Bill Overview
Title: Securing Our Students Act
Description: This bill authorizes local educational agencies and nonpublic schools to use certain COVID-19 emergency relief funds, services, or assistance for school safety uses, that is improving school conditions for student learning by planning and designing school buildings and facilities, installing infrastructure, providing safety education, and implementing technology or other measures that strengthen security on school premises.
Sponsors: Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]
Target Audience
Population: Students, educators, and related school employees worldwide
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The bill impacts students in educational institutions, which includes both public and nonpublic schools.
- Educational staff and administration at schools will also be affected as they would be involved in planning and implementing the security measures.
- Parents and guardians could be indirectly impacted as they may be more or less assured of their children's safety during school hours.
- The general community may also experience secondary benefits or consequences related to school safety and community safety perceptions.
Reasoning
- The policy targets educational institutions, so the impact will be strongest among students, teachers, administrative staff, and to some extent, parents.
- Since the policy aims to improve security, the perceptions of safety at schools would be the focus of Cantril wellbeing score changes.
- Budget limitations indicated ($0 USD) implies minimal immediate direct impact. Thus, any expected wellbeing improvements hinge more on anticipated security measures than immediate changes.
- The broad inclusion of both public and private schools suggests a wide potential reach, although actual implementation may be restricted based on existing infrastructure and funding reprioritization.
- Actual direct involvement may be limited in early years with the potential for indirect or anticipatory shifts in wellbeing if stakeholders feel policy intent could enhance security in the future.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think improving security is important, but without immediate preparation or budget, it might take a long time to feel the effects.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Middle School Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this would lead to improvements, but with no immediate funds, it's hard to see swift changes happening.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
School Principal (Chicago, IL)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step in the right direction, but without a budget, we need to creatively manage existing resources.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lack of a financial commitment now means impact is postponed unless future resources are redirected.
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 |
High School Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safe already, so I guess it's good for others but doesn't change much for me.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Parent (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus, but without initial funding, I'm concerned about how much will actually be implemented.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired School Administrator (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The proposal has merit, but absence of an immediate budget suggests we'll see slow change if any.
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 |
Nonprofit Organizer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There seems to be intent, but without funding, many schools might struggle to implement meaningful change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
New Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to enhanced safety, but the current lack of funds makes it hard to anticipate tangible changes soon.
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 | 6 | 6 |
High School Security Officer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is crucial and any initiative is welcome; however, the current budget ignores urgent needs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The reallocation of funds could affect other programs initially intended to be funded by COVID-19 relief.
- The bill does not propose new spending, so its success depends on efficient use of existing resources.