Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/2367

Bill Overview

Title: Frederick Jobs and Historic Preservation Training Center Land Acquisition Act

Description: This bill authorizes the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire land or interests in land in Frederick County, Maryland, for the Historic Preservation Training Center and related facilities. The NPS may acquire not more than 20 acres in the county to support the physical space, program initiatives, and workforce development capacity of the center. The NPS may acquire land or an interest in land by donation, transfer, exchange, or purchase from a willing seller using donated or appropriated funds.

Sponsors: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals interested in or entering the historic preservation field globally

Estimated Size: 20000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Historic Preservationist (Frederick, MD)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the policy will help expand job opportunities in our community.
  • The enhanced training center will likely provide more resources for preservationists like me.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Construction Manager (Baltimore, MD)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This seems like a great opportunity to gain new skills in historic preservation.
  • I would consider taking courses at the center to improve my resume.

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 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 4 4

Architect (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm not directly impacted, but the policy is promising for those wanting more exposure to preservation techniques.
  • Enhancing skills in historic preservation is essential for maintaining our architectural heritage.

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 6 6

Student (Frederick, MD)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This center could provide the internship opportunities I need.
  • I'm excited about potential job placements after my degree.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 9 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Conservation Specialist (New York, NY)

Age: 56 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More training opportunities in historic preservation will be beneficial to new professionals entering this field.
  • Though the direct impact on my work is minimal, it supports my principles of preservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 5

Urban Planner (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see indirect benefits for urban planning by involving better-trained historic preservationists.
  • While the policy doesn't impact my immediate work, it's useful for the field overall.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

University Professor (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This initiative could provide more academic research avenues and case studies for my students.
  • The center's growth aligns well with the topics I cover in my classes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Construction worker (Philadelphia, PA)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this policy as a stepping stone to transitioning into a more specialized field.
  • It might open new job positions that are both available and stable.

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 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Film Set Designer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The focus on historic preservation might help me improve my work on films requiring historical sets.
  • Though I might not directly benefit, I'd like future access to some of these insights.

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 6 6

Project Coordinator in Non-profit (Boston, MA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Although the project is a step in the right direction, resources might still be limited for small community projects like ours.
  • The increase in training capacity is good, but community involvement should also be prioritized.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)

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