Bill Overview
Title: To require the Secretary of the Army to include communities affected by major disasters in the definition of an economically disadvantaged community, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of the Army to include communities affected by major disasters in the definition of an economically disadvantaged community .
Sponsors: Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]
Target Audience
Population: People in communities affected by major disasters worldwide
Estimated Size: 10000000
- Communities affected by major disasters often suffer economic setbacks due to the loss of infrastructure, homes, and jobs.
- Recognizing these communities as economically disadvantaged can help direct resources and assistance towards recovery and rebuilding.
- Major disasters can impact communities globally, affecting millions of people each year. Examples include hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods.
- Including these communities in the definition of economically disadvantaged could provide them access to federal aid and support.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is communities affected by major disasters, which often includes a diverse range of individuals such as low-income families, small business owners, and various professionals who might suffer economically after a disaster.
- The policy budget needs to ensure sufficient resources are allocated to provide meaningful aid while covering a broad range of individuals across different impacted areas.
- Some individuals may experience medium to high impacts due to their direct involvement or living conditions being affected by disasters, while others might experience low to no impact if their socioeconomic situation is relatively stable.
- By simulating a range of interviews, we cater to the diversity within economically disadvantaged communities, acknowledging that well-being improvements might vary drastically between individuals.
Simulated Interviews
Cafe Owner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could significantly help lower my business recovery costs.
- I'm hopeful for additional support that could prevent layoffs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired Firefighter (Paradise, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The recognition could improve access to rebuilding grants.
- Direct monetary assistance could stabilize our short-term living situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educational resources can improve with enhanced assistance.
- Long-term benefits can stabilize community services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Nurse (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in hospital infrastructure would aid our service delivery.
- Policy effects might take time but necessary for future resilience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
IT Specialist (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unlikely to see direct benefits from the policy.
- Policy offers a sense of security for disaster-prone regions.
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 |
Farmer (Puerto Rico)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Significant aid required to recover our livelihood.
- Hopeful for sustainable farming solutions and infrastructure support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 1 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Construction Worker (Kansas City, KS)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Steady work expected in rebuilding projects with this policy.
- Policy may improve industry standards and practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
NGO Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might streamline assistance requests from affected communities.
- Could enhance future non-profit collaborations with the government.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful for personal and educational assistance to overcome financial stress.
- Policy could enhance academic programs and student support services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Tour Planner (San Juan, PR)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Crucial that tourism recovery is prioritized under new economic classification.
- Possibility of grants and loans to revive the industry looks promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $10500000, High: $31500000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $33000000)
Year 5: $24000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $36000000)
Year 10: $27000000 (Low: $13500000, High: $40500000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's success depends on accurate identification and inclusion of disaster-affected communities.
- Potential administrative costs associated with expanding eligibility need to be efficiently managed.