Bill Overview
Title: Crime Doesn’t Pay Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires that pre-separation counseling for members of the Armed Forces include training regarding the consequences to members who are convicted of a crime, specifically regarding the loss of benefits.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Armed Forces undergoing pre-separation counseling
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill targets members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing pre-separation counseling.
- The bill's core focus is conveying information to these service members about consequences of criminal convictions.
- The impact is therefore primarily educational and preventative, aiming to inform service members about the potential loss of benefits.
- It indirectly affects family members who might rely on these benefits.
- The global category includes Armed Forces members in all positions, regardless of branch or location, undergoing this specific transition process.
Reasoning
- The policy is specifically aimed at the 500,000 members of the Armed Forces undergoing pre-separation counseling. The budget constraints indicate a limited but significant scope, allowing for targeted educational programming. Given that the main goal is educational, the policy's impact on Cantril wellbeing may be more pronounced in individuals who highly value security and benefits tied to their service. However, the impact may be minimal or none for those who don't foresee criminal convictions as a concern.
- The distribution of effects will vary: some may feel reassured and empowered with more knowledge (potentially raising wellbeing), while others may not feel any change, particularly if they consider the information irrelevant to their personal circumstances.
- Family members might also experience indirect benefits from increased awareness among service members, enhancing family stability with respect to benefits preservation.
Simulated Interviews
Military - Army Sergeant (North Carolina)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's helpful to know exactly what I could be losing if I messed up after service. It's a bit of a wake-up call.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Military - Navy Engineer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't really worried about this stuff before, but it's good to have all the information laid out. It does make me more cautious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Military - Air Force Pilot (Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels very distant from my reality – I've never been in trouble, so it doesn't really concern me.
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 |
Military - Marine Tactical Specialist (Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of losing benefits has made me think twice about risky behavior. It's good to be aware.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Military - Coast Guard Logistics Officer (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a bit unsettling to be reminded of what I could lose, but I understand the importance.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Military - Army Private First Class (Florida)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This training makes me a little more nervous about transitioning out to civilian life.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Military - Navy Senior Officer (Hawaii)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't change much for me. I'm already well aware of all these rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Military - Air Force Technician (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Learning about the consequences definitely makes me want to avoid risky behavior that could endanger our benefits.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Military - National Guard Member (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not really relevant to me, I'm not worried about losing benefits. It seems more important for those who might struggle with the law.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Military - Marine Corps Communications (Oklahoma)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good to know about these consequences; I'd rather be informed now than in a tough spot later.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the policy strongly depends on the quality and delivery of the educational content.
- There could be significant benefits in terms of reduced veteran crime rates, producing downstream savings.
- Maintaining updated and engaging materials will be critical for long-term success.
- Coordination with multiple branches and entities within the DoD will be essential to program implementation.