Bill Overview
Title: CEDS Act
Description: This bill requires grant applicants for certain public works and economic development projects to describe in their comprehensive economic development strategy how they will increase the accessibility of affordable, quality, care-based services (e.g., child care, early childhood education, disability and long-term care, and elder care). The bill also requires the Department of Commerce to report on the activities and outcomes of economic adjustment assistance funding provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or the CARES Act.
Sponsors: Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
Target Audience
Population: People globally accessing or needing care services such as child care, disability, long-term, and elder care.
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill focuses on increasing accessibility to care-based services, which are crucial for families with children, individuals requiring disability or long-term care, and elderly people.
- Child care and early childhood education accessibility improvements will broadly impact parents, particularly working parents who need reliable and affordable child care services.
- Increased accessibility to disability and long-term care services will directly benefit individuals with disabilities and those needing long-term care services, enhancing their quality of life.
- Elder care improvements will impact elderly individuals who need assistance, allowing them to receive better care and support.
- The bill's impact is wide-ranging as it seeks to incorporate care services into economic development strategies, potentially benefiting all U.S. citizens needing such services.
Reasoning
- A range of perspectives is important due to the policy involving different types of care services, affecting various age groups and occupations.
- The policy might not impact all individuals equally, as some regions might already have better access to such services.
- Budget constraints might limit the extent to which the policy can impact every individual immediately, thus the simulated changes in wellbeing scores can reflect gradual improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a great step towards supporting working parents like me.
- Affordable childcare is crucial, but I worry about how quickly the change will happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Full-time Caregiver (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could really ease the financial and emotional burden on families like mine.
- I'm hopeful more supportive services will emerge soon.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Freelance Designer (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy appears beneficial, my immediate needs are not fully addressed as aid takes time to reach.
- More tailored support for disabilities would be encouraging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Restaurant Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The initiative makes me optimistic about the future provisions for my child.
- I hope the impacts are broad and effective enough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retiree (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus on elder care, but unsure if it affects existing services.
- The integration with economic strategies is a thoughtful approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in accessible care can make a huge difference in daily life.
- I hope funding is well-allocated to areas most in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this provide potential roots for better work-life structures.
- I'm interested in how these can stimulate economic development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Nurse (Portland, OR)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems beneficial but I wonder about specific impacts on assisted living.
- More community involvement could be a positive outcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The intended outcomes offer hope for improved care which is much needed.
- Access to care will definitely influence my work capabilities.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Entrepreneur (Detroit, MI)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy sounds promising but support for small businesses managing childcare would be ideal.
- Sustainable growth in this area can greatly help my business model.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $74000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $85000000)
Year 100: $87000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $124000000)
Key Considerations
- The integration of care services into economic strategies could substantially impact workforce dynamics.
- Long-term economic benefits are expected but difficult to quantify immediately.
- The administrative and compliance costs associated with the detailed reporting and requirements.