Bill Overview
Title: Lifting Local Communities Act
Description: This bill specifies that religious organizations are eligible to apply for and receive federal funds to provide services for social services programs (i.e., programs for low-income individuals) on the same basis as private, nonreligious organizations. Additionally, government entities may not discriminate against private organizations on the basis of religion when selecting funding recipients.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals benefitting from federally-funded social services programs
Estimated Size: 37000000
- The bill will impact religious organizations as it allows them to apply for federal funds to provide social services.
- Low-income individuals who benefit from social services programs provided by organizations funded by federal funds will be impacted.
- Private, non-religious organizations may experience increased competition for federal funds.
- Government entities who are involved in the funding selection process may need to adjust criteria to comply with the non-discrimination requirement.
Reasoning
- The policy allows religious organizations to compete for federal funds to provide social services. This could increase the number or scale of services available to low-income individuals.
- Competition for federal funds is expected to increase as religious organizations compete with private, non-religious organizations.
- Both religious and non-religious organizations need to meet non-discrimination criteria to receive funding.
- The policy could positively impact low-income individuals by increasing access to services, such as food aid, job training, or health services, potentially improving their wellbeing.
- Due to limited funding, not all programs will receive funds, and the impact might be localized to areas where religious organizations are more active in providing social services.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think allowing churches to access these funds is fantastic. Our church does so much good work, and with more resources, we can help even more people.
- I rely on the food bank run by my church, and this could mean more food or even new services like job training.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Program Coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned this policy will make it harder for us to obtain funding.
- We're already stretched thin as it is, and competition with religious organizations might push us to the edge.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Part-Time Retail Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that more religious organizations might mean some services become less inclusive for people like me.
- It's good if more resources become available, but inclusivity shouldn't take a hit.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired (Rural Iowa)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a great idea to me. Religious groups do wonderful work and know their communities well.
- More funding would mean more help for people like me.
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 | 6 |
Community Organizer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any policy that can potentially increase resources for community services.
- I just hope religious organizations receiving the funds maintain inclusivity.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Pastor (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will benefit our church's ability to serve our community tremendously.
- We've been limited by funds, and this could open the door to expand our food and counseling services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Social Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While more funds seem promising, the application and allocation process must ensure equitable distribution to all kinds of organizations.
- We need to maintain focus on culturally sensitive support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Volunteer at Soup Kitchen (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that any increase in funding will help us serve more people.
- Our kitchen stretches every dollar, and more funds could mean healthier meals.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If religious organizations are able to help stabilize communities, it could be good for local businesses too.
- I am neutral but hopeful about positive spillover effects into our local economy.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a reasonable approach to bring more resources into community services, but accessing those funds should be fair.
- I hope that this doesn't lead to further marginalization of any group, especially in urban environments.
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 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $82000000)
Year 10: $68000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $96000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $190000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill promotes non-discrimination and equal opportunity for religious organizations to access federal funding.
- Existing funding levels may not be sufficient to cover an increased number of eligible recipients and organizations.
- Increased administrative efforts may be required to ensure compliance with non-discrimination criteria.
- Potential conflicts between religious practices and federal program requirements may arise.