Bill Overview
Title: To require certain agencies in the executive branch of the Federal government to conduct a study on duplicative functions, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires specified agencies in the executive branch of the federal government to conduct a study on duplicative functions. Specifically, such agencies (which include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency) must identity functions that duplicate the functions of other specified agencies; calculate the annual cost of such duplicative functions; and analyze solutions for eliminating such duplicative functions, including identifying which agency is best suited to have sole responsibility for such functions. Such agencies must jointly submit a consolidated report to Congress on the results.
Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]
Target Audience
Population: U.S. population benefiting from federal agency efficiency improvements
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill targets federal agencies, which means it impacts government operations and employees, particularly those working in the specified branches: Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and the EPA.
- Departments may need to reallocate resources or restructure programs, potentially affecting how services are delivered to the public.
- The outcome of such studies could lead to more efficient government services, indirectly impacting all U.S. citizens as beneficiaries of these services should inefficiencies be reduced.
- If duplicative functions are eliminated, there could be budget adjustments affecting these departments' financial planning.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects federal employees working in the specified agencies since they directly handle the functions under investigation.
- The outcomes, if successful, should result in cost reduction and improved efficiency in federal services. These improvements, indirectly, would benefit all U.S. residents by potentially reducing taxpayer burden and improving service delivery.
- Benefits to the general public are very indirect and realized over the long term. Immediate impacts are felt more within the federal workforce.
- The $3,000,000 budget constraint suggests this will be a study with limited immediate tangible impact on a large number of people short-term, though the potential for longer term pervasive impact on budgeting and efficiency exists.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst at the Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this study could identify some critical areas where we can streamline processes.
- As someone who works directly in policy development, I expect to be heavily involved in the process which is good for career growth.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Transportation Engineer at the Department of Transportation (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is always room for efficiency improvement, but I'm worried about potential job cuts in our projects.
- If done right, we may see better resource allocation which helps us on the ground.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist at the EPA (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our department already collaborates frequently, so I am curious to see if identified overlaps match our experiences.
- This could improve our department’s focus on crucial projects without duplication.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Federal Budget Analyst (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient budgeting is critical; if this leads to that, I'm all for it.
- It's essential to eliminate waste but we need to ensure critical functions aren't lost in the process.
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 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Public Affairs Specialist (New York City, New York)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every policy change requires us to adapt our communication strategy to the public; this could streamline our messaging.
- I'm hopeful this will make functional communication easier.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Clerk at Department of Agriculture (Richmond, Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about how this study might affect my job.
- If it makes the department more efficient, that's great, but I am worried about possible layoffs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Federal Program Manager for Environmental Programs (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining functions could significantly impact our project timelines and effectiveness.
- There is potential for positive change, but it must be handled carefully to benefit long-term projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Administrative Assistant in Department of Commerce (Miami, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These studies often result in little actual change, but they do take bureaucratic time.
- I hope it helps, but am not optimistic about real impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT Technician in the Department of Transportation (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to better IT resource management and allocation without duplication.
- Hopefully, this results in smoother operations and less redundancy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Senior Researcher at EPA (Houston, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative has the potential to enhance clarity in responsibility and collaboration.
- Efficiency improvements should help streamline activities across departments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The cost is minimal and includes reallocating existing agency resources.
- While the study may reduce inefficiencies, actual budget savings would depend on implementation strategies post-study.
- Short-term resource allocation in agencies might affect current operations.
- Potential for long-term cost savings exists, but it requires follow-up action post-report.