Bill Overview
Title: Restaurant Revitalization Fund Fairness Act
Description: This bill requires the Small Business Administration to award restaurant revitalization grants to eligible entities that applied for, but did not receive, a grant during the specified covered time period.
Sponsors: Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
Target Audience
Population: People employed by restaurants globally that were eligible but unfunded
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The Restaurant Revitalization Fund Fairness Act is aimed at entities in the restaurant industry that have applied for grants but were previously denied.
- According to the National Restaurant Association, there are over 1 million restaurants in the United States, employing 15.6 million people.
- During the initial round of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund program, many eligible businesses applied for assistance due to severe financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic but did not receive funding.
- This bill affects restaurants that already applied for funding, meaning those who were actively seeking financial relief during the pandemic.
Reasoning
- The policy targets restaurants that initially applied for but did not receive financial aid from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. This implies it is limited to those who were previously eligible but unfunded, potentially due to budget constraints or application volume.
- Given the scale of the restaurant industry in the U.S., the target group might include several hundred thousand applicants, each employed by a restaurant that stands to be financially aided by this policy.
- Budget constraints imply that not every restaurant will receive maximum potential benefits if the number of eligible applicants exceeds the funding cap, hence not all interviews will show maximum impact.
- The range of restaurant types (e.g., small diners, high-end eateries) and geographical diversity suggests varied levels of impact, given differing economic environments and business scales.
- By understanding this policy's reach and its funding, I can simulate a spread of scenarios from no impact to high impact, depending on individual circumstances.
Simulated Interviews
Restaurant owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was really frustrated when I didn't get the grant before.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about this new round of funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Bartender (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping this grant helps us stabilize, otherwise I'll have to look for another job.
- The owners have been trying to get some relief since the pandemic.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Restaurant manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our team worked hard to keep the restaurant afloat despite the losses.
- This funding could make a big difference in our operational costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Chef (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The situation has been stressful, I'm hopeful this funding will come through.
- I've seen colleagues lose jobs; this needs to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant could keep the business profitable, affecting my returns.
- This bill might be the break we need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Owner of a food truck business (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was devastated when we didn't get any funding.
- If we get the grant, it will be a game-changer for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Sous chef (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like this could be our last chance to get some help.
- There's still hope for the future if we get this grant.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Owner of a franchise restaurant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With multiple locations to manage, every bit of funding can help.
- I hope this round of funding can help make our operations smoother.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Restaurant server (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like this policy could increase job security even a little.
- I just hope our restaurant gets recognized this time.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Restaurant supplier (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that helps restaurants stay open is beneficial for my business.
- I've seen too many clients close down, hopefully this helps some recover.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8340000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $9200000000)
Year 2: $8340000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $9200000000)
Year 3: $8340000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $9200000000)
Year 5: $8340000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $9200000000)
Year 10: $8340000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $9200000000)
Year 100: $8340000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $9200000000)
Key Considerations
- The average cost of grants per restaurant application needs regular evaluation alongside economic conditions.
- Any increase in grant size or number of awards could affect total costs.
- Potential increase in administrative costs for distributing these funds.
- Effectiveness in business continuity and employment retention as indirect savings.