Bill Overview
Title: McIntire-Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act
Description: This bill makes the District of Columbia eligible for funding under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act. (Under the Act, the Department of Agriculture provides funding to states for forestry research and graduate training at colleges and universities.)
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People in the District of Columbia involved in forestry research and academics
Estimated Size: 700000
- The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act provides funding for forestry research and graduate training.
- This bill specifically targets the District of Columbia, making it eligible for such funding for the first time.
- Washington D.C. is not a state, hence the previous ineligibility under the original Act.
- The residents of D.C. who are involved in academia, particularly in forestry-related fields, will be impacted by this bill.
- Any institution in D.C. offering forestry or related academic programs is likely to benefit.
- The forestry research community and students in D.C. will directly gain opportunities for funding from this legislation.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts the academic community involved in forestry research within Washington, D.C.
- Not every resident of Washington, D.C. is involved in forestry research; hence, only a specific segment of its 700,000 residents will be directly affected.
- Funding would be directed to colleges and universities, benefitting students and faculty engaged in forestry and related programs.
- The budget constraints suggest a limited number of grants or initiatives per year.
- By including perspectives from those indirectly connected or unaffected, we acknowledge that the policy's scope is relatively narrow.
- The policy would create opportunities for more research projects and educational programs, potentially improving collaboration opportunities.
- Graduate students and faculty members in these programs stand to gain the most, with increased funding for research projects.
- Considering the policy's academic focus, some individuals outside this focus might perceive no direct benefit.
- Understanding the impact over a 20-year horizon highlights potential long-term benefits in academic and ecological outcomes.
- The McIntire-Stennis funding model suggests a gradual increase in benefits through sustained academic and research developments.
Simulated Interviews
Graduate Student (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really excited about this policy!
- It might mean more funding for my research projects.
- It makes me feel like my studies are more valued and supported.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Assistant Professor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional funding will help expand our department's resources.
- This policy helps raise the profile of our field in the district.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Forestry Policy Analyst (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this doesn't directly impact me, I see the value for D.C.
- It's good to see policies being more inclusive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Administrator (Richmond, Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might lead to new partnership opportunities with D.C. institutions.
- Indirectly supports regional academic growth.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Maker (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will bolster our urban forestry work in the region.
- It aligns well with D.C.'s eco-friendly initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Botanist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see increased support for forest research.
- This might encourage more local ecological studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental NGO Worker (Alexandria, Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can indirectly benefit our projects through increased research.
- Boosts potential collaborations with D.C. institutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Undergraduate Student (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More opportunities for undergraduates to get involved in research!
- It could influence my decision to pursue further studies in forestry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public School Teacher (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy increases educational resources in D.C.
- Forestry is not directly in my curriculum, but there could be future benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Non-profit Director (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's always good to see more funding for research.
- This policy doesn't affect us directly, but I hope it leads to more overall awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)
Year 2: $1050000 (Low: $840000, High: $1260000)
Year 3: $1100000 (Low: $880000, High: $1320000)
Year 5: $1200000 (Low: $960000, High: $1440000)
Year 10: $1400000 (Low: $1120000, High: $1680000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill provides new opportunities for D.C. institutions to engage in forestry research, potentially leading to educational and environmental benefits.
- The impact will depend on the capacity of D.C. institutions to utilize the funding effectively.
- There is no direct cash savings involved; the funding is an expenditure increase.