Bill Overview
Title: Economic Development Promotion and Resiliency Act
Description: This bill modifies the Economic Development Administration's (EDA) public works and economic development programs. For example, the bill establishes grants (1) for predevelopment activities (e.g., community asset mapping); (2) for economic development capacity building; and (3) to support outdoor recreation, tourism, hospitality.
Sponsors: Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by changes to economic development programs
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill establishes grants for predevelopment activities, which can affect communities and regions looking to map their assets and leverage them for development.
- Economic development capacity building grants target local governments, community organizations, and other entities focused on improving economic infrastructure and growth.
- Grants to support outdoor recreation, tourism, and hospitality directly impact businesses and workers in those industries, potentially leading to job creation and enhanced local economies.
Reasoning
- When designing the simulation, it’s important to reflect the diversity of the target population. It includes both direct beneficiaries of the grants and those indirectly affected, such as community members within regions of focus.
- Given the budget and scope of the policy, the simulation considers people from rural and urban areas, with different degrees of involvement in economic development activities.
- The variation in commonness scores reflects the balance of having more frequent profiles (those who are commonly affected by public policy shifts) and less common niche profiles to provide a rounded picture.
- Interviews should cover different economic sectors mentioned in the policy such as community planning, tourism, and hospitality, representing both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
- The budget is more likely to target economically vulnerable regions with higher levels of underdevelopment, given the EDA's focus on underserved communities.
Simulated Interviews
Community Planner (Rural, Idaho)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about this policy as it provides our community with the resources needed for asset mapping.
- I believe it will result in increased tourism which can boost local businesses.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Hotel Manager (Urban, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help recover lost ground post-pandemic by enhancing tourism promotions.
- I'm hopeful but cautious about the execution and real impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Economic Development Officer (Suburban, Texas)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These grants are crucial for planned community improvements and capacity building.
- We are keen on leveraging this to drive sustainable development.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Park Guide (Rural, Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bring more visitors and job security to the park.
- We need to ensure the focus remains on conservation as well.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Urban, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant's support is promising for rebuilding local tourism but needs streamlined access.
- It could lead to more job opportunities and business growth.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Non-Profit Director (Suburban, Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Capacity building grants will empower local initiatives and create sustainable jobs.
- We hope to see these investments lead to tangible changes.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Rural, Kentucky)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm retired, I'm glad to see resources directed to our community for the future.
- Grandchildren might benefit from the improved local economy.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelance Writer (Suburban, Washington)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential for writers and analysts to cover and critique these developments.
- Will closely follow the policy's impact on small businesses in recreation.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Rancher (Rural, Nevada)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential benefits are high for tourism in the region but cautious about environmental impact.
- Hope it balances economic and environmental priorities.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
City Council Member (Urban, Minnesota)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The city is hopeful about enhancing economic prospects through strategic use of these grants.
- Transparency and accountability in grant allocation are crucial.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 3: $340000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $390000000)
Year 5: $380000000 (Low: $330000000, High: $430000000)
Year 10: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $470000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- The ability and readiness of communities to effectively utilize the grants.
- Economic conditions that may affect the tourism and hospitality sectors.
- The administrative load on the EDA to manage and disperse the new grants may require internal resource scaling.