts.Family Online Safety Institute, Nir Eyal and Jonathan Haidt, "3 Things Parents Need to Know Now about Kids and Tech," Making Sense. Additionally, FOSI removed Facebook from its advisory board after the WSJ "Facebook files." Two authors with very different perspectives on this issue, Nir Eyal and Jonathan Haidt, co-wrote a list of three common sense screen time rules parents can use with their children.OneZero, Medium, May 10, 2021, https://onezero.medium.com/3-things-parents-need-to-know-now-about-kids-and-tech-da20913fe8d5. "Screens out of the bedroom before bedtime, no social media until high school, and work out a screen time budget." Work such as theirs can be of use in establishing healthy tech habits.

Policymakers, the media, and the public should hold companies to a high standard and join to call attention to the resources the large platforms do and should provide for parents and caregivers. Indeed, recent changes made by Instagram and Apple seem to demonstrate that public pressure is starting to be felt. It is the companies' responsibility to ensure parents and caregivers are aware of and are comfortable using their tools. However, parents and caregivers are largely unaware of or are overwhelmed by the tools and resources these companies provide.Family Online Safety Institute, Tools for Today's Digital Parents, November 18, 2020, https://www.fosi.org/policy-research/tools-for-todays-digital-parents.

Given the inconclusive nature of social media's impact on the mental health of kids and teens, more studies should be encouraged and perhaps funded by the government. At the federal level, the recently passed Children and Media Research Advancement (CAMRA) Act will direct funding to the National Institutes of Health to conduct longitudinal research on this topic. Research over a multi-year time frame is important to avoid the "Sisyphean trap" (incompletable task) of technology regulation.Amy Orben, "The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics," Perspectives on Psychological Science 15, no. 5 (June 2020): 1143-57, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620919372. States should consider similar, supportive efforts.

Policymakers should not vilify companies that actively study these issues and seek to develop safe apps and services for teens. Meta was critiqued for the results of a study they conducted on the impact their services were having on teens and the Instagram for Kids app project was shut down due to public pressure.Adam Mosseri, "Pausing 'Instagram Kids' and Building Parental Supervision Tools," About Instagram, September 27, 2021, https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/pausing-instagram-kids. Universal benefit to all users is not a realistic goal at the scale of most platforms. If that were the case, far more prosaic technologies like bicycles would face stricter rules. As with any technology, some users will experience downsides.

Conclusion

Policymakers are right to pay attention to the impact new technologies are having on teens. Although sweeping regulations like banning teens from using social media are not recommended, policymakers still have multiple tools they can deploy in efforts to keep teens safe on social media. As the horrors of CSAM and other illegal content demonstrate, there is plenty of work to do. Policymakers should start where the evidence of harm is clearest and work outward, all the while collecting data and advocating for bottom-up solutions that teens, parents, and caregivers can adapt to meet their unique needs. Teen life throughout modern US history has been fraught, but the government should avoid preempting opportunities for teens to learn and grow. Rather, as young people become adults, they should be taught the skills necessary to make wise decisions that are right for them, in the context of their communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Should Policymakers Do about Social Media and Minors?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Policymakers face calls for social media regulations concerning minors, emphasizing the need for child safety and well-considered policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Media and Mental Health: Social Media Addiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Excessive use of social media can fuel anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. Here’s how to change your habits and improve your mood.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Across the nation, states are preparing for the impending Supreme Court ruling on the case challenging the state of Mississippi ban on abortions past 15 weeks, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. The plaintiffs in the case have asked the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, cases which have set the federal standard for the types of laws that states may implement to regulate abortion access. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a  leaked draft of the Supreme Court's decision in  Dobbs v, Jackson Women's Health that would overturn  Roe v. Wade and  Planned Parenthood v. Casey and eliminate the federal standard regarding abortion access. The Supreme Court  acknowledged  the authenticity of the draft but stated, "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case."

While it is estimated that roughly half of the states across the U.S. will move to either outright ban or greatly restrict abortion access, there is growing momentum in a handful of states to not only protect abortion access for their state residents, but also to expand access to people who live in states that ban or restrict abortion. The types of legislative actions vary considerably. Some states are focusing on clarifying and strengthening long-standing protections for abortion rights, while others seek to assure affordable access to abortion services for their residents and to protect clinicians who provide abortion services in their states.

