Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8023

Bill Overview

Title: Don Young Arctic Warrior Act

Description: This bill requires the military departments and the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide certain benefits to specified members of the Armed Forces who are assigned to a duty station in Alaska or those assigned to perform cold weather operations. Additionally, DOD must establish various programs and incentives for certain behavioral health students or professionals.

Sponsors: Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals involved in military operations or assignments in cold weather regions, specifically in Alaska

Estimated Size: 150000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Infantry Soldier (Anchorage, Alaska)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hoping the policy will mean better equipment and more reliable support during our training missions.
  • Benefits like this are essential, especially for those of us stationed in challenging environments.

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 8 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Military Health Professional (Fairbanks, Alaska)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe the policy might provide more resources for mental health services, which are incredibly needed.
  • Adequate support can reduce turnover and improve servicemembers' readiness.

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 4

Logistics Officer (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having access to the right resources and backups is a game-changer for us in logistics.
  • If the policy means smoother operations, it's absolutely beneficial.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Civilian Contractor (New York, New York)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's uncertain how much this will impact my work directly, but improvements in soldier training are welcome.
  • Indirect benefits might surface through improved efficiency.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 5

Air Force Environmental Engineer (Ketchikan, Alaska)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With the new policy, I'm hoping for increased awareness and better tools to address environmental considerations.
  • Our work is often overlooked, so this could be a morale boost.

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 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Navy Submariner (Juneau, Alaska)

Age: 31 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any support is good support; the policy could improve our readiness and personal comfort.
  • I'm cautiously optimistic about what changes will actually happen on the ground.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

Family Therapist (Fairbanks, Alaska)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful that more resources will come to help families adjust to these challenging environments.
  • Improved wellbeing of soldiers directly impacts families.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Army Chef (Fairbanks, Alaska)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could mean better provisions, making my job easier and less stressful.
  • If it includes better facilities, it could improve daily life significantly.

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 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I won’t be directly impacted, understanding these policies is crucial for strategic planning.
  • The long-term benefits will need continuous review to ensure effectiveness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Army Nurse (Anchorage, Alaska)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any improvement to our medical facilities or supplies would directly benefit my work.
  • I'm particularly interested in how behavioral health incentives play out.

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 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)

Year 2: $1020000000 (Low: $820000000, High: $1220000000)

Year 3: $1040000000 (Low: $840000000, High: $1240000000)

Year 5: $1100000000 (Low: $880000000, High: $1320000000)

Year 10: $1200000000 (Low: $960000000, High: $1440000000)

Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)

Key Considerations