Bill Overview
Title: Special Operations Oversight and Transparency Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to submit a report on the processes that it uses to assess, monitor, and evaluate programs and activities related to the support of special operations to combat terrorism.
Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-53]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in or affected by US Department of Defense Special Operations
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill focuses on the processes related to special operations against terrorism, specifically involving the Department of Defense.
- People directly involved in special operations, particularly those in the military, are the primary group impacted.
- Military personnel involved in oversight and strategic planning of special operations will be impacted by changes in reporting and evaluation processes.
- Lawmakers and congressional staff responsible for defense oversight may also be impacted by the increased reporting requirements.
- The general public, especially those concerned about national security and military transparency, are indirectly impacted as they may benefit from improved oversight.
Reasoning
- Considering the budget constraints, the policy focuses on processes rather than widespread financial benefits or impacts, therefore impacting mainly those involved in special operations oversight.
- The commonness score distribution reflects a focus on military personnel, particularly those involved in strategic and oversight roles. Additionally, lawmakers and public individuals interested in transparency are included to show broader perceptions.
- Given the specific targeted impact of the policy (DoD and special operations), most people outside this direct scope may see no change in their wellbeing, while those inside see potentially minor administrative shifts affecting them.
- Long-term potential benefits exist due to improved efficiencies and potential errors or mismanagement being caught early via better reporting, which could indirectly benefit the broader military culture.
Simulated Interviews
Special Forces Officer (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will add more layers of reporting, which is an administrative burden.
- It may improve accountability within Special Operations across the DoD.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Defense Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased reporting will provide data for better analysis of effectiveness in special operations.
- This could lead to stronger public trust in military operations.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Naval Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a good move for transparency but may slow operational decision-making.
- There's a need to balance oversight with swift action ability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
DoD Program Analyst (Tampa, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill will make my job more intensive in data collection.
- I expect it to increase overall understanding of funding use in operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Congressional Staffer (Arlington, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased oversight is essential for effective budget management.
- This could make our defense committees more informed.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Former Military, now Security Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional transparency can help in creating better small business strategies augmenting military operations.
- Policy won't affect my current work much, though.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public Policy Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better military oversight could enhance public trust, contributing to societal wellbeing.
- Policies like this should be common practice.
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 |
Military Family Advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Oversight could lead to better quality of life for military families by addressing broader operational inefficiencies.
- Immediate changes might not be obvious, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Air Force Officer (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While necessary, more paperwork and reporting could hinder operational capabilities.
- It might ultimately improve operational strategies if used effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired, former DoD Oversight Committee Member (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This should help streamline decisions and catch errors early in the operations stage.
- It's a good step towards enhanced checks and balances in military spending and operations.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary costs are administrative and relate to data collection, analysis, and the preparation of a comprehensive report by the Department of Defense.
- Impact on existing defense operations is expected to be limited, but attention must be paid to the allocation of resources to avoid compromising other areas.
- Potential need for privacy and classification protocols handling, given the sensitive nature of special operations data.