Bill Overview
Title: Customs and Border Protection Crisis Hardship and Incentive Pay Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires additional pay (up to $250 per pay period) for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement law enforcement officers if the officer was on duty under certain conditions, such as if fentanyl was encountered in the sector.
Sponsors: Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2]
Target Audience
Population: Law enforcement officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
Estimated Size: 60000
- The bill specifically mentions that it impacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement law enforcement officers.
- The bill provides additional pay incentives for officers under certain crisis conditions, such as encountering fentanyl.
- Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are agencies that employ tens of thousands of officers.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of this policy is on law enforcement officers within CBP and ICE, which consists of approximately 60,000 to 65,000 officers who may be eligible for additional pay based on specific conditions.
- Individuals outside the target population, such as family members of officers, may experience secondary impacts due to changes in household income.
- General citizens and other law enforcement personnel not directly eligible for this act may not be affected unless there are indirect economic improvements.
- The budget constraints imply that not all officers will consistently receive the maximum benefit, since the allocation needs to be distributed based on conditions encountered.
- The target demographic is narrowly focused, so the impact will be high to medium within CBP and ICE, but low to none across the broader population.
Simulated Interviews
CBP Officer (El Paso, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is likely to increase my incentive to stay with CBP, as the additional pay will help with the cost of living in border areas.
- I believe this act will help officers feel more valued for their challenging work conditions.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
ICE Agent (San Diego, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the acknowledgement of the dangers we face. This bonus is a tangible form of support.
- While this is a positive step, continuous support and resources for safety are equally important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
CBP Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a new recruit, the extra pay will help me settle better and take care of initial expenses.
- This policy might motivate more young officers to join sectors encountering more risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
ICE Supervisor (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My role doesn't involve frequent fieldwork anymore, so I don't expect to benefit directly from this policy.
- It's more beneficial for agents on the ground handling dangerous substances. I support it as a morale booster for them.
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 |
Family Member of CBP Officer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the additional pay, we can think about saving more for our children's education.
- The policy seems to be a good step in the right direction for officers who work in tough conditions.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
ICE Agent (McAllen, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This additional pay is a good start, but future increases would be appreciated given the rising risks.
- It's reassuring to hear that the government acknowledges the risks we face daily.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Former CBP Officer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although this doesn't affect me directly, it's great to see current officers receiving support.
- I wish there had been similar incentives when I was serving.
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 |
CBP Enforcement Officer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extra financial boost is welcome as living costs are rising everywhere.
- It's a positive, yet small, step towards better compensation for officers.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
CBP Officer (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The risk pay helps a lot to manage stress and make the job worthwhile.
- It's good to see some focus on officers dealing with high-stress duties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
ICE Analyst (Dallas, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy won't impact me directly, but it helps colleagues working in high-risk areas.
- I support any measures that enhance the welfare of officers on the frontline.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $780000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $960000000)
Year 2: $802560000 (Low: $616800000, High: $987840000)
Year 3: $825636800 (Low: $633907200, High: $1071421120)
Year 5: $873564876 (Low: $671334720, High: $1134016000)
Year 10: $981405738 (Low: $754800768, High: $1278451200)
Year 100: $6630949569 (Low: $5108792922, High: $8659902720)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost driver is the additional pay to officers who meet specific conditions.
- The number and frequency of encounters that qualify law enforcement officers for the additional pay are critical in determining the actual cost.
- Budget allocations for Customs and Border Protection and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would need adjustments to accommodate these potential increases in compensation.