Bill Overview
Title: Secret Service Transparency and Accountability Act
Description: This bill requires each office of the inspector general to offer a briefing to Congress of the contents of each of the office's semiannual reports. The bill also prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from delegating the Secretary's authority to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General from conducting investigations or audits, accessing information, or issuing subpoenas.
Sponsors: Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: People benefiting from improved Secret Service transparency
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill focuses on the transparency and accountability of the Secret Service, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- Given that the DHS OIG oversees the Secret Service, enhanced transparency and accountability could influence the operations of the Secret Service.
- The Secret Service is specifically responsible for the safety and security of national leaders, including the President, as well as for safeguarding the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems.
- Any improvements in transparency and accountability may affect the general public's trust and confidence in these protective and investigative services.
- The Secret Service has approximately 7,000 employees (as of recent data), and changes in its accountability processes could directly impact their work environment and effectiveness.
- Indirection to Secret Service employees, changes could influence individuals requiring protection (e.g., government officials), financial institutions, businesses involved in national security, and American citizens benefiting from its protective and investigative services.
Reasoning
- The target population includes Secret Service employees (7,000) and indirectly affects those protected by the agency as well as the general U.S. public who rely on its security services.
- The policy mainly impacts trust in government transparency and accountability, potentially influencing public confidence in national security institutions.
- The budget constraints limit extensive outreach; impacts are mainly qualitative rather than quantitative, observing changes in trust and perceived transparency.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores allow us to measure subjective happiness and outlook on life, showing if transparency improvements lead to higher satisfaction.
- Since this is an accountability measure, the direct wellbeing impact may be moderate unless tied to broader systemic trust improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Secret Service Agent (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased transparency could improve the public perception of our work.
- Accountability measures help ensure integrity in our operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Bank Security Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency might not impact our day-to-day operations directly.
- However, trusting the Secret Service's integrity boosts overall confidence in financial protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Official (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased oversight could streamline our collaboration during events.
- It's important for agencies to remain transparent, enhancing safety perceptions.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe transparency in law enforcement is crucial for public trust.
- While I won't see direct impacts, knowing security agencies are accountable matters.
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 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Dallas, TX)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accountability could potentially avoid misuse of power in agencies.
- Public confidence needs constant reinforcement through transparency.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Journalist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law aids our work by enabling us to report on transparency extensively.
- Such policies ensure checks and balances are respected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Company Security Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might not have a direct impact on my work in cybersecurity.
- However, improved agency transparency benefits overall security frameworks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
FBI Consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sharing insights with Congress could lead to more informed policy decisions.
- Transparency fosters greater interdepartmental trust and operational efficiency.
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 |
Federal Contractor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We often depend on clear mandates from agencies, and accountability helps.
- Knowing projects are supervised increases stakeholder confidence.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency and accountability in agencies are central to my studies.
- Such policies align with my interest in improving governance ethics.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1600000 (Low: $1100000, High: $2100000)
Year 10: $1700000 (Low: $1200000, High: $2200000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost driver is the need for additional resources for the OIG to effectively implement briefings.
- Increased trust in governmental agencies and operations could be a potential non-monetary benefit of the policy.
- The prohibition of delegating authority could lead to a more centralized and therefore potentially more costly oversight process.