Bill Overview
Title: Safer Streets Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Justice to award grants to units of local governments and neighborhood or community-based organizations in jurisdictions with high rates of violent crime. Grants may be used to support law enforcement purposes or community violence prevention purposes, such as hiring additional officers, acquiring surveillance equipment, and promoting prevention programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Target Audience
Population: People living in high crime areas
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill targets jurisdictions with high rates of violent crime, so it is specifically aimed at communities experiencing higher levels of violence.
- The bill mentions both law enforcement support and community violence prevention, indicating that both police officers and local community members will be affected.
- Community-based organizations are key beneficiaries, meaning community leaders and organizers will see a direct impact.
- The bill is focused on violent crime, suggesting that individuals in areas with higher incidences of such crimes are particularly likely to feel the impact of this legislation.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals in areas with high violent crime rates, aiming to enhance safety and well-being through increased law enforcement support and community programs.
- The impact on individuals varies depending on their current exposure to crime, their trust in law enforcement, and existing community dynamics.
- Some individuals may experience significant improvements in their sense of safety and well-being, while others might experience minimal or no change, particularly in areas not targeted by the policy.
- Budget constraints imply that not all high-crime areas will receive grants immediately, leading to variability in policy impact across different communities.
Simulated Interviews
Community Organizer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could really help, especially if community programs get a good share of the funding. Our neighborhood could use the extra support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Police Officer (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More officers and better equipment can help, but trust-building with the community is just as important.
- If we don't also focus on community relations, I worry it won't make a long-term difference.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Elementary School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds promising, but I hope it includes enough funding for after-school programs. They are crucial for keeping kids safe.
- Reducing crime is about more than just having more police.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Retired (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm all for more policing if it means safer streets, but it's not a panacea. Community-led efforts should be just as important.
- As someone who remembers better days, we've got a long road ahead.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
College Student (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Police presence alone won't solve systemic issues. We need more focus on prevention and engagement than just policing.
- I'm skeptical of this policy until I see meaningful changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Restaurant Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will bring the safety we desperately need, but I worry about the impact on my business if only policing increases.
- Community investment is key for sustained improvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Social Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The dual focus on law enforcement and prevention is good, but allocation needs to be balanced to keep trust.
- I see firsthand how vital community programs are, they need substantial support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Security Guard (Miami, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security presence could help ease tensions, especially at night. However, community support is crucial too.
- We can't just rely on increased police visibility.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy has potential, but must integrate community health perspectives for lasting impact.
- Treatment and prevention should go hand-in-hand.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technology can support law enforcement efforts, but trust must be built through engagement.
- It's critical to ensure policies don't marginalize communities further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 2: $122400000 (Low: $102000000, High: $142800000)
Year 3: $124848000 (Low: $104040000, High: $145656000)
Year 5: $129792000 (Low: $108120000, High: $151464000)
Year 10: $144627840 (Low: $120264000, High: $168470400)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Sustained funding is important to realize long-term benefits in violent crime reduction.
- Collaboration between law enforcement and community organizations is critical to the success of this policy.
- The scalability of the surveillance equipment and officer hiring aspects needs monitoring to ensure costs do not exceed budgets.