Bill Overview
Title: Improving Intergovernmental Cooperation and Reducing Duplication Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses intergovernmental cooperation and duplicative spending in federal programs. Specifically, the bill authorizes the President to prescribe information technology products and platforms and other similar or supporting services that an executive agency is especially competent and authorized by law to provide. Further, it requires an executive agency, when providing services prescribed by the President to a state, local, territorial, or tribal government, to take all available necessary and appropriate steps to increase cooperation and reduce administrative burden between the state, local, territorial, or tribal government requesting the service and the agency. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, must publish a strategic plan to improve cooperation between and support greater harmonization, effectiveness, and the reduction of burdens and costs between the federal government and state, local, territorial, and tribal governments. The OMB must (1) issue guidance implementing these provisions, and (2) report on actions and activities taken by executive agencies in this regard. The General Services Administration may provide specified specialized or technical services to a state, local, territorial, or tribal government.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People benefiting from improved government efficiency and resource allocation
Estimated Size: 334000000
- The bill aims to enhance cooperation between various levels of government: federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal.
- By reducing duplicative spending and improving intergovernmental processes, funds could be reallocated to other public services or result in cost savings.
- Improved intergovernmental cooperation may lead to the more efficient use of public resources and potentially improved services for the broader public.
- This bill focuses primarily on government operations and efficiency rather than direct services, so its impact on individuals is indirect but potentially widespread.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to improve efficiency across various levels of government, which could lead to indirect benefits for the general public through better allocation of resources.
- Individuals directly working within government agencies or for contractors may experience changes in their job roles, workload, or job satisfaction.
- People who rely on public services may see improvements in service delivery over time as a result of reduced bureaucratic obstacles and increased efficiency.
- The impact on daily life for most citizens will likely be low to medium, as this is more about systemic improvement than direct intervention in personal affairs.
- Long-term benefits could include reduced taxes or better-funded services due to decreased waste and duplication of effort across government tiers.
Simulated Interviews
State government employee (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may streamline procurement processes, reducing time and stress.
- I hope it leads to better resource allocation and fewer redundancies.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
School district administrator (Portland, OR)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better federal and local cooperation could free up funds for education.
- I hope this helps in cutting down administrative delays.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Healthcare worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this improves funding flow, we might see better patient care at our clinic.
- I am hopeful but skeptical about real impact on the ground.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
IT Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job might get more complex but also more stable with these changes.
- I expect an increase in demand for our services with better interagency cooperation.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Public policy analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant step toward reducing inefficiencies but execution is key.
- I'm optimistic but execution needs careful monitoring.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small business owner (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that speeds up interactions with local government is a plus for my business.
- I hope this policy makes procurement processes more transparent.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Software developer (Denver, CO)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better inter-agency communication can enhance project outcomes.
- This could result in more stable project pipelines, benefiting my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tribal government liaison (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might ease some of the burdens in federal-tribal interactions.
- I see potential for more streamlined processes but cautious about real changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Federal contractor (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more predictable workloads and clearer guidelines for our projects.
- I'm cautiously optimistic that this policy will reduce bureaucratic hurdles.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Retired teacher (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better governmental cooperation could lead to better social services for my family.
- I am hopeful but not expecting significant change in my lifetime.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $175000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- Resource allocation and inter-agency cooperation are critical factors in the successful implementation of this policy.
- Implicit costs might arise from integrating different technology infrastructures across varied government levels.
- Achieving and quantifying cost savings from reduced duplications require careful monitoring and evaluation.