Bill Overview
Title: Safe at Home Act
Description: This bill requires each executive agency (except for the U.S. Census Bureau) and federal court to accept an address designated to an individual pursuant to an address confidentiality program (e.g., a program to protect stalking or domestic violence victims).
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Victims of domestic violence and stalking
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The bill aims to provide address confidentiality to individuals needing protection, such as victims of domestic violence or stalking.
- Address confidentiality programs are typically designed to help keep the addresses of survivors of domestic abuse hidden from their abusers, protecting their privacy and safety.
- Victims of domestic violence and stalking are a significant population that requires protection due to the prevalence of these issues globally, affecting millions of people.
Reasoning
- Given the budget constraints, the policy must be designed to maximize impact on those most in need: victims of domestic violence or stalking.
- While the estimated target population for the program is significant, not everyone will immediately require or take advantage of address confidentiality programs.
- The policy will primarily impact individuals actively seeking protection from threats such as domestic violence, potentially improving their sense of safety and wellbeing.
- Typical participants are likely to be women, as they make up a large portion of documented domestic violence cases.
- Budget allocation must prioritize outreach and accessibility to ensure the people who can benefit from it the most are aware and have access to these protections.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will help extend the protection from local programs to other areas, making me feel more secure.
- Having my address protected on federal levels will make it easier for me to start over without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might finally give me the peace of mind to join the program.
- Knowing I can keep my address confidential even in federal matters is a big relief.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope such a policy could serve as a backup plan if things get unsafe again.
- It feels reassuring to have federal protections to rely on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like this policy comes at the right time for me.
- Knowing all levels of government will protect my address will help me focus on finishing school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Nonprofit Worker (Portland, OR)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a crucial evolution to existing protections.
- It might encourage more victims to seek help.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Attorney (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a professional standpoint, this policy provides necessary federal support. However, personally, it doesn't impact my wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Barista (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extension of address confidentiality could simplify my move to another state.
- It’s encouraging to know the protection isn’t limited to local laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being a nurse means safety is very important to me, especially post-incident.
- The policy helps give peace of mind that all levels of government take the issue seriously.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Contractor (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a game-changer for my sister, allowing more freedom and less fear.
- Personally, I’m indifferent, but I support it for her sake.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even though this doesn't affect me directly anymore, I think it’s wonderful for those currently affected.
- I believe it could encourage more to come forward to programs if they know comprehensive protections exist.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily involves implementing operational changes within federal agencies and courts, which might raise questions about execution and feasibility.
- Potential legal and logistical issues in ensuring seamless address confidentiality across diverse federal systems may arise.
- The inclusion of a broad target population highlights the significance of ensuring these programs are well-funded and efficiently managed.