Bill Overview
Title: To amend the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to extend the availability of paid leave for Federal employees for purposes relating to COVID-19, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill extends paid leave relating to COVID-19 (e.g., medical, caregiver, and immunization leave) for federal employees until December 31, 2022. The bill applies retroactively to October 1, 2021.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Sean Patrick [D-NY-18]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees in the United States
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The bill specifically mentions 'federal employees', indicating the population affected is those working within the federal government.
- According to data, as of early 2021, the US federal government employed approximately 2.1 million civilian workers.
- The bill concerns extending paid leave related to COVID-19; this suggests all currently employed federal workers might benefit from it, but not all will necessarily be impacted as not all might need the leave.
- Historical data shows that while not all federal employees may take leave at once, the provision impacts all because it extends a potential benefit to the entire workforce.
Reasoning
- The policy strictly impacts federal employees, a population of about 2.1 million individuals.
- The policy extends COVID-19 related paid leave, which might only be needed by those directly impacted by the pandemic either personally or through caregiving responsibilities.
- Assuming higher impact on those working in environments with higher exposure risk or those with COVID-infected household members.
- The federal workforce is diverse in terms of occupation, geographical location, and socioeconomic status leading to varied impact.
- Many federal employees might be indirectly affected by having peers who are covered by this policy, thereby redistributing workload.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect to use the leave since I'm fully vaccinated and work mostly from home.
- It's comforting to know that if things change, I have the option.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Federal IT Specialist (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me peace of mind since my parents are at risk.
- Knowing I can take leave if needed helps reduce some stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Federal Park Ranger (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief knowing I can take paid leave should I need medical care.
- I wish the policy wasn't just for COVID-related issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Federal USPS Worker (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I now know that I have the buffer to care for my husband safely.
- This should've been implemented earlier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Call Center Rep (Virginia)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy won't impact me much; I'm not in a high-risk environment.
- Good for those who really need it.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Financial Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can focus on recovering without financial worries.
- This policy provides a critical safety net for my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Federal Flight Inspector (Florida)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of policy becomes vital due to my travel schedule and health condition.
- I can better manage my health with reduced stress about taking leave.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Federal HR Specialist (Maryland)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It gives added security, though I'm stable in my job.
- The extension should include more comprehensive health issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Research Scientist (Ohio)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I work remotely, knowing the leave is available is relieving.
- I support the policy as a responsible societal safety net.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Wildlife Officer (Colorado)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy adds a layer of comfort as I'm new and wasn't sure about leave policies.
- Overall, it's good but temporary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill’s scope is limited to federal employees, affecting approximately 2.1 million workers directly.
- The retrospective application from October 1, 2021, implies costs may also pertain to leaves already taken.
- Potential public health benefits due to reduced transmission of COVID-19 among federal workers and their communities may offset some costs indirectly.