Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6799

Bill Overview

Title: John P. Parker House Study Act

Description: This bill directs the Department of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the John P. Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, which was recognized as a National Historic Landmark in 1997. In conducting the study of the house, Interior must (1) evaluate the national significance of the house, and (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the house as a unit of the National Park System.

Sponsors: Rep. Wenstrup, Brad R. [R-OH-2]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals interested in African American history and historic preservation

Estimated Size: 750000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

History Teacher (Cincinnati, Ohio)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's important to preserve our history and educate others about it.
  • This study could help bring more attention to African American contributions to the country.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small Business Owner (Ripley, Ohio)

Age: 57 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful but cautious. More visitors might mean more customers for us.
  • If the Parker House becomes a part of the National Park System, it could really boost local business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Museum Curator (New York City, New York)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Preserving sites like the John P. Parker House is crucial for cultural heritage.
  • This policy could mean more resources for similar historic sites in the future.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired Historian (San Francisco, California)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's good to see more investments in important historical landmarks.
  • Even from afar, the protection of such sites feels affirming.

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 6 6
Year 20 6 5

Graduate Student (Cleveland, Ohio)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm thrilled that the Parker House might get more recognition.
  • It's an important educational resource.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cultural Preservationist (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Support for historic sites is always welcome.
  • This study is a step in the right direction for heritage preservation.

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

Academic Researcher (Louisville, Kentucky)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The Parker House is an essential part of our nation's history.
  • More awareness and protection could greatly enhance its educational impact.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

College Student (Columbus, Ohio)

Age: 21 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • As someone passionate about history, seeing the Parker House get attention is exciting.
  • It makes me proud of our local history.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired Educator (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 63 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Historic preservation is important to me.
  • Adding the Parker House to the National Park System could broaden its reach and educational potential.

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 6 6

Tour Guide (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy leads to more locations becoming part of tours.
  • It could increase visibility for significant African American history.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000 (Low: $400000, High: $600000)

Year 2: $500000 (Low: $400000, High: $600000)

Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

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

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

Key Considerations