Bill Overview
Title: Public and Federally Assisted Housing Fire Safety Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires each unit of federally assisted housing to contain hardwired or tamper-resistant battery-powered smoke alarms. The bill also requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development to complete a national campaign to educate the general public about health and safety requirements and how to properly use safety features in housing.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: People living in federally assisted housing worldwide
Estimated Size: 11960000
- Federally assisted housing units house low-income individuals and families.
- Around 4.6 million households are living in publicly assisted housing in the United States.
- The bill's requirement for smoke alarms aims at those specific housing units.
- Smoke alarm implementation directly impacts those residing in these housing units.
Reasoning
- Federally assisted housing units often house vulnerable populations, including elderly, disabled, and low-income families, who may have lower awareness or ability to implement safety measures independently.
- The primary beneficiaries of the policy would be residents of these housing units, who comprise a significant portion of the target population.
- The policy's budget and scale likely reach most of these households over the 10-year period, given the large budget allocation.
- The inclusion of a public education campaign suggests indirect benefits by increasing awareness among the general population about fire safety, although the primary impact remains on those living in federally assisted housing.
- Those living nearby federally assisted housing might also experience benefits indirectly, such as reduced risk of fires spreading across housing boundaries due to improved safety measures.
Simulated Interviews
Cashier (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the government is making us safer. I've always worried about what would happen if there was a fire.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could save lives. Fire safety is crucial, especially for someone with limited mobility like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that can reduce risks is welcome. It's about time these safety measures were mandatory.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As students, we're always worried about safety. This policy sounds reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Construction Worker (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good move because it looks out for families like mine.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Waitress (Detroit, MI)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know these alarms will be installed, makes me sleep better at night.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Part-time musician (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a good step, but I hope they maintain these alarms properly over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like this policy because it feels like the government is taking care of our safety.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety is always a concern as you get older. Policies like this are crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Self-employed (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides peace of mind knowing we're protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
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
- Cost-effectiveness of education campaigns versus direct grants for alarm installation.
- Ensuring compliance with installation regulations across various states and territories.
- Impact of supply chain availability for smoke alarms and installers.