Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6426

Bill Overview

Title: Empowering Local Officials to Combat Homelessness Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires every Continuum of Care board to comply with transparency guidelines regarding grant awards and to have on the board at least one member who is the chief executive officer of a local government in the area and at least one member who is a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the area. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct oversight of Continuum of Care boards that have violated Continuum of Care grant requirements within the past three years.

Sponsors: Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals experiencing homelessness or utilizing homelessness services

Estimated Size: 582000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Homelessness Services Case Worker (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe increasing transparency and having local leaders on the boards could ensure the funds are used effectively.
  • I worry about the involvement of law enforcement; it might lead to more policing rather than supportive services.

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 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Local Government Official (Chicago, IL)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might finally give us the tools to direct resources where they're truly needed in our community.
  • Bringing law enforcement in might be controversial, but I see the potential for improved coordination.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Volunteer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any transparency into fund management would be beneficial, but it really depends on how it's implemented.
  • Our shelter sees the brunt of funding mishaps, so any improvement could make a big difference.

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 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 3

Currently Homeless (Austin, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned that adding law enforcement to the process could mean more police interactions, which isn't always good.
  • But, anything that helps the shelters run better is a plus.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 4 3
Year 3 4 3
Year 5 3 2
Year 10 2 2
Year 20 2 1

Law Enforcement Officer (New York, NY)

Age: 38 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm looking forward to having a say in these meetings, but our focus will need to be on safety alongside support.
  • There's potential here to sync our services better with the needs of the homeless community.

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 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 4

Retired (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 66 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With more clarity on where the money goes, we can make better plans at the community level.
  • It's important that this doesn’t just become an avenue for more bureaucracy and delays.

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 6 3
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Homeless Advocate (Las Vegas, NV)

Age: 51 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 12.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Greater accountability is necessary to ensure funds actually aid those in dire need.
  • I'm skeptical about law enforcement's role due to past negative interactions with the community.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 3
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 7 2
Year 20 6 2

Non-Profit Director (Boston, MA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's crucial that the funds are distributed equitably based on real local needs.
  • The involvement of local leaders is a positive change if they genuinely have community interests at heart.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 7 2

City Planner (Denver, CO)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having city officials directly involved with grant decisions is likely to align services with real-time data and needs.
  • Streamlined board actions could improve service delivery effectiveness and timeliness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Shelter Director (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased transparency can help us avoid disallowed costs and ensure we receive all possible funds.
  • However, the addition of new board members may slow down decision-making processes significantly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations