Bill Overview
Title: To ensure eligibility for public safety officer death benefits for officers exposed to radiation at clandestine laboratories, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Justice to specify that the definition of the term injury in a regulation for the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program specifically includes radiation exposure at a clandestine laboratory.
Sponsors: Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]
Target Audience
Population: Public safety officers potentially exposed to radiation at clandestine labs
Estimated Size: 50000
- Public safety officers, such as law enforcement and first responders, who may be involved in raids or investigations of clandestine laboratories where dangerous substances are present, will be directly impacted by this bill.
- Any public safety officer who has or may be exposed to radiation during the course of their duties at clandestine laboratories would be covered and potentially eligible for benefits.
- Family members of these public safety officers might also be impacted, as the benefits could provide financial support in the event of the officer's death.
- Public safety organizations and departments will need to be aware of this inclusion in the benefits program to ensure their officers are informed.
Reasoning
- The estimated number of public safety officers potentially exposed to radiation at clandestine labs is around 50,000. These officers might derive significant benefit from this policy due to increased financial protection if affected by radiation.
- Given the limited budget ($2,000,000 in year 1 and $25,150,000 over 10 years), the policy may benefit only a fraction of this population initially, with more sustained coverage over time as the program's funding grows.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores in these interviews reflect current satisfaction with financial and health safety measures, which could improve with additional coverage from the new policy.
Simulated Interviews
Police Detective (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the safety risks involved in drug lab investigations, especially when it comes to unseen threats like radiation.
- The additional benefits would be reassuring to have, knowing my family could be protected if anything were to happen to me.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Firefighter (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this new policy would be a safety net for those of us who are at risk during these dangerous calls.
- It's always been on my mind that we might not be fully covered if we get sick from something like radiation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Special Agent with DEA (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job may expose me to hidden dangers, and this policy could provide better security for myself and my loved ones.
- Having this in place could potentially reduce my stress regarding such risky assignments.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Police Sergeant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a supervisor, I see the value in this policy for providing peace of mind to my officers.
- This could improve morale knowing there is more support if something happens.
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 | 7 | 6 |
State Trooper (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Infrequent exposure means this policy might not be as important to me personally, but I see its value for others.
- It's still a good protective measure.
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 |
Paramedic (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a great relief, especially when dealing with potentially harmful environments.
- It's important to have measures that account for all possible exposures.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Emergency Response Coordinator (New York, NY)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a planner, incorporating this policy into our protocols will be essential.
- It could enhance how we handle officer welfare post-exposure.
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 |
Environmental Specialist (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I'm not a direct beneficiary, this policy seems like a solid step for protecting law enforcement.
- I feel it might indirectly benefit my work environment as well.
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 |
Police Officer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased benefits for exposure are reassuring but might not impact me directly.
- I'm more concerned with day-to-day threats than rare exposures.
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 |
Police Lieutenant (Denver, CO)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This lawyer's backing for radiation coverage makes sending officers into these labs slightly more comfortable.
- Important for officer morale and family security.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $2100000 (Low: $1050000, High: $5250000)
Year 3: $2200000 (Low: $1100000, High: $5500000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $1250000, High: $6250000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $7500000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The public safety officers affected by this policy are a small subset of the total force, reducing the overall financial impact.
- Current radiation exposure incidents in clandestine laboratories are relatively rare, limiting the immediate applicability.