Bill Overview
Title: A bill to prohibit the use of Federal and local funds to impose or enforce a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in District of Columbia schools, and to repeal the Coronavirus Immunization of School Students and Early Childhood Workers Regulation Amendment Act of 2021 enacted by the District of Columbia Council.
Description: This bill prohibits the District of Columbia (DC) from using federal or local funds to require that students in elementary or secondary schools receive a COVID-19 vaccination. The bill also nullifies the Coronavirus Immunization of School Students and Early Childhood Workers Regulation Amendment Act of 2021 (D.C. Act 24-85), enacted by the DC Council on January 12, 2022.
Sponsors: Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Students, parents, school staff, and early childhood workers in the District of Columbia
Estimated Size: 700000
- The bill affects students attending elementary and secondary schools in the District of Columbia as it relates to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
- There are parents and families of these students who would also be impacted, as the health decisions and requirements for their children can influence family health dynamics and choices.
- School administrators and staff in DC may be impacted as they will need to adjust health and safety policies and procedures if the mandate is repealed.
- Other stakeholders include early childhood workers as the original Act includes provisions for them and these would be repealed.
- Public health officials and entities involved in vaccination campaigns or school health programs may be indirectly impacted.
- The general population in DC may see changes in public health dynamics depending on vaccination rates among school-aged children.
- As this specifically targets DC, populations in other states are not directly impacted.
Reasoning
- The student population in DC includes around 90,000 students, which when considering parents, school staff, and related stakeholders, creates a larger group potentially impacted by this policy.
- The policy restricts the use of both federal and local funds for vaccine mandates, which primarily impacts DC schools and families.
- Public and charter schools are the main environments affected, where there are differing opinions on vaccine mandates.
- Students, especially those with parents against mandated vaccines, might experience less anxiety if not mandated.
- The policy does not immediately influence the rest of the US, focusing specifically on DC, which simplifies the population estimation.
- Factors such as public health, perception of safety in schools, and potential health risks will vary in outcomes from this policy action.
- During the first year, the impact would be measured primarily by the adjustments made by schools and the reactions of families affected.
- Considering this is a topic tied to public health and autonomy, opinions and wellbeing effects will differ among stakeholders.
- Schools may have to alter their COVID-19 policies which could impact the wellbeing of not just students but also educators and staff.
- The opinions expressed may vary widely due to personal, political, and public health beliefs; hence, it's essential to capture a diverse range of simulated experiences.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Washington, DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe health mandates help protect our community, but I understand there's controversy.
- This repeal could make some teachers anxious about safety in classrooms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Public Health Official (Washington, DC)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Public health is paramount, and I'm concerned about lower vaccination rates.
- However, autonomy is important, and this policy respects personal choice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Parent (Washington, DC)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a parent, I prefer having the choice rather than a mandate imposed.
- Relieved this policy gives parents more flexibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Early Childhood Worker (Washington, DC)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand why some families are against mandates, but children's health is crucial.
- This policy change could increase risks if vaccination rates drop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
School Administrator (Washington, DC)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a logistical challenge to reverse policies yet keep our community safe.
- A more cautious approach will be needed to maintain public confidence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Parent (Washington, DC)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me uneasy because my child is at higher risk.
- It feels like a step back in maintaining safe school environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
College Student (Washington, DC)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm for personal freedom, but public health needs careful balancing.
- This repeal shows a shift towards individual responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired Healthcare Worker (Washington, DC)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think mandates can be excessive, but vaccination is important for communal safety.
- My perspective reflects years of watching public health outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Private School Teacher (Washington, DC)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The absence of mandates won't change my instructions, but may influence student attendance.
- Health in schools is a priority, and clear guidelines help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Health Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing mandated vaccines can lead to broader implications for public health.
- Data and informed consent are key components of my stance.”
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- The repeal of the regulation could impact local health outcomes if vaccination rates drop significantly, though this is speculative.
- Administrative costs associated with enforcing the mandate would decrease, providing potential government savings.
- Public reaction and compliance with the new regulation could vary, influencing the actual cost and savings realized.
- In the absence of a mandate, voluntary uptake of vaccines and the related public education campaigns become more significant.