Bill Overview
Title: Secure Rural and Tribal Lands Act
Description: This bill specifies the factors to be considered when allocating funding from the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund (a general revenue enhancement program that provides additional assistance to eligible counties and tribal governments for any governmental purpose except lobbying).
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: People living in rural counties and tribal lands eligible for the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill impacts the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund, which provides additional assistance to eligible counties and tribal governments.
- The focus is on rural areas, which primarily have smaller, more dispersed populations.
- Rural counties and tribal governments will be the primary beneficiaries.
Reasoning
- The policy's budget constraints require careful allocation to maximize impact.
- Given the rural and tribal focus, we prioritized people from these demographics and included non-impacted urban residents for contrast.
- Varied impacts reflect eligibility criteria and differing degrees of need or engagement with the policy areas.
- Results reflect both short and long-term wellbeing changes due to infrastructure, healthcare, education, and economic support impacts.
- Since the budget is limited relative to the population size, a significant portion of rural and tribal populations might experience low or no impact.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Government Worker (Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This fund is crucial for improving infrastructure on the reservation.
- With proper allocation, we can definitely see improvements in community wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding can help our schools to upgrade facilities and technology, which is much needed.
- I'm hopeful that we will see some improvements, but funding isn't always guaranteed to reach us.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software Developer (Urban California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect to see any direct benefits from this policy, but I support initiatives that help underprivileged communities.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Healthcare Worker (Navajo Nation, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our healthcare facilities might finally see the upgrades they desperately need if this funding comes through.
- Improved healthcare access will be a game changer for many here.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Texas)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rural assistance funding could help maintain our roads and basic amenities which are critical.
- I hope these funds will cover essential services we often struggle to access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Non-profit Organizer (Inner-city Detroit)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the funds are needed, I wish there were more attention toward inner-city poverty issues.
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 |
Cultural Educator (Miccosukee Reservation, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding should prioritize cultural and educational programs that preserve our heritage.
- I'm not sure if this particular policy will directly impact these areas.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Lower Brule Indian Reservation, South Dakota)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved infrastructure from this policy could boost local economies and small businesses.
- We need assistance to make our businesses viable long term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelance Writer (Rural Maine)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding internet connectivity would greatly improve my ability to work effectively from home.
- I hope the policy covers this critical infrastructure issue.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Pastor (Rural Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional resources could help expand our community programs, positively impacting the community.
- Support is needed, but historically, not enough aid reaches us.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3500000 (Low: $3000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3600000 (Low: $3100000, High: $4100000)
Year 3: $3700000 (Low: $3200000, High: $4200000)
Year 5: $3800000 (Low: $3300000, High: $4300000)
Year 10: $4000000 (Low: $3500000, High: $4500000)
Year 100: $5500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- The target population includes rural counties and tribal lands, making the policy highly specific and locally focused.
- The policy does not increase total federal funding, but specifies allocation methods which may improve fund distribution efficiencies.
- Potential long-term savings through increased fund allocation accuracy and reduced administrative waste.