Bill Overview
Title: Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses funding for areas of persistent poverty. Specifically, the bill requires the Bureau of the Census to publish a list of all areas of persistent poverty and annually update the list; the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop and implement guidance and measures to increase the share of federal investments targeted to areas of persistent poverty and to report annually to Congress; the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the measures implemented by the OMB under this bill, including an assessment regarding the impact of increasing federal investments spent in areas of persistent poverty; and GAO to submit at least two subsequent reports within 10 years of this bill's enactment.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas of persistent poverty in the United States
Estimated Size: 65000000
- Areas of persistent poverty in the United States include both urban and rural regions that have faced historically economic disadvantages.
- Individuals living in these areas lack access to resources, employment opportunities, and adequate government infrastructure, which the legislation seeks to improve.
- Globally, poverty is a significant issue, but this bill specifically targets U.S. regions, so the primary impact is domestic.
- From data, around 20% of the U.S. population lives in areas considered high-poverty thresholds.
Reasoning
- The policy is directly aimed at regions suffering from persistent poverty, which accounts for approximately 20% of the U.S. population. Within this segment, different demographics such as unemployed individuals, low-income families, and essential workers are included.
- Given the financial constraints of $20 million in the first year, the policy's initial impact is likely limited and selective, benefiting a smaller portion of those in need, likely focusing on the most critical areas and perhaps larger urban centers initially.
- Over a decade, with $200 million, the impact can be scaled significantly more, reaching out to broader communities including rural and particularly impoverished urban areas.
- Not everyone even within the target regions will directly perceive the benefits due to either slow timeframes of implementation or because benefits come indirectly via community improvements like infrastructure investments.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Appalachia, Kentucky)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy looks good on paper, but it needs frequent evaluations to see actual benefits.
- I hope this leads to more job opportunities and improved local facilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Warehouse Worker (South Bronx, New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy gets funds directly to our community, it could change a lot, but it seems distant.
- What's needed are more long-term jobs and affordable housing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might just get us some more healthcare facilities which are dearly needed.
- However, timeline clarity and state-level cooperation are vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Teacher (Navajo Nation, Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our schools need support and facilities; I hope this brings those improvements.
- Focus on funds reaching intended areas without delay is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If policy helps improve infrastructure, then selling local products might get easier.
- Important to address the rural-urban funding gap.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Chihuahua, Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as the policy aids in more educational grants or facilities, it's great.
- Sufficient tracking and allocation needed for visible effects.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Nurse (Harlan County, Kentucky)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding better healthcare facilities could be revolutionary here, provided it's managed well.
- There's a need for more holistic approach including mental health services.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Oakland, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially useful for stabilizing work opportunities and worker benefits.
- More transparency on fund usage is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Compton, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful if the policy creates more localized economic opportunities.
- Sustainability of support and investments over these years is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Defense Worker (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rejuvenating community programs could prevent decline and boost security.
- Strong communication with community leaders about the distribution is vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring accurate identification and updating of areas of persistent poverty to effectively channel resources.
- Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of federal investments in reducing poverty levels.
- Inter-agency collaboration to ensure efficiency and coherence in implementing the bill's measures.
- Improving local capacity to absorb and manage increased federal investment.