This brief reviews the status of state actions to strengthen and guarantee abortion access to their residents, as well as to prepare for the likely increase in demand for abortion services in those states should the high court overturn the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.

Protect the Right to Abortion

Should the Supreme Court overturn or weaken the Roe decision in its ruling on the Dobbs case, it will again be up to each state to establish laws protecting or restricting abortion in the absence of a federal standard. While much has been noted about the states that will likely ban or greatly restrict abortion access, some states are moving to enact laws that are protective of abortion rights for their residents. Some State Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to an abortion is included in the right to privacy or other provisions of the state constitution. However, just as the United States Supreme Court could overrule Roe, State Supreme Courts could also overrule these prior decisions regarding the right to an abortion in the state constitution.

In the face of a possible loss of the federal standard granted by Roe, policymakers in some states have recently added explicit language to state laws or the state constitution to protect the right to abortion care. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1982 recognized that the right to privacy protected under the state constitution is more expansive than the federal Constitution and encompasses a "fundamental right of a woman to control her body and destiny." In January 2022, the New Jersey legislature enacted and the governor signed a statutory protection for abortion. Similarly, in April 2022, Colorado also added statutory protections for reproductive health care that includes abortion care. In March 2022, Washington state enacted legislation that expands abortion protections to people of all genders and prohibits any penalties for people assisting pregnant individuals seeking an abortion or criminalizing any pregnancy outcomes. In May 2022, Connecticut passed a bill that builds upon their previous law protecting the right to abortion. This new bill protects not only abortion services, but also addresses the services related to pregnancy or contraception

In February 2022, the Vermont legislature passed a proposed amendment to the state constitution to "ensure that every Vermonter is afforded personal reproductive liberty." The amendment will become part of the constitution if the voters approve it in the November 2022 election. The California Governor and the leadership of the legislature are also proposing a state constitutional amendment, which if passed by at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate and Assembly, will be placed on the November 2022 ballot.

If the Court rules to overturn Roe in the Dobbs ruling, it is anticipated that new legal challenges to abortion bans will be filed in and decided by state courts. For example, Michigan enacted an abortion ban in 1931, decades before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. In anticipation of the Dobbs ruling, Governor Whitmer (D) has filed a lawsuit to ask the Michigan Supreme Court to resolve whether Michigan's Constitution protects the right to abortion. The Governor's position is that there is a state constitutional right to an abortion under the due process clause and equal protection clause of the Michigan Constitution.

Insurance Coverage and Clinic Support

Recent research finds that the median costs of a first trimester abortion is around $600, not including costs that could be incurred to travel out of state or take time off from work. This amount of money is unaffordable to many people, particularly those that are low-income. The  Federal Reserve Board  found over 35% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings or cash equivalent to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds or use credit card debt or a loan from friends or family. Recognizing the importance of affordability, some states are seeking to protect abortion access by taking measures to make sure it is affordable to insured patients at a minimum.

California, which already requires health plans regulated by the state to include abortion coverage if they cover pregnancy related care, passed a new law this year that prohibits health insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing for abortion services. In addition, California uses state revenues to pay for the full costs of abortion services for its Medicaid enrollees who seek abortion. Similarly, Maryland passed a new law requiring most insurance providers to cover the cost of an abortion with no cost-sharing and created a pilot program designed to cover the nominal premium cost associated with abortion coverage for young adults enrolled in ACA Marketplace plans who have a $0 expected contribution after premium subsidies (other than the small additional charge related to abortion coverage). Three other states - Illinois, New York, and Oregon - passed laws before 2022 requiring health plans regulated by the state to include abortion coverage without cost-sharing.

Outside of insurance coverage, the Oregon legislature passed the Reproductive Health Equity Fund that allocates $15 million to Seeding Justice, a nonprofit grassroots funding organization that will distribute the funds to help individuals who need abortion care and organizations that provide abortion care.

