Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8249

Bill Overview

Title: Don’t Block LGBTQ Act of 2022

Description: This bill prohibits elementary schools, secondary schools, or public libraries that receive discount rates for telecommunications services under the universal service support program from blocking internet access to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer resources. The bill does not prohibit schools or libraries from blocking content that is obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors.

Sponsors: Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10]

Target Audience

Population: people who seek access to LGBTQ resources in schools or libraries

Estimated Size: 10000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

High School Student (Austin, Texas)

Age: 17 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I've often struggled to find resources at the school library about LGBTQ topics because they're blocked.
  • I feel like this policy could open a lot of doors for us to learn more and support each other.

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 5
Year 20 8 5

Librarian (San Francisco, California)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's frustrating to have to deny patrons access to information due to blockages.
  • This law would help us uphold the principles of free information access.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

School Counselor (Rural Alabama)

Age: 32 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Many students in rural areas lack access to supportive resources online.
  • This policy could help bridge that gap and make students feel more accepted.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 4

Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The restrictions on internet access often hinder teaching materials, especially regarding diversity topics.
  • Expanding access would surely benefit my students' understanding of a wider world.

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 6

Middle School Student (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 14 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm constantly looking for answers and support online, but it's often blocked at school.
  • This change would be a lifeline to learn and connect with others.
  • I feel like I wouldn’t be so isolated.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 3
Year 2 6 3
Year 3 7 3
Year 5 8 3
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 9 3

Retired Educator (New York City, New York)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having seen the struggles of my children accessing information, I know how vital such policies are.
  • This law would keep progress going, although some places might not be drastically changed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

College Student (Miami, Florida)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Access has been integral during my transition and in finding support networks.
  • Ensuring high school students get the same would improve many lives but is less relevant to me personally.

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 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Software Developer (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Personally, my access isn't restricted, but I see the systemic benefits.
  • This bill will help upcoming generations and foster inclusivity from a younger age.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Library Director (Charlotte, North Carolina)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with our goals of equal access.
  • Some branches already comply, so immediate changes might be limited.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Stay-at-home Parent (Portland, Oregon)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Given what my child has faced, this access is crucial to their well-being.
  • Policy execution will determine how effective this change is for us.

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 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)

Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)

Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)

Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)

Key Considerations