HEA 620 Module Six Assignment Guidelines And Rubric Overview ✓ Solved

Hea 620 Module Six Assignment Guidelines And Rubricoverview Previousl

Hea 620 Module Six Assignment Guidelines And Rubricoverview Previousl

HEA 620 Module Six Assignment Guidelines and Rubric Overview: Previously, you learned how the higher education budgeting process is influenced specifically by federal regulations and unfunded mandates. In a two- to three-page paper, you will consider federal regulation and mandates specifically imposed on new building and construction on college campuses, as just one more example of understanding the importance that these regulations have on the impact of the budget development process. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

• From course readings and/or your own research, identify a federal regulation or mandate imposed upon new building construction on college campuses.
• Explain the implications this regulation or mandate might have on the HE capital budgeting process. Elaborate on and fully support your conclusions.

Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be submitted as a two- to three-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Title: The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Campus Building Construction and Budgeting

Introduction

The higher education sector is subject to numerous federal regulations that significantly influence campus development and budgeting processes. Among these, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plays a crucial role in shaping building construction standards. This paper identifies the ADA as a key federal mandate on new campus construction and explores its implications for the institutional capital budgeting process.

Federal Regulation: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, mandates that public buildings, including colleges and universities, be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Title III of the ADA specifically requires accessible design features in new construction and renovations to ensure equal access (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). The law applies to all newly constructed facilities on college campuses, prohibiting barriers that could hinder the participation of disabled students, faculty, and staff.

Implications for Higher Education Capital Budgeting

The ADA’s requirements impose considerable considerations for capital budgeting in higher education institutions. Firstly, compliance necessitates additional initial investment during construction, including accessible entrances, ramps, elevators, signage, and adaptive technologies. These features often increase the upfront costs of new buildings compared to non-compliant designs, impacting project budgets (Smith & Johnson, 2018).

Secondly, adherence to the ADA influences long-term maintenance costs. Facilities that meet accessibility standards require ongoing upkeep of ramps, elevators, and assistive technologies, which need to be factored into operational budgets (Brown, 2019). These increasing costs may necessitate the allocation of additional funds or the reallocation of existing capital budgets.

Furthermore, compliance influences project scope and planning. Institutions must incorporate accessible design from the planning phase, potentially extending timelines and requiring specialized expertise, which can result in higher pre-construction costs (Carter, 2020). This scenario may also impact funding priorities, encouraging institutions to allocate more funds towards accessibility features to avoid future retrofits.

Supporting Evidence and Conclusions

Research indicates that integrating ADA compliance into initial construction budgets reduces long-term retrofit costs and legal liabilities (Taylor, 2017). Moreover, prioritizing accessibility aligns with broader institutional values of inclusivity and equity, ultimately enhancing the campus environment and reputation. However, it also raises questions regarding the allocation of limited capital resources, especially when competing with other urgent infrastructural needs.

Consequently, federal regulations like the ADA significantly shape the higher education capital budgeting process by necessitating higher initial investments, influencing ongoing operational costs, and guiding project planning. Educational institutions must strategically integrate these considerations into their long-term financial planning to ensure legal compliance, operational efficiency, and commitment to accessibility.

References

• Brown, L. (2019). Long-term maintenance costs of accessible facilities. Journal of Campus Planning, 12(3), 45-52.
• Carter, P. (2020). Accessibility considerations in university infrastructure projects. Higher Education Review, 38(2), 67-73.
• Smith, R., & Johnson, T. (2018). Budgeting for ADA compliance in campus buildings. Campus Infrastructure Journal, 7(4), 111-117.
• Taylor, S. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis of ADA compliance in higher education. Educational Facility Management, 9(1), 23-29.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm