Bill Overview
Title: Emergency Rental Assistance Accountability and Transparency Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Office of Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury to conduct monitoring and oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and use of funds made available under the emergency rental assistance program pursuant to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and recoup misused funds. The bill provides funding for these activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN-6]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide potentially impacted by changes in rental assistance fund management
Estimated Size: 8000000
- The bill is targeted towards oversight of the emergency rental assistance funds distribution.
- These funds were originally part of the American Rescue Plan, which was aimed at helping renters affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The main groups who would have benefitted from these funds are low-income renters and landlords on their behalf.
- This typically includes individuals who experienced financial hardship due to the pandemic and are at risk of eviction.
Reasoning
- The main impact of this policy is on the oversight and accountability in the use of emergency rental assistance funds, which means immediate direct impacts on individual wellbeing are not as significant as indirect ones.
- The primary group affected are low-income renters who rely on these funds during financial hardships, particularly due to the pandemic.
- Landlords may also be indirectly affected as they rely on tenants to be able to pay rent through these funds.
- Oversight and proper fund usage mean the funds go to those who truly need them, potentially increasing financial stability for renters in need.
- Renters not reliant on assistance, or those whose applications were already successful and left uncontested, will see minimal to no impact.
- The policy has a relatively moderate budget compared to the large potential population of affected renters, so the direct benefit may be spread thinly over a wide population.
Simulated Interviews
waitress (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really grateful for the rental assistance during the pandemic. It was a lifeline.
- I'm glad to know that funds are being monitored so people like me who really need them can stay in our homes.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
property manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Proper oversight is crucial. Mismanaged funds make it hard for us to maintain the properties.
- This policy might restore some faith in the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't impact me directly, but it's good to know the funds are properly allocated.
- As someone on a fixed income, effective use of funds for others is a societal benefit.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might need assistance if things go south, so knowing there's transparency is reassuring.
- Hopefully, it's done fairly and can reach everyone who needs it.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
construction worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was worried when my application was delayed; knowing they're making oversight a priority makes me hopeful.
- If funds get misused, that could really hurt guys like me trying to get by.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
nurse (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pandemic made clear how important accountability is. It's crucial for funds to go to those who need them.
- This might not impact my rent situation directly, but neighbors could benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
graphic designer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having clear monitoring on these funds can safeguard renters like me from eviction.
- Greater assurance in the system helps me focus on work without rent worries.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
landlord (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the benefit for my tenants. Proper oversight ensures continuity and stability in my business.
- Mismanagement hurts everyone involved, including property owners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
small business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting renters indirectly supports local businesses like mine.
- A robust system means fewer people moving away, hence more local commerce stability.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My wellbeing directly links to these funds—oversight means they get to me when needed.
- It's a relief knowing misuse decreases through policy like this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of oversight needing significant investment during the early years of application.
- Potential savings realized through avoided misuse of funds should be calculated over time.
- Unexpected legal expenses may arise due to auditing and recoupment processes.