Bill Overview
Title: Rural Prosperity Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses social, economic, and community well-being and resilience in rural communities. Specifically, the bill establishes, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Rural Prosperity to promote and support social and economic prosperity in rural areas. The office, among other duties, must develop (1) a strategy for rural development, and (2) metrics to measure the effectiveness of federal programs on rural areas. Additionally, the bill sets up a council that includes representatives from federal agencies and White House policy offices to ensure collaboration across federal agencies and with other stakeholders concerning the needs of rural areas. The bill also requires the Department of Agriculture to develop, and report on the implementation of, a rural prosperity action plan that addresses structural challenges that affect rural communities.
Sponsors: Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]
Target Audience
Population: People in rural communities worldwide
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets rural communities, which are characterized by low population density and are often located outside metropolitan areas.
- Rural areas tend to have unique socio-economic challenges, including access to healthcare, education, and infrastructure, which the bill aims to address.
- Globally, rural populations make up about 45% of the world's population according to the World Bank.
- The effectiveness of this bill's initiatives will predominantly affect rural residents universally, but the legislation is focused on the U.S., so the direct impact on global populations is indirect.
Reasoning
- The allocated budget suggests a moderate-scale intervention that must maximize impact particularly in areas with the greatest need such as healthcare and infrastructure development.
- Since the policy focuses on broad socio-economic improvement, individuals in rural jobs (like farming) or with limited access to key services (healthcare, education) may see more direct impacts.
- Rural areas have diverse needs, from access to the internet to basic healthcare, implying that benefits of the policy may differ significantly based on local conditions.
- The long-term nature of the policy (10-year horizon) suggests that immediate changes may be subtle, with more significant impacts visible over time.
- Given the budget constraints and wide target area (60 million rural Americans), the policy might initially result in pilot projects or infrastructure improvements in key locations.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Jones County, Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy could bring better infrastructure and internet access, which would help with my farming operations.
- Any support to bolster local economies and farming techniques would be very beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Nurse (Appalachia, Kentucky)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rural healthcare infrastructure needs a lot of aid, and I hope this policy will address that.
- There's a dire need for better job opportunities to reduce health problems related to poverty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Dakota County, Nebraska)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cultural projects could use some of the new funding, which might enhance community engagement.
- I'm concerned whether the policy will benefit older citizens relying heavily on local infrastructure.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Technician (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Renewable energy is vital for rural areas, and policy incentives could attract more projects here.
- I hope there are plans for training locals in renewable energy technology.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Rural Vermont)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial that small businesses receive some of this rural support for economic stability.
- Improving local tourism could be a significant boost to local businesses.
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 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Rural Alabama)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better job opportunities locally would be welcome.
- Infrastructure improvements such as roads and schools need urgent attention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Rural Oregon)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope there will be support for education and training in rural areas.
- Access to internships and work-study programs locally is essential for students like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Rancher (Great Plains, North Dakota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these are vital for sustaining agriculture and ranching families.
- Water projects in the area could benefit tremendously from this funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Rural Nevada)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the education sector gets a fair share of these resources for student tech access.
- Rural school improvements are long overdue.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Rural Idaho)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Coordination among various federal and local agencies will be necessary for success.
- Social support services in rural communities could see major benefits from this policy.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among federal agencies might enhance efficiency and alignment in rural development programs, but quantifying these benefits is complex.
- Rural areas' unique challenges require targeted interventions, suggesting that a standardized approach may need flexibility in execution.