Bill Overview
Title: MAPS Act of 2021
Description: This act limits the automatic application of, and directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide information about, changes to the standards for designating a core-based statistical area (CBSA). The standards are used to delineate metropolitan and micropolitan areas for statistical purposes. Specifically, any change to the standards of CBSA delineations (1) shall not apply automatically for any nonstatistical use by any domestic assistance program, and (2) shall apply for such uses only if a relevant agency determines that the change supports the purposes of the program and is in the public interest and the change is adopted through rulemaking procedures. The OMB must ensure that any change to the standards of CBSA delineations are accompanied by a public report that explains the scientific basis, criteria, and methodology for such change and the opinions of experts in statistics and demographics who were consulted regarding the change; are not influenced by any nonstatistical considerations; and are not applied automatically for any nonstatistical use by any domestic assistance program. Additionally, the OMB must collect information on the uses of CBSA delineations by domestic assistance programs for purposes including prime recipient and subrecipient eligibility for, and distribution of, any federal service, benefit, or funding. The Government Accountability Office must submit a report assessing the information collected by the OMB pursuant to this act.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on federal programs influenced by CBSA delineations
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The MAPS Act of 2021 aims to regulate how changes to core-based statistical area (CBSA) delineations impact nonstatistical uses, particularly in domestic assistance programs.
- Metropolitan and micropolitan areas are defined using CBSA standards, which determine how regions are categorized statistically.
- The act likely affects individuals and organizations that rely on government assistance or services that use metropolitan and micropolitan delineations for eligibility.
- Changes to these delineations can impact federal funding, benefits distribution, and service provision to different regions.
Reasoning
- The policy particularly impacts individuals who rely on federal programs that use CBSA delineations to determine eligibility. This includes people in urban and suburban areas who depend on such services as a significant portion of federal aid is allocated based on these delineations.
- Given the budget limitations, the policy likely targets areas undergoing or at risk of significant statistical boundary changes, potentially affecting a subset of the population utilizing these federal programs.
- The policy's impact varies depending on how much a person or organization depends on programs tied to CBSA delineations, which could impact access to housing, healthcare, or other federal benefits.
- Some individuals will experience no change, especially those in stable metropolitan areas not facing CBSA reclassification, while others in fluctuating regions may see larger impacts.
- The population affected is vast given the number of people depending on federal services; however, only a portion will experience any noticeable effects from adjustments in delineation standards and their application.
Simulated Interviews
Social Worker (New York City, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that changes to CBSA standards could disrupt the resources available to families I work with.
- Consistency in program eligibility is crucial for the communities I serve.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Jacksonville, Florida)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any shift in how regions are defined can impact my business's eligibility for regional development grants.
- Ensuring clear criteria is important for planning investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that changing statistical areas might affect my benefits.
- Keeping statistical decisions free of non-statistical influences is fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Urban Planner (Austin, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act ensures that any changes are transparently communicated, which is vital for my work.
- Understanding the scientific basis for boundary changes helps inform city planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Montana)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much change here since we're not typically affected by these area definitions.
- The policy doesn't seem to directly affect my farming operation.
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 |
Healthcare Administrator (San Francisco, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring our clinic remains eligible for funding is vital.
- We need clarity on how these changes might impact us and our patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired Engineer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While my benefits are stable, I'm concerned about how this might impact my family's future access to services.
- I support efforts for clear justification of boundary changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act ensures that changes in delineations are properly communicated and justified, which is important for my research.
- Transparency is essential for academic work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Non-Profit Director (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We depend on reliable CBSA data for grant applications.
- The decision needs to be transparent to ensure fairness across programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Software Developer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 51 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a distant observer, I see the importance of systematic data changes but don't feel affected personally.
- It's good to see scientific integrity emphasized in policy making.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- OMB will require additional resources to meet reporting requirements and the compilation of expert opinions.
- GAO's involvement necessitates budgeting for comprehensive analysis and the production of reports.
- Potential for improved data-driven policy decisions due to transparent and scientifically justified statistical delineations.