Bill Overview
Title: AVERT Future Violence Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the National Institute of Justice within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to study the factors that contribute to acts of animal cruelty. The report must also analyze acts of animal cruelty as a predictor of future violence against humans. Additionally, the bill authorizes DOJ to establish a grant program to support the development and strengthening of detection strategies and early intervention or diversion resources to stop acts of animal cruelty and rehabilitate offenders.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals exhibiting or at risk of violent behavior
Estimated Size: 700000
- People who have committed acts of animal cruelty and are targeted for intervention or rehabilitation may see their wellbeing impacted positively if effective programs are developed.
- There is evidence that animal cruelty can be a predictor of future violence against humans, indicating that early intervention might reduce future acts of violence against people, indirectly impacting potential future victims.
- Law enforcement and community organizations that work with individuals prone to violence may be impacted through increased resources or frameworks for intervention and prevention.
- The larger community or society could experience improved safety and wellbeing if the underlying causes of violence and criminal offenses are addressed early.
Reasoning
- Considering the budget allocation, the policy targets individuals linked to animal cruelty, and potentially violent behavior, for intervention. The budget will mainly support programs aimed at rehabilitation and prevention, impacting mainly those directly involved or potentially at risk.
- The Americans impacted directly are a relatively smaller segment but with potentially significant implications for community safety and wellbeing when interventions are successfully implemented.
- Indirectly, community safety could improve, leading to minor wellbeing impacts on individuals not directly involved in animal cruelty but living in impacted areas.
- The role of law enforcement and support organizations is crucial, with budget allocations likely supporting them to better identify and deal with cases of animal cruelty.
- Only a fraction of the estimated 700,000 individuals will be serviced initially due to budget constraints, primarily focusing on higher-risk cases.
Simulated Interviews
Social worker (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could be transformative in identifying root causes of violent behavior early.
- Resources directed at rehabilitation are much needed and can result in long-term community benefits.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Veterinarian (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy acknowledges the seriousness of animal cruelty and its unpredictable larger societal impacts.
- I am hopeful that it will encourage more reporting and documentation of such acts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Law student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The link between animal cruelty and future violence is an important research area, and this policy should bring more light to it.
- However, I worry about the effectiveness of the interventions and availability of sufficient funding.
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 |
Community Police Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is a clear need for better understanding and intervention in cases of animal cruelty, which often go unnoticed.
- This policy could support our work on the ground and help improve safety.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College student (Miami, FL)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is about time we take animal cruelty seriously as a precursor to deeper behavioral issues.
- I hope this policy does not just stay on paper but leads to real changes.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how much this policy will affect us directly but it's always good to see stricter animal control measures.
- I appreciate steps taken to curb violence in all forms, but also hope our community rights are not overlooked.
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 |
Public school teacher (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education around animal cruelty and its societal impacts is an interesting area; perhaps schools could benefit indirectly through awareness programs.
- I support this bill's intent but hope it translates to observable change in behavior.
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 |
Civil rights attorney (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy offers a new perspective on traditional intervention methods for reducing violence.
- Integration of such measures in justice systems could help divert youth from paths of violence.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Pet store manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to educate pet owners about cruelty and its broader impacts; I hope this policy considers it.
- The impact on small pet-oriented businesses like ours is indirect but relevant.
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 |
Psychologist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with research evidence on violence prediction and prevention.
- The real effect hinges on the implementation and scope of interventions.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5500000 (Low: $3300000, High: $7700000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $3600000, High: $8400000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $4200000, High: $9800000)
Year 10: $8500000 (Low: $5100000, High: $11900000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of developed intervention programs is uncertain, which could impact the estimated savings on violence-related costs.
- Timeliness and scale of grant funding awards could vary significantly.
- Understanding regional variations in animal cruelty and their links to human violence will be crucial in establishing effective programs.