Bill Overview
Title: VICTIM Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Justice to establish a grant program for state, tribal, or local law enforcement agencies or prosecuting offices (or groups of tribal agencies or offices) to establish, implement, and administer violent incident clearance and technological investigative methods.
Sponsors: Rep. Demings, Val Butler [D-FL-10]
Target Audience
Population: People benefiting from improved law enforcement practices to handle violent incidents
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The grant program will be established for state, tribal, or local law enforcement agencies or prosecuting offices, which means these agencies and their staff will be directly impacted.
- Law enforcement agencies and prosecuting offices will benefit from additional resources to deal with violent incidents more effectively.
- This bill could impact victims of violent crimes by potentially increasing the clearance rate of violent incidents and improving investigative methods.
- The general public may be indirectly impacted as improved investigation and clearance methods could potentially lead to a decrease in violent crime rates, enhancing overall public safety.
Reasoning
- The focus group includes a diverse set of individuals from different roles and parts of the country to ensure representation of both direct and indirect impact of the policy.
- Budget constraints and program size suggest focusing interviews on individuals tied to law enforcement and potential victims of crimes, as they will be most affected by the policy.
- Including people from areas with high tribal populations highlights the focus of the policy on supporting tribal law enforcement systems.
- Not everyone will be directly impacted by the policy, hence including interviews of unaffected people is important for realistic representation.
- Wellbeing changes are more pronounced among police officers and victims due to the policy's direct support to law enforcement and potential improvements in crime resolution.
Simulated Interviews
Police Detective (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With better technology and resources, I expect our work to be more efficient and solve cases faster.
- The policy should enhance our ability to close violent crime cases, giving families the justice they need.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tribal Police Officer (Navajo Nation, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This grant can significantly improve our investigative capabilities, especially with limited current resources.
- We hope it helps us keep our community safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Victim Advocate (Memphis, TN)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing the clearance rate of violent crimes can offer more closure to victims.
- I'm optimistic about the potential benefits, but cautious about real-world implementation effectiveness.
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 | 6 | 5 |
High School Student (New York, NY)
Age: 17 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about safety in my neighborhood, and anything that can help reduce crime sounds good.
- I hope this policy can make a positive change in my community.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
City Council Member (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve policing, but funding allocation needs to be equitable and transparent.
- Local community trust in law enforcement is pivotal for this policy to succeed.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Forensic Scientist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more resources could greatly improve our lab's efficiency in processing evidence.
- Better equipment would directly translate to more solved cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Developer (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding for technology in policing could lead to more efficient crime-solving.
- Widespread tech adoption in law enforcement could potentially increase my business opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public Defender (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While improved crime clearance is valuable, it must be balanced with fair process and respecting rights.
- I'm supportive if the policy effectively prevents wrongful accusations.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Idaho)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think national safety improvements are crucial, but realize personal impact here is minimal.
- Resources should be prioritized for areas with greater need for this policy.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Crime Journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could give us more material to work with if it increases police accountability.
- I'm hopeful it prompts a deeper look into cases that have lingered unsolved.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 5: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- This program's success heavily relies on the effectiveness of the technologies and methods implemented by law enforcement agencies.
- Full realization of benefits, such as reduced crime rates and improved public safety, may take several years beyond initial implementation.
- The federal government will need to continue financial oversight to ensure funds are used effectively and that the programs remain efficient.