Bill Overview
Title: Fair Social Security for Domestic Violence Survivors Act
Description: This bill decreases for certain victims of domestic violence the number of years an individual must be married before a divorce to be eligible for spousal Social Security benefits based on the divorced spouse's work record.
Sponsors: Rep. Delgado, Antonio [D-NY-19]
Target Audience
Population: People eligible for spousal Social Security benefits as victims of domestic violence
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill aims to change qualifications for Social Security benefits based on a spousal record for victims of domestic violence, specifically those whose marriages end in divorce.
- Currently, to claim Social Security spousal benefits, an individual must have been married for at least 10 years before divorcing. This bill seeks to modify that requirement for domestic violence survivors, reducing the economic impact post-divorce.
- Domestic violence impacts a significant portion of the population. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that on average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States.
- The global prevalence of intimate partner violence, including the potential impact on divorces and subsequent economic conditions, suggests a substantial population could be affected.
- While the bill addresses a social issue affecting many worldwide, its primary impact will be based on the specifics of the United States' Social Security system.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a very specific subset of the population: domestic violence survivors whose marriages end in divorce and who may need spousal Social Security benefits. While the total number of people experiencing domestic violence is high, the target group for this policy is smaller because it considers only those who will divorce and require financial support via Social Security.
- Given the budget limitations, not all eligible individuals might see immediate benefits, but the long-term goal is to reduce financial strain. Therefore, the immediate impact may be low-to-medium, while more significant effects might become evident over the longer term.
- The commonality ranking is based on the overlap between experiencing domestic violence, divorcing, and needing Social Security benefits, which narrows down the population considerably.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I struggled a lot financially after leaving my marriage. This policy would have helped me immensely by providing some extra support from my ex's Social Security benefits.
- Access to these benefits sooner would reduce the stress of meeting my children's needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Austin, TX)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is crucial. Many might not think men need this, but I left a violent spouse and have been financially struggling.
- The policy gives me a chance to rebuild with some financial security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial independence is critical for survivors, and this policy helps achieve that.
- Caring for my household post-divorce has been challenging without benefits.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish this had existed when I divorced. It would have changed a lot for my retirement plans.
- Even in retirement, improved benefits would ease some financial anxiety.
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 |
Nurse (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds a safety net, which is crucial for survivors thinking about leaving.
- I worry less about stability now, knowing I might access benefits earlier.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an entrepreneur finding it tough post-separation, additional Social Security help could pave the way for healing and rebuilding.
- This policy could alter the financial terrain for many men in similar situations.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Accountant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The revised criteria are promising. It would've expedited financial stability post-divorce.
- Raising two children, every aid matters. This policy can change lives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there's potential extra security eases leaving a marriage.
- Having access to benefits sooner means less financial detriment.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Artist (Portland, OR)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s encouraging, but the financial impact might be minimal now since I'm already on fixed benefits.
- Every bit helps, especially when art sales are low.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Chef (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Early access to spousal benefits could mean the difference between barely making it and actual comfort.
- It would significantly lighten the load on my finances, especially during separation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $255000000 (Low: $153000000, High: $357000000)
Year 3: $260100000 (Low: $156060000, High: $364980000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $162000000, High: $378000000)
Year 10: $294000000 (Low: $176400000, High: $411600000)
Year 100: $460000000 (Low: $276000000, High: $644000000)
Key Considerations
- The broadening of eligibility could lead to increased Social Security Trust Fund obligations over the long term.
- The specific targeting of domestic violence survivors addresses social welfare priorities but does not have a corresponding offset in government savings or revenues.
- Long-term demographic changes may require further adjustments to Social Security policies.