With the backing of the New York Attorney General, legislative leaders have introduced legislation to establish a state program that would provide financial resources to clinicians who provide abortion care, nonprofit organizations helping to increase access to care, and individuals seeking abortion care. California is considering a package of bills related to abortion access including one bill focused on providing funding to people from out- of- state seeking abortion services in California. (See Box 1)

Expanding the Pool of Clinicians Offering Abortion Services

Some states seeking to protect abortion rights are also preparing to accommodate increased demand for abortion care from people coming from out-of-state. One approach states have used to address this is to expand the pool of clinicians qualified to provide abortion care. In 2013, California passed a law allowing trained advance practice clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, to provide abortion care with physician supervision, after it was demonstrated that these clinicians provided care that was on a par with care offered by physicians. This legislative session, California is currently considering bills that would authorize nurse practitioners with specified training and education requirements to provide abortion care independent of physician supervision, under specified conditions.

Maryland recently passed legislation permitting nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, licensed certified midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions starting July 1, 2022. This law also creates an abortion care clinical training program with $3.5 million annual allocation to fund abortion care training and two community-based provider sites with the goal of expanding the number of health care professionals with abortion care training and increasing the racial and ethnic diversity among health care professional with training. This bill was initially vetoed by the Republican Governor but was subsequently overridden by the legislature. However, because Maryland's Governor then blocked the funding for this bill the start of the training program will be delayed until July 2023. The legislature does not have the authority to mandate spending in the upcoming fiscal year but may disburse funds in future years if the governor blocks an appropriation. Washington State and Delaware also codified the right of physician assistants, and advanced registered nurse practitioners and other health care providers to perform abortions, acting within the provider's scope of practice. Similarly, Connecticut has enacted a law allowing advance practiced registered nurses, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to perform aspiration procedures. In addition, the same law codifies a 2001 attorney general decision allowing advanced practice registered nurses, nurse-midwives and physician assistants to prescribe and dispense medication abortion pills.

Legal Protections for Clinicians, People Seeking Abortions, and Pregnant People

The Supreme Court's imminent ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has also brought new attention to medication abortion pills. In recent years, a growing body of research has evaluated the safety of providing mifepristone to people seeking abortion when supervised through clinicians using telehealth.

The COVID-19 pandemic made this option more salient, considering the need to limit in-person contact. In December 2021, the FDA lifted a long-standing requirement for clinicians to dispense the drug directly to the patient, by modifying the prior Risk Evaluation Mitigation System (REMS) requirement and opened the door to expanded use of mifepristone via telehealth. Telehealth abortion not only has the potential to expand access to people living in communities with few clinicians who provide abortions, but also could make abortion available to people living in states that will restrict or ban abortion should Roe be overturned.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia do not have restrictions that would limit the ability of medication abortion to be provided via telehealth. In these states, eligible people can have the medication mailed directly to them after a telehealth visit with a clinician and do not need an in-person visit. It is not clear, however, if these clinicians would be subject to criminal or civil liability in the states that ban abortion or telehealth abortion should they dispense medication abortion pills to people living in states that either ban telehealth for medication abortion or ban all abortions. Consequently, states seeking to protect abortion access are looking for ways to protect clinicians residing in their state from other states' legal liability.

California is seeking to become a protected sanctuary for all people seeking abortion care, regardless of where they live. In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom issued the California Proclamation on Reproductive Freedom. In September 2021, with the support of the legislature and the governor, reproductive freedom and sexual and reproductive health care allies, partners and policy makers convened the California Future of Abortion (CA FAB) Council. Shortly after, the CA FAB Council released a report identifying 45 policy recommendations to address barriers to abortion care, enact civil and criminal protections for patients and clinicians, and support investments in and expansion of the workforce. This session the California legislature is considering 13 bills based on the recommendations put forth by the CA FAB Council. Two of the key bills are:

Senate Bill 1142 would create a state administered fund to assist patients who face financial barriers to obtaining an abortion as well as support a statewide education and outreach campaign to inform the public on how to access abortion services. The fund could assist out-of-state residents access abortion and organizations meet the demand of people needing care.

Assembly Bill 2134 would establish the California Reproductive Health Equity Program within the Department of Health Access and Information to ensure abortion and contraception services are affordable.

