Bill Overview
Title: STOP Violence Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows funds under the Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance Program to be used for efforts to prepare against mass violence and protect public assembly facilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: People attending or working at public assembly facilities worldwide
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill is directed towards prevention and preparedness against mass violence incidents, which generally occur in areas with high public foot traffic such as concerts, sports events, and other gatherings.
- Facilities that host large public assemblies, like concert venues, sports stadiums, schools, and parks, are directly targeted by the funding and protection measures.
- Enhancements in these facilities could protect both attendees and employees present during these events, reducing potential casualties or injuries during violent incidents.
Reasoning
- The STOP Violence Act is primarily aimed at safeguarding public assembly facilities, benefiting people attending or working at these places.
- Considering the budget constraint, it is likely that large venues with higher risks of mass violence would be prioritized.
- The people simulated in these interviews include those directly involved with events as well as those who indirectly participate in such environments, like security and staff.
- Some individuals may not feel a direct impact despite attending events occasionally, reflecting the policy's limited reach and effect.
- Not everyone will show a significant difference in their wellbeing scores, as individual perception of safety can vary widely.
- The interviews reflect a diverse group of people by occupation, location, and involvement in public events.
Simulated Interviews
Event Coordinator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing there's more being done to prevent violence at public venues.
- Our venue has had some security enhancements, which is reassuring.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm indifferent towards the policy. I already felt adequately secure at events, but I guess extra measures can't hurt.
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 |
High School Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security has always been a concern for me at school events. Better safety measures are a relief, although they're overdue.
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 | 5 |
Freelance Photographer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a photographer covering events, increased safety is worthwhile, yet it's frustrating to see limited change in some venues.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Security Guard (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancements are good but it feels too focused on high-profile venues. Smaller events still feel neglected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Healthcare Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't attend large events often. For me, the policy doesn't really change much personally.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Part-time Worker (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security at the theatre hasn't changed much, but knowing there is a national effort is somewhat reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retiree (Orlando, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems more focused on bigger gatherings. I wish smaller community centers received more attention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Casino Security Manager (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies are helpful when applied broadly and effectively, but implementation is key to real security improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving security is important but I haven't noticed any changes at university events yet.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $370000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $420000000)
Year 3: $390000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $440000000)
Year 5: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $470000000)
Year 10: $460000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $520000000)
Year 100: $550000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $620000000)
Key Considerations
- The actual cost may vary depending on the specific security measures adopted and the scale of implementation at public assembly facilities.
- Long-term savings could potentially exceed initial estimates if significant violent incidents are prevented.
- The policy could face challenges in balancing security measures with public access and privacy issues.