Bill Overview
Title: Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses funding for areas of persistent poverty. Specifically, the bill requires the Bureau of the Census to publish a list of all areas of persistent poverty and annually update the list; the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement guidance to increase the share of federal investments targeted to areas of persistent poverty and other areas with high and persistent poverty, and to report annually to Congress; and the Government Accountability Office to report on the measures implemented by the OMB under this bill, including an assessment regarding the impact of the measures on increasing federal investments spent in the affected areas.
Sponsors: Rep. Clyburn, James E. [D-SC-6]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas of persistent poverty
Estimated Size: 30000000
- Areas of persistent poverty are communities where high poverty levels have been consistent over a long period.
- People living in areas identified by the Census as being of persistent poverty will be directly impacted, as they are the target for increased federal investments.
- The definition of 'persistent poverty' in the United States usually involves poverty rates of at least 20% for 30 years or more.
- Global poverty data estimates that hundreds of millions of people live in poverty, but persistent poverty areas as targeted by the U.S. would be significantly less on a global scale.
Reasoning
- People living in rural or urban communities that have long-standing poverty will be directly impacted, while those in more affluent areas will remain unaffected.
- The policy aims to allocate increased funding to these areas, which could improve infrastructure, education, healthcare, and job opportunities.
- The diversity in occupations and backgrounds within areas of persistent poverty makes it important to capture a range of scenarios for individuals.
- We should include different age groups and occupations to reflect the heterogeneity of these areas.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will bring more resources to our schools and improve the quality of education.
- With better funding, we might be able to offer more after-school programs.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Coal Miner (Appalachia, KY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s tough here with jobs going away. Maybe this policy can bring some work back.
- Hope they focus on transportation; we need better ways to get around for work.
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 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Healthcare Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If they put money into healthcare, it could help me continue my studies without stress.
- I think this policy could really turn things around if executed right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (Mississippi Delta, MS)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been hard to make ends meet, maybe they'll finally invest in our infrastructure.
- My biggest hope is that this policy helps the younger folks stay on their farms instead of leaving.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retail Associate (South Bronx, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve heard promises before that haven’t panned out, so I’m cautiously optimistic.
- If this means more after-school programs for my cousins and siblings, that's great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Bakersfield, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More resources could mean I won't need to decide between food and medication.
- Hopefully, the community sees improvements, like in housing and services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Factory Worker (Camden, NJ)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this brings job training or better healthcare, it’ll be a real win.
- I’m hoping this policy really delivers and isn’t just talk.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Community Organizer (Pine Ridge, SD)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a chance to increase support for our youth and elders.
- I believe this could be transformative for our community if sustained.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Water Treatment Specialist (Flint, MI)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could drastically improve our community's public health situation.
- I hope for enough support to ensure safe water for everyone.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Developer (Houston, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not be impacted directly, but it’s great for those in need around me.
- It could make this area more appealing overall for residents.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Identifying the accurate areas of persistent poverty is crucial for targeting resources effectively.
- Budgetary allocations could lead to reduced funding for non-priority areas unless additional budget provisions are made.
- Coordination between multiple federal agencies will be necessary for effective implementation of this initiative.