Connecticut has enacted a law to protect people in the state, including out of state visitors who come for an abortion, from legal actions from other states. The Connecticut law blocks state agencies from assisting in interstate investigations or prosecutions that would hold someone civilly or criminally liable for providing, seeking or receiving reproductive health services, including abortion care. Health plans and providers cannot disclose any communication regarding reproductive health services without written consent by the patient. The Connecticut law also limits the Governor's discretionary authority to extradite individuals accused of crimes in another state for actions that are that are legal in Connecticut. In other words, a clinician that lives in Connecticut who provides abortion services for patients from or in a state that bans abortion cannot be extradited from Connecticut upon request of the other state, unless the act committed is also punishable under Connecticut's laws. The law also allows someone who is sued for civil liabilities in another state for the provision or assistance in receipt of provision of abortions services to seek restitution attorney fees and costs through Connecticut courts. This provision is targeted at protecting residents from potential liability from people who live in states that have enacted laws like the Texas SB8 law which allows individuals to sue anyone who aids or abets individuals who get an abortion outside of the state's requirements.

As part of its recently passed legislation, Washington State prohibits the state from imposing any penalties against people assisting pregnant individuals seeking an abortion or criminalizing any pregnancy outcomes. In a similar vein, California lawmakers are considering a bill that would prohibit the state from compelling a person to provide information about an individual who has sought an abortion, if the information is being requested based on another state's laws that bans abortions and imposed civil or criminal penalties. New Jersey is also considering a bill to block the enforcement of other state laws banning abortion against New Jersey residents.

Many Will Still Lack Access to Abortion Services

While policymaker efforts in states that support abortion access would expand availability to both residents and nonresidents alike, not all people who live in states that ban abortions will be able to get to neighboring states to obtain an abortion. Some will not have enough money to travel, or pay for childcare, and many do not have the flexibility to take time off from work. For these people, the abortion bans in their states will mean they have no way to access abortion services and be faced with the difficult options of seeking abortion services outside of recognized clinical care or being forced to carry their pregnancy to term.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Actions to Protect and Expand Access to Abortion Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This brief reviews the status of state actions to strengthen and guarantee abortion access to their residents, as well as to prepare for the likely increase in demand for abortion services in those states should the high court overturn the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most colleges charge students more than they can afford. Statements to that effect are typically based on a misplaced focus on the "sticker price" of college. That price (formally labeled the cost of attendance) includes the full amount of tuition and fees, living expenses, and other related expenses. The average sticker price adjusted for inflation has nearly tripled in the last four decades.

Yet most students will pay less than the sticker price. They receive financial aid from the government and/or the institution they attend that reduces the amount they really pay.

But it is not enough. Lower- and middle-income families in particular are asked to pay "net prices," which factor in financial aid, that are beyond their means.

Every student deserves the opportunity to obtain an affordable, high-quality college education. College can raise lifetime wages and expand students' understanding of the world. Our society also benefits if a high-quality college education is available to all students. A college education promotes social mobility, civic engagement, and worker productivity, among other things. But if some students are unable to take advantage of this opportunity because it is unaffordable, we all lose those benefits.

How do we satisfy the dual, and conflicting, goals of improving access while maintaining quality?

But college affordability does not occur in a vacuum. If students pay less, institutions' revenue falls. Colleges will have less money to maintain the quality of our higher education system if we improve access by lowering costs. How do we satisfy the dual, and conflicting, goals of improving access while maintaining quality?

My goal in this report is to evaluate the pricing systems in different types of higher education institutions, focusing on whether they accomplish these two conflicting goals. How could those systems be modified to increase access and maintain quality?

Ultimately, I argue that our higher education system cannot accomplish these dual goals without additional governmental resources devoted to the system. Highly-endowed private institutions largely already satisfy them because they have extensive financial resources, but their model is difficult to replicate. Public institutions simply need more funding to provide affordable pricing to all students while maintaining educational quality. The solution for less well-endowed private institutions is unclear. Greater government support will come with further challenges: larger subsidies for colleges and universities will also require additional regulations to maintain quality while avoiding excessive spending. And any solution to the affordability issues that colleges face requires far greater transparency in college pricing.

Readers looking for specific numbers regarding who should pay how much or for specific policy proposals will be disappointed-this is a conceptual exercise. But these concepts have important implications for higher education and the policies that affect its operation.

Consider students from low-income families (perhaps below the poverty line or twice the poverty line, corresponding to about $30,000 to $60,000 for a family of four). Their families' income may have fluctuated during their lives, but they have probably had moderate income throughout their childhood. They likely have little or no wealth. Their focus is putting food on the table and a roof over their heads. There is little left over to pay for college.

These students really cannot afford to pay anything out-of-pocket to attend college. They might be asked to pay a low net price that could be covered by a reasonable level of student loans and work-study earnings. But many students are averse to high levels of debt and working extended hours is inconsistent with a quality education. These forms of payment should not be excessive to promote attendance and graduation. For simplicity, I focus the analysis here on what students are asked to pay out-of-pocket, which should be zero for the lowest-income students.

Students from very high-income families have the financial resources to pay a lot for college. They likely have substantial wealth. Considering the high cost of delivering higher education, the large economic returns, and the value of the personal experience of attending college, these students from high-income families should pay a substantial amount for college.

But they should not pay an excessive amount. Some limit on the price that these students pay is warranted. Most colleges and universities are organized as nonprofit institutions with a social mission. Charging exorbitant prices to any student, even very wealthy ones, would violate those principles.

One reasonable candidate for the maximum price is the institution's average expenditure per student. Determining the exact value of that statistic may be complicated by the variety of activities that colleges and universities engage in (research, athletics, medical centers, and the like). The point of this exercise is not to specifically define how to construct it, but to recognize that such a concept exists and is relevant in setting college prices.

Note that this proposed maximum price is not the same as the "sticker price" (formally labeled the "cost of attendance," or COA). Some institutions offer some form of financial aid (need-based and/or merit-based awards to most of their students (as described below). Their sticker price exceeds the true maximum price that most/all students pay. And highly endowed institutions often subsidize even their highest-income students; the sticker price is less than average expenditure per student. Setting the maximum price at the average expenditure per student does not require that anyone be charged that price; it allows institutions to charge less than that amount should they so choose.

So far, I have argued that the price for students from low-income families should be zero, and for high-income students the price should be no more than the institution's average expenditure per student. Students with incomes between these two extremes should pay a price somewhere in between these two values. Families that can afford to pay more should pay more. This is characterized in Figure 1.

A system like this one requires two important pieces of information. The conceptually easy one is the institution's average expenditure per student. The harder one is determining how much each family can afford to pay based on their finances. This involves value judgements about what is reasonable for families to afford to pay, but that is what the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the College Scholarship Service (CSS) Profile do now. Whether these systems precisely capture how much a family can afford to pay is unclear, but one could imagine it is possible to accomplish that goal.

College pricing does not work the same as pricing in a typical market. For most products, everyone pays the same price, determined in the market without regard for what specific consumers are willing or able to pay. If you cannot afford it, you do not buy it.

But such an approach to pricing is not well-suited for higher education. Unlike for most "goods," "firms" (colleges) can and do charge "consumers" (students) different prices. Most students attend nonprofit institutions, for which maximizing profits is not the main objective. At public institutions, the state government is also involved in determining the prices colleges charge to different students. The basic model of pricing in competitive markets does not apply here. The pricing system I propose for higher education is specifically designed to ensure that everyone can afford to attend college.

One obvious problem with this system is that revenue from students is insufficient to cover the cost of operating higher education institutions. This is demonstrated in Figure 2. Students from higher income families would pay no more than the institution's average expenditure per student. Everyone else would pay less than that. Such a system will always generate less revenue for an institution than it is spending. Additional funding is required to cover its costs.

There are two main sources of funding available to cover those costs: endowments and public funding. Many institutions, including some public colleges, have endowment funds provided by past donors. A relatively small number of largely private institutions have very large endowments. The returns from these funds are used to cover the cost for those students who pay less than the average cost.

