Bill Overview
Title: Simplifying Grants Act of 2022
Description: This bill sets forth procedures for simplifying the grant process for nonurbanized areas, for both existing and new grant programs. Each agency must make publicly available a checklist for covered local governments with respect to each grant program of the agency for which such governments are otherwise eligible that includes each requirement for every step of the grant process. The Office of Management and Budget must report to Congress (1) within 270 days of this bill's enactment, evaluating the extent to which agencies have simplified the requirements and made the checklist available; and (2) each April 1st, evaluating the amount of technical assistance provided and the amount of funds awarded.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People living in nonurbanized areas globally
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets nonurbanized areas which typically feature smaller population sizes and less infrastructure than urban areas.
- Grants are often directed at local government needs such as infrastructure, education, and community services, meaning all residents of these areas stand to benefit.
- The affected population includes local governments and their officials who will have less administratively challenging processes to access grants.
- The population of nonurbanized areas is significant globally, as many countries have large rural populations.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed at nonurbanized areas, focusing on simplifying access to grants. While the budget of $25 million in the first year may seem small relative to the potential size of the target population (60 million in the US), it is important to note that these resources are not distributed directly to individuals but through local grants that can support larger infrastructure or community programs.
- Local officials and government workers in nonurban areas will benefit more directly from simplified grant processes, leading to potential trickle-down benefits for local residents, such as improved infrastructure or services. This could reflect in improved wellbeing scores over time, although the immediate impact in year 1 might be low given the bureaucratic nature of grant processes.
- The policy could initially increase administrative ease for local government workers, but it is only with longer-term implementation and effective use of grant money that residents might perceive significant wellbeing improvements. This aligns with a gradual increase in Cantril scores over time.
Simulated Interviews
Town Mayor (Small town in Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've struggled with the complexity of grant applications before, and this policy seems promising if it truly simplifies the process.
- Any reduction in bureaucratic red tape is welcome, as it could free up time and energy for more on-the-ground work.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this means our town can get more grants for road repairs or farm equipment, I'm all for it.
- It sounds good on paper, but I need to see the actual outcomes before I'll believe it changes much for us.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Social Worker (Rural Vermont)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to more efficient grant processes could help us provide better services.
- This policy has potential, but it's on the execution where most things fall short.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Local Government Clerk (Rural California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Easier grant applications sound great—less work for me and potentially more resources for our community.
- If the OMB reports that it is working, then I believe it.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (Rural Idaho)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More grants could mean more resources for schools, which is desperately needed.
- We always hope these kinds of things will bring change, but there's a lot that needs to improve.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Rural Maine)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If simplified grant processes bring improvements to local infrastructure, my business will benefit.
- I remain skeptical but hopeful that this will help the community.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retiree (Rural Georgia)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Will this really change anything in my lifetime? I'm not sure, but I hope it brings benefits to younger folks.
- Living here, any improvement seems to take forever.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Community Organizer (Rural Montana)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy, if it works, could be great for us.
- We need clearer paths to resources, so this is a step in the right direction but must be monitored.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Nurse (Rural Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We desperately need more funding for our clinic, so any improvement to grants is welcome.
- Seeing is believing, and I've seen policies fail before.
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 |
Factory Worker (Rural Michigan)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pipelines to grants could help bring more jobs, but we’ll see if it's just more government talk.
- The real test will be if we see job creation or not.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The level of detail and access provided by the checklists will determine the cost-effectiveness and the time savings achieved by local governments.
- There may be sensitivities in how different federal agencies adapt their current systems to meet these requirements, resulting in variability across agencies in costs and time taken to fully implement changes.
- Nonurbanized areas vary significantly in terms of administrative capacity, potentially leading to different levels of benefit realized from the simplification process.