Bill Overview
Title: Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Expansion Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to develop a plan to increase the total number of units of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps to ensure that there is reasonable access to such units in each geographic region of the United States by September 30, 2031.
Sponsors: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Target Audience
Population: High school students in the United States
Estimated Size: 600000
- The bill focuses on expanding the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC), a program typically available in high schools across the United States.
- Participants in JROTC programs are typically high school students, and the program is designed to teach them leadership, discipline, and some basic military skills.
- The bill aims to ensure reasonable access to JROTC units in each geographic region within the United States, suggesting the focus is on improving access for U.S. residents.
- As of 2020, there were approximately 3,400 JROTC units across the United States, involving over half a million students annually.
- An expansion could add units to underserved areas, increasing the number of students who participate in JROTC.
Reasoning
- In considering the distribution of interviews across the population, it's important to include both students who will be directly impacted by the increased access to JROTC and those who may not engage with the program even if it becomes more accessible. This will include students from urban, rural, and suburban regions.
- The budget constraints suggest that while the program can expand significantly, it may not reach every student interested in participating immediately, particularly in very remote areas or areas with existing resource constraints.
- Additionally, we must account for stakeholders such as school administrators and parents who may influence students' decisions to join JROTC programs.
- Given this is a federal program, impacts might differ based on local policy and societal attitudes towards military programs.
- Including views from different demographic segments will help reflect the diversity in opinion regarding the military and related training programs for youths.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (New York City, NY)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think having more JROTC units is great because it gives students more opportunities to be involved in leadership activities.
- Even though I'm not personally interested in JROTC, seeing other students have more diverse extracurricular options could improve our school's environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
High School Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am excited about the expansion of JROTC programs because it aligns with my future goals of serving in the military.
- Having more access to these programs means I don't have to travel far to participate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
High School Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have mixed feelings about JROTC expansion. It's nice to have more opportunities for students, but I wonder if the resources could be used elsewhere like arts programs.
- Not everyone is interested in military-related activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
High School Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 16 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The JROTC expansion is a good thing for those interested in leadership and discipline, but I hope it doesn't overshadow other important programs.
- It could be a positive avenue for students who want structure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Middle School Student (Rural Tennessee)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious about JROTC but it's not a well-known option in my community. Expanding it would give people here more information and choices.
- I think it could be interesting to learn more about leadership and the military.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High School Senior (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm neutral about the JROTC expansion. I don't think it affects me much, but it could open up jobs and skills for others my age.
- My main concern is how funds are being allocated in education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
High School Student (Orlando, FL)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about JROTC becoming more accessible. It supports my career aspirations and gives me a sense of direction.
- I hope this program helps more students find their way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
High School Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 17 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think JROTC expansion will affect my plans, but it's a good initiative for increasing student choices.
- Opportunities like JROTC are great if they're balanced with other extracurriculars.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
High School Student (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more JROTC options won't directly impact me, but it's beneficial for friends who enjoy those activities.
- I hope schools maintain diverse program offerings.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
High School Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- JROTC expansion seems like a positive initiative, especially for those interested in the military route.
- Increasing options should always be encouraged.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $190000000)
Year 2: $170000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $180000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $210000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $240000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $290000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $330000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill aims for expansion by September 30, 2031, which provides a structured timeline for implementation and funding allocation.
- Establishing reasonable access implies geographically diverse implementations, potentially complicating logistics and funding distribution.
- Consideration of existing school programs and integration challenges will be critical.