Bill Overview
Title: United States Secret Service Mission Improvement and Realignment Act of 2022
Description: This bill transfers the U.S. Secret Service from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of the Treasury. The bill directs the Office of Management and Budget to make incidental dispositions of personnel, assets, and liabilities held in connection with the functions transferred. The Secret Service, by December 31 of each year, shall submit to specified congressional committees an annual report on any trip by a protected individual with a stop at a location that is not owned or controlled by the federal government, including any such trip that is outside of the United States. Such report shall include (1) for each instance of such travel, a statement of the protected individuals, dates of departure and return, total amount of travel expenditures, and other specified information; and (2) for each protected individual, the total amount of incidental expenditures incurred for the purpose of providing protection to the protected individual during the reporting period.
Sponsors: Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved with the United States Secret Service
Estimated Size: 60000
- The reorganization involves the transfer of the U.S. Secret Service from one department to another, which will directly impact employees of the Secret Service.
- The bill mandates additional reporting requirements concerning travel of protected individuals, affecting high-profile individuals protected by the Secret Service.
- Administrative changes might have indirect effects on the resources and budget management within the Department of the Treasury and Homeland Security.
- Personnel involved in security, finance, and budgeting across the affected departments will experience changes due to reorganization and reporting duties.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly affects people directly involved with the U.S. Secret Service, including agents, protected officials, and administrative personnel who handle budget and reporting. Therefore, most of the simulated interviews are with people connected to these groups.
- The policy might also have indirect effects on other governmental departments' budget management, particularly Treasury and Homeland Security, and thus, we consider some individuals in these departments.
- Since the policy's budget is limited, significant effects beyond the target population (60000 people) are unlikely. Some interviews are designed to show low or no impact on the general population.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores for individuals directly affected will vary based on their role and opinion on the administration change. Scores for those indirectly affected or not affected will show less deviation with or without the policy.
- To keep the program within cost, significant wellbeing improvements are limited over time, given the cap on the financial commitment over ten years.
Simulated Interviews
Secret Service Agent (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transfer to the Department of the Treasury could streamline our resource management.
- Emphasis on precise reporting might add to administrative workload, but it's necessary for accountability.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Protected government official (New York City)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased reporting on travel might lead to more cautious planning
- Transparency is good for government accountability but may complicate logistics.
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 | 6 |
Administrative officer in Department of the Treasury (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reorganization might involve initial workload increase, but could improve long-term efficiency.
- Budget management strategies will need adjustments.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Financial analyst for the Department of Homeland Security (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uncertain about how resources will be redistributed after the transfer.
- Additional reporting could add transparency but also strain resources.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal employee, not directly related to Secret Service (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't impact my daily responsibilities.
- Budget changes might indirectly affect our department's resource allocation in the long run.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Senior Secret Service executive (Seattle, WA)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen administrative transitions before; this could bring both challenges and opportunities.
- Our focus on improved reporting will set a high standard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Economist, Department of Treasury (Boston, MA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reorganization may lead to more streamlined operations.
- Secret Service's needs will influence budgeting priorities.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Software engineer, government contractor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work is contract-based, so I don't feel much change directly.
- Any operational changes will likely be logistical.
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 |
Logistics coordinator, Secret Service (Miami, FL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I anticipate more logistical challenges due to increased reporting.
- This could improve clarity on travel expenses.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Chief Information Officer, federal agency (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy may require adjustments in IT infrastructure for improved data reporting.
- From a tech standpoint, this could drive innovation.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $10000 (Low: $5000, High: $15000)
Key Considerations
- Alignment of the Secret Service with the Treasury might streamline budgeting and security operations, potentially reducing long-term required budget increases.
- Transfer logistics might temporarily increase workloads and require adjustments across departments involved.
- Ensuring seamless protection for protected individuals during the transfer will be critical to maintaining safety and security standards.
- Compliance with new reporting requirements may necessitate additional staff and resources.