Bill Overview
Title: Rural Prosperity Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses social, economic, and community well-being and resilience in rural communities. Specifically, the bill establishes, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Rural Prosperity to promote and support social and economic prosperity in rural areas. The office, among other duties, must develop (1) a strategy for rural development, and (2) metrics to measure the effectiveness of federal programs on rural areas. Additionally, the bill sets up a council that includes representatives from federal agencies and White House policy offices to ensure collaboration across federal agencies and with other stakeholders concerning the needs of rural areas. The bill also requires the Department of Agriculture to develop, and report on the implementation of, a rural prosperity action plan that addresses structural challenges that affect rural communities.
Sponsors: Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in rural communities worldwide
Estimated Size: 57000000
- This bill targets rural communities, which are defined by the US Census Bureau as areas with populations less than 50,000.
- Rural areas often face distinct challenges related to infrastructure, access to services, and economic opportunities compared to urban areas.
- The bill aims to impact the economic and social wellbeing by coordinating federal efforts and creating new strategies for development.
- Globally, rural populations make up a significant proportion of the total population, especially in developing countries.
- According to the World Bank, about 44% of the world's population lived in rural areas as of 2020.
Reasoning
- When designing the simulated interviews, I considered factors like geographic spread, occupation diversity, and different initial wellbeing levels to represent the varied experiences of rural inhabitants.
- The policy, with its budget constraints and focus on rural America, makes a substantial but not universal impact, thus the estimated impacts mainly range from none to medium across different individual scenarios.
- Given that rural areas face unique challenges, occupations such as farmers and small business owners are likely to see a more direct effect from policies aimed at economic support and community development.
- Some interviews account for individuals indirectly connected to rural areas, such as urban residents with familial ties to rural communities, representing the potential external impact of increased rural prosperity.
Simulated Interviews
farmer (small town in Kansas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policies seem promising, especially if they can provide more resources for sustainable farming and access to better markets.
- I worry about the actual implementation and whether it'll help us adapt to climate changes affecting our crops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
small business owner (rural Alabama)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time rural areas get this kind of attention. If we can streamline some federal and state business loans, it'd be a game-changer.
- I hope this will bring more customers and growth opportunities locally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
retired teacher (Rural California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential for positive changes, but I am skeptical about tangible results from Washington.
- Rural schools could use support and perhaps these policies will trickle down to education somehow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT specialist working remotely (Rural Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An improved infrastructure is essential for my work, faster internet would be hugely beneficial.
- The policies impacting local services may positively affect my day-to-day life indirectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
coal miner (Appalachian region)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this act can provide alternative job opportunities, it would mean a lot to us in this declining industry.
- I'm skeptical, but any improvement will be welcome for security and education support for younger generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
college student (Rural New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving transport and connectivity is critical; if these policies can help, it will make education and work more accessible.
- I'm optimistic but unsure about the immediate impact on my personal situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs that improve health and community services are much needed, especially with our aging population.
- I hope this doesn't just become another red tape, but actually translates into better support services locally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
healthcare worker (Rural Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We desperately need these policies to improve healthcare infrastructure and training opportunities in rural settings.
- I am somewhat hopeful that we will finally get the support needed to expand our services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
teacher (Rural Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this act addresses educational equity and resource disparity in rural schools.
- This initiative could potentially offer new technology and funding, enhancing educational outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
part-time barista (Rural Wisconsin)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our local economy is quite stagnant; I hope these policies can open new jobs and support networks.
- I am cautiously optimistic about better digital infrastructure for my freelance work.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $63000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $43000000, High: $65000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination effectiveness among federal agencies will be critical for achieving intended benefits.
- The success of the rural prosperity action plan depends on accurate evaluation metrics and implementation fidelity.
- Long-term impact relies on sustained funding and support for the Office of Rural Prosperity.