Bill Overview
Title: Accelerating Small Business Growth Act
Description: This bill establishes a grant program for states, local governments, tribes, and certain public transit authorities to assist small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals compete for federal contracts for infrastructure projects.
Sponsors: Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals owning small businesses worldwide
Estimated Size: 6200000
- The bill focuses on small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, who are estimated to be around 20% of all small business owners.
- There are approximately 31 million small businesses in the United States, according to the Small Business Administration.
- Globally, the number of small businesses varies greatly by country and economic development status. However, small businesses typically represent around 90% of total business numbers in any given country.
- Socially and economically disadvantaged business owners include numerous minority groups, poverty-stricken individuals, and may vary significantly across different regions.
Reasoning
- The grant program is designed to enable disadvantaged small business owners to compete more effectively for federal contracts, particularly in infrastructure.
- The policy will primarily impact small business owners who meet the criteria for 'socially and economically disadvantaged.'
- The budget suggests a high reach and a significant impact over a ten-year period, but initially, the funds are relatively limited given the large target population.
- Not all eligible businesses will receive grants or contracts due to limited resources and competition.
- The diversity within the group of disadvantaged business owners is vast, considering racial, economic, and regional differences.
- Some interviewees may see high impact if they receive grants, while others may see none if they don't qualify or are not selected.
- Based on the American target estimate, the policy needs to be efficient and focused on impactful allocations.
Simulated Interviews
Small business owner - construction (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a great opportunity for my business to expand and compete.
- Infrastructure projects can open up a lot of jobs locally.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small business owner - tech services (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Getting assistance to bid on federal contracts would be hugely beneficial.
- There are many obstacles to accessing big opportunities right now.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small business owner - catering (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy directly helps my catering business.
- Maybe if I switched to providing services to larger contractors, it might help.
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 |
Contractor - public transportation systems (New York City, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will level the playing field for businesses like mine.
- With these resources, we can go for bigger projects. Truly a game changer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small business owner - environmental consulting (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could help us team up with larger contractors on infrastructure projects.
- Access to federal contracts could boost the regional economy.
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 | 7 |
Retired small business owner (Sioux Falls, SD)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't seem relevant to me personally as I'm retired.
- I can see its value to active business owners.
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 |
Small business owner - landscaping (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it sounds good, I'm unsure how to tap into infrastructure contracts.
- My focus doesn't really align with federal projects.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small business owner - renewable energy (Oakland, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The support could be essential for scaling up and securing larger contracts.
- New businesses like mine could benefit remarkably from this.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Non-profit director (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly enhance opportunities for our clients.
- More means for training and competing would be good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Consultant for minority-owned businesses (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could serve as a catalyst for many struggling businesses.
- It's crucial to design fair and accessible application processes.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $420000000 (Low: $315000000, High: $525000000)
Year 3: $441000000 (Low: $330750000, High: $551250000)
Year 5: $485000000 (Low: $363750000, High: $606250000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scalability and sustainability of the grant program over time without overshooting budget estimates.
- Evaluating the administrative burden on the operational costs of the program.
- Ensuring equitable distribution of grants to truly disadvantaged businesses and preventing fraud or misuse.
- Monitoring the effectiveness and economic outcomes of the funded businesses.