Bill Overview
Title: Honoring Civil Servants Killed in the Line of Duty Act
Description: This bill increases benefits to survivors of federal employees who die in the line of duty. Specifically, the bill increases the death benefit for federal employees from $10,000 to $100,000 and increases the funeral benefit from $800 to $8,800. Both amounts must be adjusted annually for inflation. The bill also excludes the death benefit from gross income for purposes of federal taxation.
Sponsors: Sen. Sinema, Kyrsten [D-AZ]
Target Audience
Population: Survivors of federal employees who die in the line of duty
Estimated Size: 3000
- Federal employees are employed in a range of sectors including law enforcement, the military, firefighters, and other civil service roles that involve risk.
- On an annual basis, a portion of federal employees die in the line of duty due to the dangers involved in their roles.
- The surviving dependents of these federal employees are directly impacted by death benefits and funeral costs.
- The United States employs a significant number of federal workers, but only a subset die annually in the line of duty.
- Historical data on federal employee deaths in the line of duty can be used to estimate impacted survivors.
Reasoning
- The Honoring Civil Servants Killed in the Line of Duty Act directly affects the survivors of deceased federal employees by increasing death and funeral benefits, thereby potentially alleviating financial burdens during a challenging time.
- Federal employees work in various high-risk sectors such as military, law enforcement, and firefighting, making this a pertinent issue for those families.
- It's essential to include individuals not directly impacted by this policy, as it helps to understand the broader perception and social implications.
- Given the budget limits and the estimation that around 3,000 employees might be affected annually, we should focus on high-impact cases for these constituents.
Simulated Interviews
Federal agent (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know that my family would be better taken care of if something were to happen to me.
- I believe this policy shows respect for our sacrifices.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Firefighter (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the risk is part of the job, knowing my parents wouldn’t struggle financially if I wasn't here is very comforting.
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 |
Postal worker (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't impact me much since my work isn't typically dangerous, but it's good for those in riskier roles.
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 |
Federal wildlife officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased benefits could mean the difference between my kids having opportunities or struggling, so this policy is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Federal air marshal (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy enhances the support framework, invaluable when you're on the front lines.
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 |
Federal judge (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is fair and responds to the needs of those in riskier federal positions, even though it doesn't affect me directly.
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 |
Coast Guard (Miami, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy greatly relieves my worries about my family's future security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Border patrol agent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change might not reflect immediately in my day-to-day but provides a safety net for my family.
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 |
FBI analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a good move to ensure that families of colleagues in the field are supported better if the worst happens.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
National Park Ranger (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A positive step showing that the government values those exposing themselves to real dangers.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $294000000 (Low: $265000000, High: $323000000)
Year 2: $303000000 (Low: $272000000, High: $332000000)
Year 3: $312000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $343000000)
Year 5: $331000000 (Low: $297000000, High: $366000000)
Year 10: $379000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $419000000)
Year 100: $924000000 (Low: $832000000, High: $1016000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring accurate projection of affected beneficiaries is crucial to cost estimates.
- Continual inflation adjustments could escalate costs significantly over an extended period.
- Changes in the number of line-of-duty deaths year-to-year can affect expenditure predictability and budgeting.