Bill Overview
Title: Duplication Scoring Act of 2021
Description: This bill requires the Government Accountability Office to analyze legislation reported by a congressional committee and report on whether the legislation would create a risk of a new duplicative or overlapping program, office, or initiative in an area previously identified as an area of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation.
Sponsors: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]
Target Audience
Population: People receiving or affected by U.S. government programs identified for duplication
Estimated Size: 335000000
- The primary population impacted by this bill will be U.S. citizens receiving government services or benefits because eliminating program duplication could lead to more efficient use of resources or changes in services.
- Government agencies and employees who implement or rely on the affected programs may experience changes in their operations or job responsibilities due to the reduction or consolidation of overlapping programs.
- Individuals or entities that benefit from the existence of multiple programs addressing similar issues (e.g., grant recipients, contractors) might see changes in funding or opportunities.
Reasoning
- The primary effect of the Duplication Scoring Act would be felt by those directly involved in federal programs identified for duplication. This includes government employees who might see changes in their roles or operations, as well as individuals or entities receiving grants from potentially overlapping programs.
- We should simulate a range of individuals, from those who might experience little to no direct impact (those not reliant on governmental efficiencies for wellbeing) to those highly dependent on government programs (both as recipients and providers).
- Given the widespread nature of the impact, simulated individuals should come from a broad spectrum, including different ages, occupations, and areas of the U.S. However, heavily impacted individuals are likely linked to government services or industry.
- The budget limitation suggests only high-impact and easily identified duplication would be addressed initially, which might mean smaller, highly overlap-region programs are prioritized.
Simulated Interviews
Government Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this act could help streamline our efforts, reducing waste and making our work more efficient.
- There's some concern about job security, but overall I believe it will lead to better use of resources.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Non-profit Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My organization could face funding challenges if programs consolidate.
- I'm hopeful that it might lead to clearer grant opportunities, but the transition period is concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that consolidating programs might affect the benefits I receive.
- If they can reduce waste without cutting my benefits, it could be a good thing.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might open up new opportunities if the government simplifies its contracting procedures.
- There might be some transitional hiccups, but not likely to impact our contracts negatively.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Healthcare Administrator (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy reduces redundancy in healthcare funding, it could improve patient care.
- Potential changes in subsidy structure might affect long-term planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
University Professor (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There could be consolidation of grant sources which might streamline application processes.
- Worried about potential reduction in available funding for research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might simplify the process of applying for business-related services.
- There's a risk of losing some specific small business services if they're merged.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for improved environmental policies if redundancies are addressed.
- Could mean reduced contracts if overlapping projects are cut.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about impact on funding for social programs with potential overlap.
- Hopeful for more efficient allocation of resources that could improve community support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act aligns well with my personal and professional values for government efficiency.
- Expecting significant positive systemic impacts in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $81600000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $83232000)
Year 5: $53182040 (Low: $31912560, High: $85112640)
Year 10: $56563525 (Low: $33916875, High: $90402960)
Year 100: $1023926552 (Low: $614355912, High: $1563279120)
Key Considerations
- The direct costs are primarily administrative but necessary for effective evaluation and reporting on duplication issues.
- Long-term savings are expected as redundancies are reduced and resources are redirected effectively.
- A major challenge will be ensuring accurate and useful analysis from GAO to truly identify overlap and inefficiencies.
- Collaboration among government agencies will be crucial to streamline operations and implement changes.