Bill Overview
Title: RESPECT Act
Description: or the RESPECT Act This act repeals certain provisions related to the treatment of Indians, including provisions on hostile tribes, alcohol, work requirements, penalties for truancy, and placement of youth in reform school without the consent of a parent or guardian.
Sponsors: Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Native Americans and Alaskan Natives in the United States
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill affects policies related to the treatment of American Indians, suggesting that the primary affected group is the indigenous population of the United States.
- Topics addressed in the bill include the repeal of provisions related to hostile tribes and other treaties, signaling a direct impact on tribes recognized by the government.
- Estimated figures of the Native American population in the United States are about 7 million people.
- Globally, the impact may extend to about 370 million indigenous people worldwide, but only a fraction will be directly affected by U.S. legislative changes.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is Native Americans and Alaskan Natives in the United States, numbering around 7 million people.
- The policy's financial limitations suggest that the impact in terms of reach might be limited to those directly interacting with federal or state provisions related to the repealed aspects, specifically in terms of youth, work, and tribal relationships.
- Self-reported wellbeing effects may vary based on individual circumstances such as being directly subjected to repealed regulations or already being apart from such impacts.
- General U.S. population not directly associated with Native American communities might see negligible impact on wellbeing unless involved via advocacy, governance, or dependent on related institutions.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Leader (Fairbanks, Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal of certain problematic provisions is long overdue and aligns with ongoing efforts to respect tribal sovereignty.
- Removes barriers to fair treatment under historic agreements with the government.
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 |
Teacher (Gallup, New Mexico)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing penalties for truancy and parental consent for youth placement in reform schools supports student rights.
- Concerned about a lack of immediate alternatives that address truancy effectively.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cultural Historian (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act addresses historical grievances symbolically, promoting better federal-tribal relationships moving forward.
- Questions about practical changes without supportive follow-up finance or political will.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing these laws is a sign of progress, allowing more attention to contemporary problems without outdated constraints.
- Immediate wellbeing changes may be minimal without additional policies.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Advocacy Group Leader (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 53 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing alcohol restrictions can allow for more modernization in addressing substance abuse.
- Risks associated with reduced government liberty on imposing measures if alternatives are lacking.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Attorney (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act simplifies many legal standings, facilitating better legal outcomes for tribes.
- May lead to increased workload initially as adjustments are made in legal circles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
College Student (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Progress in dealing with historical issues may encourage more active discussions and studies around indigenous rights.
- Immediate day-to-day life unchanged but promotes long-term academic interest.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Social Worker (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repeal facilitates better family agency in terms of youth placement and healthcare.
- Potentially increases workload without systemic support to manage change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Healthcare Provider (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An important step toward long-term health equity improvements.
- Requires policy fellows to adapt swiftly to guarantee critical long-term health benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees repeal as a way to legitimately cut outdated ties and move towards respectful policies.
- Cautious on federal and state follow-ups not reversing potential benefits.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $6000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy does not introduce new provisions but rather repeals existing ones, potentially simplifying enforcement.
- Implementation will require coordination with federal agencies and affected tribal entities.
- Monitoring the long-term impacts on indigenous communities' socioeconomic status is crucial.