Bill Overview
Title: Project Safe Neighborhoods Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2026 the Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program within the Department of Justice. The bill also allows funds under the program to be used for hiring crime analysts to assist with violent crime reduction efforts; the cost of overtime for law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and law enforcement assistants who assist with the program; purchasing, implementing, and using technology to assist with violent crime reduction efforts; and supporting multijurisdictional task forces.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: People living in high crime neighborhoods
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The Project Safe Neighborhoods program primarily targets areas in the United States with high rates of violent crimes to enhance public safety.
- Populations living in neighborhoods with high crime rates are most likely to experience a direct impact as the program seeks to reduce violence in these areas.
- Law enforcement personnel, including officers, prosecutors, and their assistants, will also be directly impacted due to increased funding for overtime and technological resources.
- Crime analysts will benefit from potential new employment opportunities as the program includes hiring such personnel to assist in crime reduction efforts.
Reasoning
- This policy specifically targets areas with high crime rates, focusing on improving public safety through strategic law enforcement enhancements. Since the target population is defined as those living in high-crime neighborhoods, approximately 50 million Americans could be directly impacted by this program.
- In generating the sample interviews, individuals from various backgrounds within these neighborhoods, such as regular residents, law enforcement personnel, and those involved in local community initiatives, are included to demonstrate the varied impact of the policy.
- The budgetary limitations suggest that although the policy can bring significant change, the effects might differ based on the size and needs of the specific neighborhoods targeted. Immediate improvements in safety could potentially improve residents' wellbeing scores shortly after implementation, but sustained impacts might require continuous funding and efforts.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the safety of my children when they play outside.
- I hope this program can reduce crime so our neighborhood can feel more like a community again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
police officer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More resources could mean being better prepared to tackle crime.
- I'm concerned about the sustainability of such funding.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
unemployed (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hoping for job opportunities as a crime analyst, which aligns with my career goals.
- Improvements in safety would make it easier to commute for work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
small business owner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the neighborhood decline over the years; more police presence might help.
- I worry about the implementation and whether it will be consistent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
retiree (Houston, TX)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would like to see our neighborhood become safer for our grandchildren.
- These efforts could support what we try to achieve at the grassroots level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
graduate student (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased safety could enhance my studies and my stay in this city.
- It would be interesting to see real impact and improvement over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
community worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need better programs and how funds are used to be truly effective.
- I hope they also focus on addressing root causes of crime.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
public school teacher (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm looking forward to seeing how these changes might reduce barriers to education.
- It must be implemented carefully to protect students and families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
programmer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More focus on tech might mean more comprehensive crime solutions.
- I hope the program considers privacy and civil rights while enhancing safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
high school student (Miami, FL)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd like to see my school become a safer place to learn.
- I hope this policy can make a real difference in community safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $36000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $41000000)
Year 3: $37000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $42000000)
Year 5: $39000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $44000000)
Year 10: $43000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $48000000)
Year 100: $53000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $58000000)
Key Considerations
- The program seeks to directly reduce violent crime through targeted funding for enforcement and analysis, which aligns with its history of prioritizing public safety.
- Cost estimates must consider variations based on fluctuating crime rates which influence resource allocation needs.
- The overall crime rate reduction could have secondary economic benefits that are not easily quantified in direct budgetary terms.