Bill Overview
Title: Homeland Security Capabilities Preservation Act
Description: This bill directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit to Congress a plan to make federal assistance available to certain urban areas that previously received Urban Area Security Initiative funding to preserve homeland security capabilities related to acts of terrorism. In developing the plan, FEMA must survey urban areas that did not receive grant funding related to preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism in the current fiscal year that (1) are at risk of being reduced or eliminated without such assistance, or (2) received funding in the current fiscal year but not in at least one of the six preceding fiscal years. The plan must (1) establish eligibility criteria for urban areas to receive federal assistance, (2) identify annual funding levels for such assistance in accordance with the survey, and (3) consider a range of approaches to make such assistance available to such urban areas.
Sponsors: Rep. Demings, Val Butler [D-FL-10]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in U.S. urban areas at risk from terrorism
Estimated Size: 80000000
- The bill targets urban areas previously receiving Urban Area Security Initiative funding, which aids at-risk urban populations in terrorism preparedness and response.
- Urban security initiatives historically target highly populated regions, often in large cities.
- The focus is on enhancing local preparedness and security infrastructure, thus impacting the general populace of these urban areas.
- Previous funding cycles likely included major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and others with significant populations.
- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) involvement indicates a national scope, affecting numerous urban regions across the country.
Reasoning
- The policy targets individuals living in U.S. urban areas previously receiving or eligible for Urban Area Security Initiative funding. Therefore, the focus is on large metropolitan areas.
- The expected budget limits suggest a modest impact initially, with room for expanded influence over time.
- Safety and security improvements are indirect effects that might not immediately elevate self-reported wellbeing scores, since they focus on potential future events.
- Impact and perceptions will differ based on the awareness of and engagement with local preparedness activities
- Individuals' perceptions may include concerns over job security, local economic benefits, and personal safety.
Simulated Interviews
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (New York City, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone directly involved in emergency preparedness, having consistent funding helps us plan better.
- This policy is reassuring because it seems like an acknowledgment of the threats we still face here.
- It's also significant for morale among my colleagues to know our work is valued and will be sustained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this funding helps make our areas safer, but I also think it should help promote local businesses.
- Security increases foot traffic, which can be good for business.
- My main concern is that funding doesn't always visibly trickle down to small businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Public School Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems well-intended but I wonder how much will directly benefit schools and education.
- Security is important, but resources for educational programs are equally needed.
- I worry about prioritizing long-term security measures over immediate educational needs.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Security Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is encouraging for my field as it opens more opportunities for industry growth.
- It’s reassuring to see the government taking proactive steps in urban security.
- The emphasis needs to be on efficiency and effective use of resources.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, my primary concern is safety in my neighborhood.
- This policy might increase my sense of safety, which can significantly impact my quality of life.
- I hope to see enhanced community engagement as part of this initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
NGO Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has the potential to provide stability and reassurance in community safety efforts.
- However, focus must remain broad, not weakening other critical social welfare infrastructure due to lean budgeting.
- It's a positive step if managed alongside other community support systems.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see policies aimed at urban areas which is my field of interest.
- Learning about real-world applications of urban planning and security is vital for my education.
- Long-term resilience is essential, though I might not see immediate impacts as a student.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech Industry Professional (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- San Francisco's urban nature presents unique challenges that this funding might help address.
- Security improvements can influence infrastructure, impacting tech industry growth.
- Collaboration between tech and policy is promising for innovation in urban security.
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 | 8 | 5 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Watchfully interested in how such policies shape urban development and safety over time.
- Concern about adequate funding reaching the necessary channels without bureaucratic delays.
- Long-term commitment to urban security is promising for sustained public trust.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Freelance Writer (Portland, OR)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important that such policies account for social aspects of urban development, not just security.
- Local community engagement needs to be enhanced for tangible outcomes.
- Balanced growth is key: between security, commerce, and community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- FEMA's capability to effectively survey and identify urban areas at risk and manage the distribution of funds.
- The potential impact on national security and system resilience when funding is diverted or supplemented based on urban area needs.
- Long-term sustainability of security measures funded through temporary assistance.