Bill Overview
Title: Securing Our Schools Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows states, territories, tribal governments, metropolitan cities, and local governments to use unobligated Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to carry out school security measures (e.g., trainings and security assessments).
Sponsors: Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-2]
Target Audience
Population: people connected to K-12 educational institutions worldwide
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill involves the use of funds targeted at enhancing school security, which indicates that the primary beneficiaries are school students and staff.
- Given that these funds are originally from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, the scope is quite broad as it includes all K-12 schools that can access these funds through their respective local governments.
- The application of such funds not only affects students and staff but also the surrounding communities as improved school security can impact parents, families, and local law enforcement.
- School security often involves infrastructure, training, and community involvement, suggesting that a very large number of people are indirectly influenced.
- Schools typically have large student populations; therefore, the term 'schools' encompasses a vast number of individuals affected directly or indirectly by these measures.
Reasoning
- The policy is expected to primarily affect those directly linked to K-12 schools, such as students, teachers, and administrative staff.
- The security measures can have broader implications, influencing parents' perceptions and local community dynamics.
- The impact may vary significantly among individuals; some will feel a substantial enhancement to safety and wellbeing, while others might not notice a change.
- Given the scale of indirect effects, a variety of perspectives from highly impacted to less impacted should be included.
- The policy might not reach all schools immediately due to budget constraints and varying state priorities.
Simulated Interviews
High school student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think more security can make students feel safer, but we need to ensure it doesn’t lead to a prison-like environment.
- It would be great if students could have a say in the discussions about security changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Elementary School Principal (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced security measures might make our staff and students feel more secure.
- We must balance security with maintaining a welcoming environment for learning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Parent (Denver, CO)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want my kids to feel safe, but I worry about the methods used.
- Communication about the changes will be important during implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
School Safety Officer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It will help us implement more effective security measures.
- Additional training and resources will be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is important, but education quality should also be a focus.
- There needs to be transparent communication and collaboration with educators.
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 | 5 | 5 |
School District Administrator (Fargo, ND)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Redirection of funds will help update outdated security technology.
- We'll need to allocate these funds judiciously to maximize impact.
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 | 4 |
Police Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Collaboration with schools on safety measures is crucial.
- These funds could strengthen ties between schools and local law enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
School Counselor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While physical security is vital, we should also focus on mental health and support systems.
- Addressing safety holistically will benefit the student body.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy can prevent incidents better than when I was in school.
- It is crucial to involve young voices in planning and evaluation.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rural schools need different support compared to urban schools, but security remains key.
- Community involvement can be a powerful tool for ensuring safety.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $320000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $320000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $400000000)
Year 3: $320000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $400000000)
Year 5: $320000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $400000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill leverages existing federal funds rather than requesting new appropriations.
- There is potential for improved school safety outcomes, though direct fiscal impacts are primarily through existing fund redirection.
- Coordination with local governments will be crucial to ensure appropriate and efficient use of funds. Benefits may vary based on local implementation.