Bill Overview
Title: Porch Pirates Act of 2022
Description: This bill extends federal criminal penalties for obstruction of correspondence and theft of stolen mail matter (which apply to U.S. Postal Service mail) to matter (e.g., packages) sent or delivered by private or commercial interstate carriers.
Sponsors: Rep. Phillips, Dean [D-MN-3]
Target Audience
Population: Recipients of mail and packages delivered by private or commercial carriers
Estimated Size: 268000000
- The bill introduces federal criminal penalties for theft from private or commercial carriers in addition to USPS, meaning it targets those involved in package theft.
- Package theft or "porch piracy" affects recipients of mail and packages across both the USPS and private courier services such as FedEx, UPS, and Amazon delivery.
- Individuals who regularly receive packages delivered to their home or business by private or commercial carriers are most at risk of porch piracy.
- According to various studies, approximately 36% of Americans have reported having a package stolen at least once.
- This legislation will likely impact those potential theft victims by creating deterrents against package theft.
Reasoning
- The Porch Pirates Act of 2022 aims to deter package theft which disproportionately affects individuals who heavily depend on package deliveries, particularly those residing in urban and suburban areas where such activities are more common.
- The policy aims to extend criminal penalties to theft involving packages from private carriers such as UPS, FedEx, and Amazon. It is likely to affect a broad audience due to the large number of Americans who receive packages regularly and have reported package theft experiences.
- Considering the budget constraints, the policy will need to be effectively targeted at areas where package theft rates are the highest, such as highly populated urban regions.
- The impact on self-reported wellbeing will vary among individuals depending on their previous experiences with package theft and the frequency of package deliveries. Those who have experienced theft will likely show a distinct improvement in wellbeing scores.
- However, given that postal and delivery service users are a large segment of the population, many individuals who haven't experienced theft might report little to no change in wellbeing.
- Overall uptick in wellbeing scores is expected post-policy implementation due to the psychological benefit of improved security and reduced theft incidents.
- It is important to include individuals not directly impacted by the policy to illustrate a broad range of responses.
Simulated Interviews
E-commerce Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Package theft has been a constant worry, especially around the holidays.
- This policy would provide much-needed peace of mind while receiving valuable shipments.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Theft has been frustrating, affecting both personal and business shipments.
- The policy feels overdue but is welcome to enhance security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I really hope this reduces the number of times I have packages stolen.
- It's such a nuisance having to request refunds or replacements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rarely have issues with theft, perhaps due to security cameras.
- This policy won't change much for me personally.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's embarrassing when my housemates' packages go missing.
- Hopefully, this policy will alleviate some of those issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business loses money due to theft, so this is a beneficial policy.
- E-commerce will flourish more with such security measures in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Nurse (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Working odd hours, package theft is a constant hassle.
- If the policy reduces theft rates, it’s a welcome change.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy update sounds good for others, but doesn't impact me much.
- I appreciate the concern for safety for those who need it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to see policy changes targeting university areas.
- Hopefully, it prevents loss of important academic materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Remote Worker (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Deliveries are critical for my daily routine, theft is a major stress factor.
- This act seems poised to make life a little easier.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $31930000, High: $76120000)
Year 5: $58389400 (Low: $34499500, High: $82207000)
Year 10: $66834668 (Low: $39453168, High: $94015768)
Year 100: $229198663 (Low: $135294152, High: $322804683)
Key Considerations
- The impact on consumer confidence if package theft is statistically reduced.
- The policy's success relies heavily on effective enforcement and deterrent communication.
- Potential administrative resistance or challenges in adapting existing federal resources to the new requirements.