Bill Overview
Title: Building Civic Bridges Act
Description: This bill establishes an office and pilot grant program within the Corporation for National and Community Service to support civic bridge building, which aims to address local issues and polarization within communities.
Sponsors: Rep. Kilmer, Derek [D-WA-6]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by local issues and polarization
Estimated Size: 260000000
- The bill aims to establish an office to address local issues and polarization.
- Support is provided via a pilot grant program which implies a potentially wide application across different communities.
- Civic bridge building will likely engage local community leaders, organizations, and volunteers.
- Polarization is a broad societal issue, implying a large target demographic.
Reasoning
- This policy aims at addressing polarization and local community issues through civic engagement which can have varying impacts based on regional and individual factors.
- Considering the US population of approximately 260 million adults, a policy budget of $3.7 billion over 10 years translates to approximately $14 per person, necessitating careful allocation.
- The policy is likely to have different levels of impact based on the existing community structures and levels of polarization. Communities with active civic organizations might see more tangible benefits.
- Individuals deeply impacted by polarization (due to family, work, or local community dynamics) may see significant boosts in wellbeing.
- However, individuals not actively engaged in civic community activities or in less polarized environments may experience minimal changes in wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Community Organizer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could significantly strengthen our ongoing community efforts.
- Access to grants would help us launch more inclusive events and workshops targeting local polarization issues.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Photographer (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how much this policy will affect me personally.
- If it helps reduce local tension, it would be a good thing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think anything that gets people talking and working together is beneficial.
- We need more initiatives to tackle divisions in our community.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm generally positive, but this might not change much for me.
- If it facilitates more inclusive workplace discussions, that could be useful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m doubtful about how effective this policy can be, especially in rural areas.
- We are not facing major division issues here.
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 |
Social Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide much-needed support to bridge gaps in our community.
- Reducing polarization is key to improving the socio-economic environment.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this initiative could spur more active discussion and events on campus.
- It aligns well with student-led movements on civic engagement.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Café Owner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If implemented well, this policy could help foster better community conversations.
- Local businesses like mine benefit from a more united community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
School Principal (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving civic engagement can really help in the school context, addressing student and parent concerns.
- This policy could aid our programs focusing on student-led civic initiatives.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Lawyer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- By supporting local organizations, this could address systemic issues affecting my clients.
- It's a step forward, but widespread implementation is key.
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 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $315000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $420000000)
Year 3: $330750000 (Low: $220500000, High: $441000000)
Year 5: $364087500 (Low: $242725000, High: $485450000)
Year 10: $442130625 (Low: $294141750, High: $588283500)
Year 100: $4326951861 (Low: $2874567907, High: $5777895815)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of civic bridge-building initiatives is heavily reliant on community participation and engagement.
- Political and social contexts may affect the receptiveness and success of the programs in different areas.
- Long-term commitment and consistent funding are necessary to ensure the programs achieve their intended outcomes.
- The scope and reach of the pilot grant program will determine its impact and scalability.