Bill Overview
Title: Prioritizing Disaster Relief Act
Description: This bill allows COVID-19 relief funds to be used for disaster assistance. Specifically, the bill authorizes a state, local government, Indian tribe, or tribal organization to use such funds for expenses related to assisting communities, individuals, and businesses affected by and located within the designated area of a major disaster or emergency.
Sponsors: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially affected by major disasters or emergencies globally
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill redirects COVID-19 relief funds for disaster assistance, potentially impacting any area declared to be in a state of major disaster or emergency.
- This includes communities, individuals, and businesses within those areas.
- The scope of impact would vary depending on the frequency and scale of declared emergencies or disasters.
Reasoning
- The population likely to be impacted by this policy includes those who may be affected by natural disasters or emergencies and who also reside in areas currently designated for COVID-19 relief funding. This could include coastal regions prone to hurricanes, forested areas at risk of wildfires, or river-adjacent communities facing flood risks. The impact level on individuals will depend on the severity and frequency of disasters in their area and the current availability and allocation of COVID-19 relief funds.
- Cost considerations are critical given the $15,000,000 budget cap in the first year. Prioritization will likely focus on areas that face frequent and severe disasters yet had substantial COVID-19 fund allocations. Over time, as the budget increases to $150,000,000 over 10 years, the reach can expand to cover more areas and possibly repeated assistance to the same locales if new emergencies arise.
- There will be non-impacted groups, likely in areas with less frequent disasters or those where COVID-19 funds were not substantial enough to justify significant redistribution. Further, individuals not directly linked to disaster-prone areas or with sufficient insurance coverage may also feel minimal impact from this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could be a lifeline during recurrent hurricane seasons.
- COVID-19 funds were underutilized after initial pandemic subsided, reallocating could be very helpful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increases job security and workflow consistency during disaster recovery.
- Reallocation of funds seems logical given declining COVID needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Forest Ranger (Chico, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reallocated funds can bolster fire prevention measures and preparedness.
- With climate change, wildfire frequency is increasing, making this reallocation crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reallocating funds means less personal worry about insufficient government response during floods.
- Size of relief aid can be better assured for retired communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy unlikely to affect my work directly as disasters are infrequent here.
- More concerned about potential healthcare funding outcomes than direct natural disaster relief effects.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Hotel Manager (Santa Cruz, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Direct funding during state emergencies could keep the business afloat longer.
- Critical for tourism-reliant communities to have quick financial support after a disaster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Software Developer (Boise, ID)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Disaster relief seems distant considering Idaho's stable climate.
- Worried it might redirect COVID-19 funds away from technical innovation initiatives.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanded relief fund flexibility can enhance community-based disaster preparedness initiatives.
- Education sector may see long-term benefits from community stability post-emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any additional relief for disaster impact on farming can aid significantly in recovery.
- Efforts feel more targeted towards urban areas, unsure about rural benefit scope.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Dynamic funding options match the unpredictable nature of Alaska's environment.
- Actual implementation will depend heavily on proper geographic and need assessments.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- Variability of disaster frequency and severity affects estimates.
- The extent to which COVID-19 relief funds remain available and manageable for disaster use is critical.
- The administrative capacity of state and local governments to efficiently redirect funds impacts execution.