Public funds collected through the tax system could also be used to fill in this gap. They could come from the federal or state governments. Because most taxes are progressive, higher-income taxpayers provide funds that enable lower-income students to attend college.

For those institutions that require public funding to cover their funding gaps, this financing system would create incentives to spend more money. If an institution spends more, the size of the funding gap increases. But if public funds automatically cover the gap between average spending and what students can afford to pay, the institution could "afford" those spending increases. Some have worried that the current Pell Grant program similarly provides incentives for excessive institutional spending. This incentive would be much greater if the government guaranteed it would completely fill in this funding gap.

Some form of regulation on institutional spending would be required to manage this incentive. Such regulations would surely be complicated and require extensive discussion. Below, I discuss the types of institutions where these regulations may be warranted.

Ensuring that institutions can spend enough to provide a quality education is a key consideration in designing such a system. Reining in spending is necessary, but maintaining the strength of American higher education remains a priority. Regulations designed to limit excessive spending still need to incorporate the need for sufficient spending to maintain students' educational attainment.

The framework presented in Figure 2 also can be modified to represent a "free college" system or the college pricing approaches used in many European countries. In extreme versions of both types of systems, the student would not be expected to pay anything regardless of family income. In practice, such systems often focus just on tuition and fees. To satisfy affordability goals, such a system would also need to include these costs along with living and other expenses.

Suppose we imposed an income cap, such that families who can afford to pay a lot receive no subsidy (they would pay a price equal to per-pupil spending). The funding gap triangle illustrated in Figure 2 would convert to a funding gap rectangle, as displayed in Figure 3. For every student below the income cap, students would pay nothing. The government would have to provide all the necessary funds to cover their educational expenses.

If there were no income cap -that is, all students receive the same subsidy, regardless of income- then none of an institution's revenue would come from students. There would be no need for prices, so there would be no need to regulate them. De facto, an institution's spending per student would be set by the amount of the subsidy provided by the government. Again, that level of spending would need to be set appropriately to support a high-quality college education without being excessive.

The level of government funding required for such a system is much larger than what would be needed for the system shown in Figure 2. Such a high level of funding could be politically difficult to achieve in the United States.

Higher education institutions receive public subsidies already in the form of Pell grants, subsidized student loans, and state payments to public universities. They also use their own funds to provide additional financial aid. Yet a college education remains unaffordable for many.

In past work, I have investigated how much students at different levels of income and assets pay at different types of institutions. That analysis focused on dependent students living away from their parents attending public and private 4-year institutions. I consider three types of institutions: private institutions with very large endowments, other private institutions, and public institutions with a focus on state residents.

Figure 4 displays a stylized version of the relationship between what students can afford and what they pay at different types of institutions. The 45° line (labelled "pay = afford") represents payments that families can afford. Any price above that line is not affordable.

These patterns do not match public perceptions of college costs. Those perceptions generally focus on the sticker price, represented by the maximum price paid at each type of institution in this figure (the flat portion of each line on the right). Most students pay less than that amount because of financial aid.

Although many families pay less than the sticker price, lower- and middle-income students often must pay more than they can afford. Private institutions with very large endowments are the exception; no student pays more than they can afford (according to the financial aid formula they use). The reasons for these patterns differ by type of institution.

Large endowment private colleges and universities

At private colleges with large endowments, lower-income families face limited costs after factoring in financial aid. As family financial resources rise, the price rises. At some high-level of family income, students pay the high sticker price. This pattern is consistent with the affordable pricing system I described earlier.

These institutions can implement this type of pricing system because they have considerable market power and very large endowments. Their market power derives from their prestige and quality, which in turn derive from high levels of spending supported by their large endowments. This ensures that students from high-income families are willing to pay high sticker prices even if there are less expensive alternatives available (such as public colleges with lower sticker prices for state residents). These private colleges typically spend more per student than the sticker price. Even the high-income students are subsidized. Lower-income students require even larger subsidies. These institutions depend on returns from their very large endowments to fill the gap between their total costs and what students are able to pay.

These institutions are said to "meet full need," meaning they charge admitted students the amount that the formula says they can afford. However, they may choose not to admit students with financial need. Institutions that are "need blind" do not consider need when they make admissions decisions and provide this high level of financial support for any student who enrolls. I will return to this distinction below.

