Bill Overview
Title: Good DEED Act
Description: This bill addresses deed fraud (i.e., forgery, impersonation, or willful misrepresentation of authority in connection with the execution of a written instrument transferring an interest in real property) by standardizing federal reporting of crimes related to deed fraud, enhancing federal penalties for individuals convicted of such crimes, and establishing a competitive grant program for states and certain localities to respond to deed fraud.
Sponsors: Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially affected by deed fraud
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill targets deed fraud, which affects real property owners.
- Real property transactions involve individuals buying, selling, or inheriting property.
- Deed fraud typically targets vulnerable populations such as the elderly, minorities, and those in financial distress due to their perceived inability to effectively monitor their real estate holdings or understand the complexities of real estate transactions.
- Statistics show a significant number of homeowners face challenges related to deed fraud, especially in urban areas where property theft via fraudulent deeds is more common.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to protect property owners from deed fraud, a crime that mostly affects vulnerable populations such as the elderly and minorities.
- Most people will be unaffected as deed fraud is a relatively rare occurrence compared to the total number of property transactions.
- Certain urban areas, where property theft through fraudulent deeds is more common, will benefit more significantly from this policy.
- The policy has a limited budget relative to the potential number of beneficiaries, which restricts its ability to cover all affected cases concurrently.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (New York City, NY)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can help protect people like me, who may not easily notice fraudulent activity.
- I wish there was more awareness about deed fraud.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Administrative Assistant (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've heard about deed fraud happening in low income areas, so this policy gives me some peace of mind.
- I'm concerned about whether my city will get enough funding from the grants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
School Teacher (Chattanooga, TN)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing there are stricter penalties for fraud perpetrators.
- I believe this could deter some fraudulent schemes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is more relevant to older or less tech-oriented property owners, but it's still reassuring.
- I think streamlining federal reporting is a step forward.
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 |
Real Estate Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the government is taking steps to curb deed fraud as I've seen clients affected by it.
- Education and awareness campaigns should be part of implementing this policy.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Veteran (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The penalties are a good deterrent for fraudsters.
- Living on a tight budget, any fraud would be devastating. This policy is a necessary safeguard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Nurse (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this doesn't directly affect me now, it increases my confidence for future home ownership.
- The standardization of crime reporting is much needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Banker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes our neighborhoods safer for property owners.
- With more standard reports, banks can also offset risks better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Secretary (Chicago, IL)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time there were harsher penalties for these crimes.
- This policy is a little late for me, but I support it helping others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems more of an urban issue, but my brother in the city could benefit.
- I worry it won't apply evenly in rural areas.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $61000000)
Year 3: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 5: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $64000000)
Year 10: $59000000 (Low: $49000000, High: $69000000)
Year 100: $99000000 (Low: $89000000, High: $109000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the federal reporting system and standardized response to deed fraud across states could greatly influence the overall success of the act.
- Grant allocations might vary significantly based on geographical prevalence of deed fraud and local government's capacity to address it.
- Collaboration with state and local governments is essential for the successful implementation of the competitive grant program, affecting the administrative and coordination costs.