Bill Overview
Title: Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant program through FY2032 and otherwise modifies the program. The program supports various antipoverty activities, primarily through formula-based allotments to states, Indian tribes, and territories. In particular, the bill makes changes to the program's administration and leadership; performance measurement; and allotments to states and territories. The bill also expands eligibility for services and activities funded by the program to 200% of the federal poverty line (FPL). Under current law, eligibility is generally set at the FPL.
Sponsors: Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
Target Audience
Population: Low-income individuals worldwide, specifically expanded to those up to 200% FPL
Estimated Size: 125000000
- The Community Services Block Grant program primarily benefits low-income individuals who are at or below the federal poverty line.
- By expanding the eligibility to 200% of the federal poverty line, the bill will impact a larger number of low-income individuals than the current program.
- The target population for such programs generally includes individuals and families living with income levels at or below the 200% FPL.
- The program supports antipoverty activities that may include housing assistance, job training, and early childhood education initiatives.
Reasoning
- The Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act primarily supports low-income individuals up to 200% of the federal poverty line. This extended eligibility means that more diverse economic profiles will be covered, reaching from individuals currently at the poverty line up to those in the working class or lower middle class in higher cost areas.
- The budget constraints will affect how much support can be effectively given per individual, given the large pool of potential beneficiaries. Thus, the impact may vary significantly based on individual circumstances, regional cost of living, and specific needs.
- This simulation will include individuals from a range of backgrounds to reflect differences in regional living costs, family sizes, and occupations. This approach ensures we see a spectrum of impacts from none, low, medium, to high.
- The policy provides funding for welfare services which can directly improve living conditions, thereby having a medium to significant impact on wellbeing scores for those who are currently near or below the 200% FPL.
Simulated Interviews
Part-time retail worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Currently, it's incredibly difficult for me to make ends meet, especially with high rent and childcare costs.
- This expanded program could finally provide some relief, allowing me to maybe get better childcare or see if there's job training that could help me find a full-time job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being laid off, I've been struggling to find work, and health insurance is a real concern.
- This policy could help me while I find new work, especially with training or maybe getting into a new field at my age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Freelance artist (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With such unstable income from month to month, having more access to services like this could be a game-changer.
- I'm particularly interested in healthcare and maybe some support to formalize my work more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Homemaker (Rural Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living in a rural area, we often don't get much help or resources.
- Any support in food or emergency funds would help our family a lot, especially in bad months.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retirement isn't easy, especially in a city like this where everything costs so much.
- If this program could help with even some of my healthcare costs, it'd make living here more manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Full-time student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing school, work, and debt is difficult. If this program could even help with rent or some bills, it'd relieve a lot of pressure.
- I'm not sure about long-term, but short-term assistance would be great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Freelance consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a freelancer, work isn't always steady, and there aren't benefits like unemployment for slow periods.
- Any temporary support or healthcare would be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Full-time restaurant worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's challenging to support my kids, especially with the stagnant wages in hospitality.
- If this could help with my rent or kids' expenses, it'd really improve our quality of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Gig economy worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having no regular income or benefits is pretty stressful.
- If this program gives us better access to some stability, it'd help me think about long-term goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Unemployed (Appalachia, WV)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Support in terms of disability services or any transitional help would be appreciated, especially due to lack of regional resources.
- It might help reduce the burden while I navigate living here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1150000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $1150000000 (Low: $1050000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1150000000, High: $1450000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Key Considerations
- The expanded eligibility could reach a significant portion of Americans, influencing consumption patterns and overall economic demand.
- Changes in performance measurements and administrative updates may initially increase costs but have the potential for incurred savings in subsequent years.
- Estimating accurate costs depends on outreach effectiveness and the rate of program participation among newly eligible populations.