Public colleges and universities

The defining feature of the pricing system at public institutions is a sticker price that is set by the state with a goal of maintaining affordability for state residents. It is typically tens of thousands of dollars less than the sticker price at private institutions. Students from higher-income families pay that price. The lower sticker price means less revenue for the institution, so spending per student at public institutions is typically lower than at large endowment private colleges and universities.

But many students cannot afford the sticker price at their state institutions. These institutions rarely have large endowments available to fund financial aid sufficient to fill the gap. Instead, their main additional source of funding is the state. But that funding is often insufficient to meet the needs of all students. A handful of flagships meet full need, but most public institutions do not. Lower- and middle-income students are often asked to pay more than they can afford at these institutions.

Other private colleges and universities

Private colleges and universities that do not have large endowments typically spend less per student and are more comparable in quality to public institutions. They compete much more directly with those colleges. That limits the price that higher income students are willing to pay to attend. Some students may be willing to pay more for attributes like smaller classes, higher graduation rates, and attractive campuses, but that premium is unlikely to be large, limiting the maximum price these private universities can charge.

The maximum price students pay is often less than the sticker price at these institutions. They set a high sticker price and then offer financial aid to most or all students. Students ineligible for need-based aid receive merit awards. For students eligible for need-based financial aid, any merit aid they receive is often offset by a reduction in need-based aid, so their net price is unaffected by merit aid. This is a marketing strategy designed to signal the quality of the institution (by setting a high sticker price) and to convey to students that they are valued (by offering "merit aid"). The students who benefit the most from these merit awards are those who do not require need-based financial aid and would otherwise pay the full sticker price.

These institutions, like many public institutions, may also provide additional merit aid targeted to the highest-achieving applicants. Again, these awards typically displace need-based grants and largely do not benefit students from lower- and middle-income families.

Overall, these private institutions struggle to provide adequate financial aid. They do not have large endowments or state support to fully finance the necessary subsidies. They simply do not have sufficient resources available to provide affordable college pricing for lower- and middle-income students.

Students for whom financial aid does not make the price of college affordable have limited options. They can borrow more, attend local institutions (community colleges or nearby four-year colleges) that may not match their academic abilities but reduce their living expenses, or perhaps not go to college at all.

High-need students may be directly shut out from admission to selective institutions as well. To help close funding gaps, those institutions may favor enrolling students who can afford to pay more. For instance, public institutions frequently enroll students who reside in other states. Those students pay much more than in-state students and may not be eligible for much financial aid. Similar practices are used at both public and private institutions in their enrollment of international students. Institutions may want to enroll out-of-state and international students because they offer a diversity of viewpoints that has educational benefits, but they also improve institutional finances.

Even many wealthy private institutions with very large, but not the largest, endowments face this problem. They do not have quite enough resources to support any student they wish to admit without regard to need. These institutions therefore limit how many students from lower- and middle-income families they admit. They meet full need for all enrolled students, but they are not need blind.

Such strategies are inconsistent with the goals of an affordable pricing system. Institutions' use of these strategies to balance their expenditures with their tuition revenue highlights the crucial role of outside resources in making college affordable. The money to fill the gap shown in Figure 2 has to come from somewhere.

Our current system of college pricing leaves college unaffordable for many students. College costs more to provide than most families can afford to pay, and most institutions cannot make up the difference on their own. The ultimate problem is a lack of resources. Institutions need sufficient funding to enroll lower- and moderate-income students at an affordable price, a position only the wealthiest private institutions find themselves in. Most institutions simply need more money.

Where would that money come from? Larger endowments would help, but the donations needed and the time required for those funds to grow make such a solution impractical in most cases. Higher sticker prices paid by higher-income families could be used to generate surplus revenue, but that approach is unlikely to be well-received. Those students may demand more programs and services to justify those higher costs, driving expenditures up and eliminating some or all of the surplus. Greater direct support from state governments to public institutions would also help. Yet the politics of college affordability at the state level often involves keeping the sticker price low, even if that means cutting financial aid.

The federal government is the best funding source for the subsidies necessary to make higher education affordable. The federal government already subsidizes many activities that enable families to acquire basic life needs like food, housing, and medical care. Enabling students to obtain a college education regardless of their families' finances has benefits that extend beyond the student receiving the education. We should provide the necessary subsidies to enable low- and moderate-income students to pursue higher education.

This is the approach I described earlier regarding ways to fill in the funding gap shown in Figure 2. In essence, this approach would lead to a pricing system where students' full financial need is met, and admissions' decisions are made in a need-blind manner. This would make college affordable, but automatically offering federal subsidies to fill the gap between average spending and student payments creates an incentive for institutions to spend more. Regulation on spending would be required to overcome this problem.

A remaining question is what institutions would be incorporated into this pricing system. It would be natural to include all public institutions in such a system. The government is already heavily involved in this sector, but funding is insufficient. The pricing system I described would alleviate the funding gap with regulations instituted to manage incentives for excessive spending.

Highly endowed private institutions would not need to be part of such a system because they largely use their own funds to cover the gap between spending and affordable student payments. It is ironic that these institutions attract considerable attention for their high sticker prices because they best satisfy the goals of an affordable pricing system. They also enroll a high percentage of high-income students who pay full price. Those students tend to have stronger academic credentials and are more likely to be admitted even holding constant academic credentials. The pricing system these highly endowed institutions use is virtually impossible for most institutions to emulate. They simply do not have the money.

But what about prices at private institutions with considerably smaller endowments? They do not have the money to fill in the funding gaps themselves. The extensive subsidies and pricing regulation that would be required for the government to do so are inconsistent with their status as private entities. But these institutions will not be able to provide affordable pricing for students at all income levels without subsidies.

One alternative is to expand current financial aid programs, like increasing the Pell Grant. This approach can help reduce funding gaps at these institutions, but it may not eliminate them. We may need to be content with a system where these institutions are not accessible to all students regardless of need. Increasing educational opportunities, though, for more lower-income students to attend these institutions is still a worthwhile goal.

A final, necessary element of this system is pricing transparency. Even if we implement a system where institutions charge prices students can afford, they need to know how much that is. Without this information, how can students and their families make appropriate enrollment decisions?

It would help if institutions charged prices based on a calculation of how much students can afford to pay, as displayed in Figure 1. If so, online systems could enable younger students to forecast the amount they are likely to pay before getting a definitive price as they approach the age of college entry. The key is that they pay what they can afford.

Creating that formula is no simple task, partly because there is no "right" answer in translating income and assets into an amount families can afford. Whatever approach we use, maintaining simplicity in such calculations is critical (although doing so isn't always easy).

We also need to eliminate current practices that hinder pricing transparency. Setting a sticker price that few, if any, students pay as described earlier, provides one such example. Its use provides a marketing advantage for institutions, making it difficult for them to give up. It would take an agreement among schools to restrict this practice, an action that would almost surely (if unwisely) generate scrutiny from the Justice Department. Such scrutiny in this context would not increase competition in a way that lowers the price. Instead, it contributes to the lack of pricing transparency in the market that harms students.

The dual goals of excellence and affordability in our higher education system are difficult to achieve simultaneously. Institutions need incentives to strive for excellence, recognizing the impact of their decisions on affordability. Broadly speaking, our current system does not accomplish that. Achieving excellence and affordability will require significant changes.

The system I propose would move in that direction. The fundamental problem is insufficient resources at all but the most highly endowed private colleges. Where can additional resources come from? The simple answer is that they need to come from the federal government. The social benefits of a more educated society mean that such spending is a sound investment. Investments in higher education needs to be weighed against alternative uses of funds and the need to collect taxes to cover the cost. That said, this one seems worthwhile.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much should college cost students? | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Phillip Levine explores a path to making college affordable for everyone while maintaining the quality of our higher education system.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2021/07/charting-a-path-forward-for-college-athletes-to-receive.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charting a Path Forward for College Athletes to Receive Pay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCAA has long restricted what student athletes could receive in education-related benefits. But a recent Supreme Court ruling may be a step toward allowing athletes to access the income that their labor produces.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sentientmedia.org/animals-in-entertainment/