Bill Overview
Title: Fairness for Crime Victims Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes budget points of order in the House of Representatives and the Senate against considering provisions in appropriations legislation that contain changes in mandatory programs (CHIMPs) that would cause the amount available for obligation during the fiscal year from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) to be less than the annual average for the three previous fiscal years. A CHIMP is a provision that (1) would have been estimated as affecting direct spending or receipts if the provision were included in legislation other than an appropriations bill; and (2) results in a net decrease in budget authority in the current year or the budget year, but does not result in a net decrease in outlays over the period of the total of the current year, the budget year, and all fiscal years covered under the most recently adopted budget resolution.
Sponsors: Sen. Toomey, Patrick [R-PA]
Target Audience
Population: People who are victims of crime relying on funds from the Crime Victims Fund
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The Crime Victims Fund (CVF) provides essential services to crime victims, including compensation and support services.
- The Fairness for Crime Victims Act of 2022 aims to ensure consistent funding from the CVF by preventing reductions due to CHIMPs that lower available funds from the CVF for a fiscal year.
- This type of legislation directly affects the availability of funds for services provided to crime victims.
- Victims of crime in the United States rely on resources that are supported by the CVF, hence any legislative change that affects the fund impacts them.
Reasoning
- Most people affected by this policy will be victims of crime. Given that not all crime victims are impacted equally, variables such as the severity of the crime and local resources will affect the outcome.
- Many people do not directly benefit from or interact with the Crime Victims Fund and would experience no impact from the policy. These individuals will represent a significant portion of the U.S. population.
- The budget fixed by this Act may only cover a fraction of those who need it, implying that while some will experience significant improvements in funding reliability, others will see none.
- Given the restriction of the budget, many services may remain under-funded, indicating only marginal increases in Cantril wellbeing for a significant portion, albeit stability in funding may provide peace of mind to stakeholders.
- Implementation time can mean that actual tangible benefits to wellbeing may take a few years to manifest, especially in the early years of policy enforcement.
Simulated Interviews
Social worker (New York, NY)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step towards ensuring consistent funding for our victim support programs. We've struggled with budget cuts in the past.
- I'm optimistic that our clients will receive better services without the looming threat of sudden budget cuts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Victim advocate (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring more reliable funding from the Crime Victims Fund can help us expand our reach.
- While optimistic, I'm uncertain how much this will offset the rising costs and increasing demand for our services.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Accountant (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having had to deal with funding uncertainties, I welcome any policy that stabilizes our financial outlook.
- This policy might streamline funding decisions and reduce uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Graduate student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The availability of consistent funding is crucial for planning long-term programs.
- Personally, it won't impact me much, but the victims I work with could benefit significantly.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate knowing that support may become more consistent, though I'm skeptical about how much change I'll see.
- It's assuring to know that there's an effort to protect victims' resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Police officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From my experience, stable funding enhances coordination with NGOs, leading to improved victim support.
- I support this policy because our effectiveness partially depends on reliable partner resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Public defender (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy achieves its goals, it could significantly improve the legal assistance we offer our clients.
- The track record on fund allocation hasn't been perfect, so I remain cautiously hopeful.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this will affect me personally as I haven't used any related services.
- Having been a victim of minor theft, I understand why some may need more help, but it's unseen for people like me.
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 |
Therapist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regular funding should mean that services can maintain and possibly expand reach without fear of being cut.
- As a therapist, knowing my clients have more assured support helps me develop long-term recovery plans.
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 | 8 | 4 |
Journalist (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act showcases an effort to stabilize victim support, making it easier for me to report on these initiatives.
- I hope that by making funds more predictable, crime victims will receive more comprehensive support services.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2100000 (Low: $1600000, High: $2600000)
Year 3: $2200000 (Low: $1700000, High: $2700000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- Enforcing budget points of order could prevent inappropriate reductions in allocated funds leading to a transparent financial process.
- The policy might indirectly improve community welfare by ensuring consistent support for crime victim services.
- Any fiscal changes due to this policy will mostly be administrative given its focus on budget restraints rather than new allocations.