Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Social Workers and Health Professionals from Workplace Violence Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants to states, Indian tribes, and tribal organizations for providing safety measures to social workers, health workers, and human services professionals who perform services in high-risk and potentially dangerous situations.
Sponsors: Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]
Target Audience
Population: Social workers, health workers, and human services professionals
Estimated Size: 5000000
- Social workers, health workers, and human services professionals are explicitly mentioned in the bill as the target population.
- The bill pertains to these workers who operate in high-risk and potentially dangerous situations, suggesting environments like hospitals, clinics, community outreach, and similar places.
- Given the global nature of social work and health professions, individuals in these professions across the globe can be considered the potential primary beneficiaries.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to protect and improve the working environment for social workers and health professionals, who number around 5 million in the US. Given a significant portion of these work in high-risk environments, a focus area is enhancing safety and wellbeing for these environments.
- The budget plan of $250 million in the first year suggests that immediate impacts would primarily be felt through safety training and equipment that could lower risk in high-need areas.
- Since the policy provides grants, geographical distribution might not be uniform, with more funding directed towards urban areas with higher concentrations of high-risk environments.
- The wellbeing impact is likely varied over the years, initially addressing direct safety concerns but gradually also affecting job satisfaction and mental health.
- Consideration for those unimpacted should be included, since not all professionals work in environments deemed high-risk. Hence, their wellbeing scores might reflect stable results regardless of whether the policy is in place.
Simulated Interviews
Social Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I constantly worry about safety during my visits, the policy can't come soon enough.
- More training on handling aggressive situations would be very helpful.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Registered Nurse (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In the ER, anything can happen, so security is always a concern.
- Having additional safety measures would allow us to focus more on patient care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Child Protection Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety measures are critical in my line of work.
- The new policy is essential for protecting us in potentially violent situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Paramedic (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our job is already stressful enough without worrying about safety.
- Any policy that improves our safety is appreciated and necessary.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse Practitioner (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although not always in immediate danger, added safety measures can alleviate some concerns.
- Feeling secure at work helps us provide better care.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Mental Health Counselor (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have felt threatened on several occasions during visits.
- Policy funds for training and escort services when visiting clients would be invaluable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Pediatrician (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is less relevant to my work environment, which is quite safe.
- It's good for public sector workers who may not have the same safety measures as we do.
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 |
Human Services Director (Omaha, NE)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring my team is safe is a priority, so I'm supportive of this policy.
- With additional funding, we can implement more robust safety protocols.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Physician Assistant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional safety measures always help, especially during night shifts.
- Overall, I feel safe at work, but improvements can always be made.
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 |
Clinical Social Worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should provide personal safety gear and self-defense training.
- It would decrease anxiety around the threat of physical violence.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scope of the policy might need to expand or contract depending on the actual uptake and effectiveness of measures.
- Different states may require different levels of funding based on pre-existing safety measures and infrastructure readiness.
- Coordination with existing occupational safety regulations and resources may influence the overall cost and effectiveness.