Bill Overview
Title: Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires federal agencies to include a list of outdated or duplicative reporting requirements in their annual budget justifications. The agencies must also include recommendations for ending, modifying, consolidating, or reducing the frequency of each of the outdated or duplicative reports.
Sponsors: Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in federal agency efficiency
Estimated Size: 330000000
- This bill mandates changes for federal agencies, which will directly affect the personnel responsible for preparing and reviewing these reports.
- Federal agencies employ a significant number of individuals who are involved in compliance and reporting tasks.
- By reducing duplicative reports, the efficiency of federal agency operations can be enhanced, indirectly benefiting all Americans through more effective government operations.
- Changes in reporting requirements might impact contractors and third parties who assist in the creation of these reports.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts federal employees involved in report writing, potentially simplifying their workload. This could lead to increased job satisfaction and improved self-reported wellbeing for those directly involved.
- Contractors and third-party agencies assisting in report preparation may experience changes in workload, impacting their income and job satisfaction.
- The general public may see indirect benefits through improved government efficiency, which could enhance public services and administrative responsiveness.
- The policy's financial limits mean that widespread direct monetary changes to individuals are unlikely, focusing instead on systemic efficiency improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Federal budget analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could streamline our workload, which is currently bogged down by unnecessary reports.
- It's a positive move towards making government operations more efficient.
- I am worried about the transition period and how it might affect our workload initially.
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 | 5 |
Government contractor (New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the potential reduction in contracts if reports are streamlined.
- While I see the logical benefits, it could hurt my business in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Public service advisor (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for government efficiency and could improve public trust.
- The focus on eliminating wasteful practices is commendable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Data scientist (San Francisco, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining reports should not compromise the data integrity.
- I am optimistic that this will lead to better data use and transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired federal employee (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish such policies had been in place when I was working.
- It'll be beneficial for current employees, reducing unnecessary stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal agency scientist (Houston, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing outdated reports could free up more time for research activities.
- It's a positive but overdue change.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Policy analyst (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Administrative efficiency is crucial, and this policy is a positive development.
- The impact might be gradual but should eventually be noticeable.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Public sector lawyer (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 43 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less redundancy in reports means more time focusing on important legal aspects.
- It's overall a good policy straightforward in its approach to reduce waste.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Government watchdog employee (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should enhance transparency as outdated practices are abolished.
- I hope this shifts focus towards more meaningful reports.
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 | 5 |
Software developer at a consultancy (Miami, Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our work might shift but could open up new opportunities for efficiency tools.
- The change is welcome and could bring positive innovation.
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 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- Identifying truly outdated or duplicative reports can be complex and might require stakeholder consultations.
- Agency performance metrics may change, influencing how efficiency gains are perceived.
- Short-term costs might include retraining staff and updating internal systems to align with new protocols.