The FY26/27 Federal Budget Proposal has prompted significant discussion among disability advocates, particularly regarding how federal investments should be structured to support long-term outcomes. A key point of tension is the proposal to expand the National Independent Living Program while simultaneously eliminating University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs). Both programs serve essential but distinct purposes within the disability support system, and the concern raised is not about the value of either program individually, but about the implications of positioning them in competition with one another.

The Independent Living Program plays a critical role in supporting individuals with disabilities to live autonomously within their communities, providing services that promote self-determination and reduce reliance on institutional care. In contrast, UCEDDs function as a foundational infrastructure for the broader system, contributing research, professional training, and technical assistance that strengthen the quality and effectiveness of disability services nationwide. Together, these programs operate as interconnected parts of a larger ecosystem, where direct services and institutional expertise reinforce one another.

Eliminating UCEDDs to fund an expansion of independent living services risks undermining the very infrastructure that helps ensure those services are effective and evidence-based. Rather than treating these programs as interchangeable funding priorities, a more sustainable approach would recognize their complementary roles and ensure both are adequately supported. Strengthening disability policy requires investment in direct community services as well as the research and training systems that sustain them over time.

My Thoughts

In my view, eliminating these programs altogether would not be the most effective solution. A more constructive and sustainable approach would be to focus on periodic restructuring and continuous improvement of how they operate, rather than removing them entirely. This restructuring should happen on a reasonable cycle—such as every five years—allowing sufficient time to properly evaluate outcomes, identify systemic gaps, and implement meaningful changes without disrupting essential services. Importantly, any reform process should prioritize consistent input from the individuals who directly rely on these programs, since their lived experiences provide critical insight into what is effective and what needs to be improved. Because the needs of people with disabilities evolve over time, ongoing feedback ensures that services remain relevant, responsive, and practically useful in everyday life.

This approach also helps ensure that disability rights and disability advocacy remain aligned with current realities. Many foundational systems and policies that guide disability services were established decades ago, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was passed in 1990. While the ADA remains a landmark and essential piece of civil rights legislation that significantly advanced accessibility and protections for disabled individuals, it is now over three decades old, and the broader disability service landscape has continued to evolve since its passage. Recognizing its importance does not mean policy development should stop; rather, it highlights the need for updated laws, modernized programs, and new frameworks that build upon the ADA’s foundation. Strengthening the system through new and adaptive legislation would ensure that disability rights remain responsive to current needs while continuing to expand opportunity, access, and support for the disability community.

This approach may also raise concerns among policymakers about potential increases in administrative or budgeting complexity, with some arguing that introducing regular restructuring cycles could lead to additional planning costs or more frequent evaluations of program effectiveness; however, these considerations need to be balanced against the broader goal of maintaining services that are accurate, efficient, and responsive to real-world needs, because without periodic review there is also a risk of inefficiency continuing unchecked within outdated systems, which can ultimately lead to even greater long-term costs and ineffective allocation of resources.

Question to Consider

How can federal policy be structured to support both the Independent Living Program and UCEDDs in a way that strengthens each without requiring the elimination of the other, ensuring that both direct services and foundational infrastructure continue to advance together?

Sources

Disability Scoop

Trump Budget Calls For Eliminating Key Disability Programs (2026-04-07)

Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD)

AUCD Statement: President’s FY27 Budget Raises Concerns for Disability Programs (2026)

National Association of Direct Support Professionals (NADSP)

Don’t Dismantle What Works: The University Programs That Help People with Disabilities Thrive (2025)