Bill Overview
Title: SAVES Act
Description: This bill transfers certain funds to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to carry out a grant program for school safety and security. Specifically, the bill transfers funds appropriated for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements at public school facilities (currently known as the Department of Energy's Renew America's Schools Program) to DOJ for the grant program. DOJ must award grants to states (and states must provide subgrants to eligible entities, such as local educational agencies and schools) for planning and designing school buildings and facilities, installing infrastructure, and implementing technology or other measures that strengthen security on school premises.
Sponsors: Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or attending educational institutions globally
Estimated Size: 65000000
- The bill is focused on school safety and security, which affects students, teachers, and school staff.
- By transferring funds to enhance security, another group impacted is potentially the recipients of the original energy efficiency and renewable improvements, as these funds are being redirected.
- Recipients of the grants, such as states, local educational agencies, and schools, will be directly impacted as they will receive funding for security enhancements.
- Parents and families of students will be indirectly impacted as the safety of their children in schools is a primary concern.
- Communities may experience a sense of increased security in educational settings and might also indirectly benefit if security concerns are addressed.
Reasoning
- The SAVES Act directly impacts students, teachers, and staff by potentially enhancing their safety through improved infrastructure and technology. This would likely improve their sense of security and well-being in educational environments.
- The policy also affects those who benefit indirectly from the school environment, such as parents, who may feel more at ease knowing their children are in safer conditions.
- There are also stakeholders experiencing a negative impact, such as those relying on the energy efficiency programs that will lose funding, potentially affecting contractors or local populations expecting those improvements.
- The simulation involves a range of impacted individuals, from those directly involved in education to community members who expect indirect benefits from improved school safety. Some individuals might face trade-offs, particularly if their interests were in the energy efficiency programs now being defunded.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (New York, NY)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing that there will be better security in my school.
- I think the policy is good because it prioritizes student safety.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I think school safety is important, redirecting funds from renewable energy seems like a short-sighted move.
- I worry about long-term impacts on school facilities without energy improvements.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
School Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional funding will help, but it's a trade-off with the energy improvements we've been planning.
- This is a short-term fix, not a long-term solution.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Security Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing school security is crucial, especially in today's climate.
- The policy should ensure the use of the most effective technologies available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Parent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved knowing that my kids' schools will be safer.
- I also worry about the environment and the funds diverted from energy improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired School Principal (Rural Georgia)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The safety of our educational environment is important, but we shouldn't sacrifice other essential improvements.
- Sustainable solutions are needed that integrate safety and energy efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
School Facilities Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While security upgrades are necessary, neglecting energy efficiency could lead to higher costs in the future.
- We need innovative solutions that meet both safety and sustainability needs.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Energy Consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disappointing to see funds meant for sustainability being redirected.
- There should be a balance between security and energy efficiency.
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 |
School Safety Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional resources will aid in school security, which is crucial.
- However, I hope funding is used effectively and not wasted.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy highlights the need for prioritizing safety.
- However, it's essential to consider the benefits of comprehensive planning that doesn't trade off important improvements like energy efficiency.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing funding between security enhancements and energy efficiency initiatives is critical.
- Potential reduction in energy efficiency gains could have environmental and cost implications for schools in the long run.
- Ensuring effective use and oversight of the grant funds to maximize security improvement outcomes.
- Impact on stakeholders, particularly considering the redirection of funds from established programs, requires management to mitigate community concerns.