VOCA Case Management and Legal Services - To provide victim assistance under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).??
| Agency: | State of Connecticut Judicial Branch |
|---|---|
| State: | Connecticut |
| Type of Government: | State & Local |
| NAICS Category: |
|
| Posted Date: | Dec 17, 2025 |
| Due Date: | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Solicitation No: | 02-2511 |
| Original Source: | Please Login to View Page |
| Contact information: | Please Login to View Page |
| Bid Documents: | Please Login to View Page |
Attachment Preview
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
44515
Fund shares under a realization method and
no changes in fair market value that would
have been reported under the NAV method.
Therefore, Shareholder may use the NAV
method for the shares in Fund for Year 1.
Shareholder uses the NAV method for the
shares with its taxable year as the
computation period. Shareholder’s net
investment in Fund for Year 1 equals
$128,664.66 (the $1,253,256.37 in purchases,
minus the $1,124,591.71 in redemptions).
Shareholder’s Year 1 gain therefore is
$1,085.34, which is the ending value of
Shareholder’s shares ($5,129,750.00), minus
the starting basis of Shareholder’s shares
($5,000,000.00), minus Shareholder’s net
investment in the fund for the taxable year
($128,664.66). The gain of $1,085.34 is
treated as short-term capital gain.
Shareholder’s starting basis for Year 2 is
$5,129,750.00. Shareholder also must include
the $32,158.23 in dividends in its income for
Year 1 in the same manner as if Shareholder
did not use the NAV method.
(iii) If Shareholder had instead adopted the
calendar month as its computation period, it
would have used the NAV method for every
month of Year 1, even though prices of Fund
shares may have been fixed for some months.
(e) Effective/applicability date. Except
as provided in the following sentence,
this section applies to taxable years
ending on or after July 8, 2016. For
taxable years ending on or after July 28,
2014, and beginning before July 8, 2016,
however, shareholders of MMFs may
rely either on this section or on § 1.446–
7 of the 2014 proposed regulations
REG–107012–14 (79 FR 43694).
■ Par. 3. Section 1.6045–1 is amended
by revising paragraph (c)(3)(vi) to read
as follows:
§ 1.6045–1 Returns of information of
brokers and barter exchanges.
*****
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) Money market funds—(A) In
general. No return of information is
required with respect to a sale of shares
in a regulated investment company that
is permitted to hold itself out to
investors as a money market fund under
Rule 2a–7 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (17 CFR 270.2a–
7).
(B) Effective/applicability date.
Paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section
applies to sales of shares in calendar
years beginning on or after July 8, 2016.
Taxpayers and brokers (as defined in
§ 1.6045–1(a)(1)), however, may rely on
paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section for
sales of shares in calendar years
beginning before July 8, 2016.
*****
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: June 15, 2016.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016–16149 Filed 7–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 94
[Docket No.: OJP (OVC) 1523]
RIN 1121–AA69
Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance
Program
AGENCY: Office for Victims of Crime,
Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Office for Victims of
Crime (‘‘OVC’’) of the U.S. Department
of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs
(‘‘OJP’’), publishes this final rule to
implement the victim assistance
formula grant program (‘‘Victim
Assistance Program’’) authorized by the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (‘‘VOCA’’).
VOCA authorizes OVC to provide an
annual grant from the Crime Victims
Fund to each State and eligible territory
for the financial support of services to
crime victims by eligible crime victim
assistance programs. The rule codifies
and updates the existing VOCA Victim
Assistance Program Guidelines
(‘‘Guidelines’’) to reflect changes in
OVC policy, needs of the crime victim
services field, and VOCA itself.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective August 8, 2016.
Compliance Date: See 28 CFR
94.101(d), as added by this final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni
Thomas, Office for Victims of Crime, at
(202) 307–5983.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Victims of Crime Act of 1984
(VOCA) authorizes the Office for
Victims of Crime (OVC) to provide an
annual formula grant from the Crime
Victims Fund to each State and eligible
territory for the purpose of providing
assistance to victims of crime.1 These
1 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 10603(d)(1), and as used
in this preamble and rule unless context indicates
annual Victim Assistance Program
formula grants are used by the States to
provide financial support to eligible
crime victim assistance programs. See
42 U.S.C. 10603. OVC promulgates this
rule pursuant to the rulemaking
authority granted to the OVC Director by
42 U.S.C. 10604(a). This rule codifies
and updates the existing Program
Guidelines to reflect changes in OVC
policy, the needs of the crime victim
services field, and VOCA itself.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Final Rule
Most provisions in this final rule are
substantively the same as the
corresponding provisions of the
Guidelines. The final rule reorganizes
the program rules into six major
divisions: (1) General Provisions; (2)
State Administering Agency (‘‘SAA’’)
Program Requirements; (3) SAA Use of
Funds for Administration and Training;
(4) Sub-Recipient Program
Requirements; (5) Sub-Recipient Project
Requirements; and (6) Sub-Recipient
Allowable/Unallowable Costs.
The rules in the General Provisions
heading do not depart substantively
from the Guidelines. OVC defines
frequently-used terms, most of which
are consistent with those in the
Guidelines. OVC adds a new definition
of the statutory term ‘‘victim of child
abuse’’ to make clear OVC’s existing
flexible approach of allowing States to
address a broad variety of harm to
children. Additional technical changes
were made in response to comments,
and are described below.
The SAA Program Requirements
heading sets forth general
considerations for SAA use of VOCA
funding under the VOCA Assistance
Program at the State level, and sets forth
the rules SAAs must follow in meeting
the statutory eligibility and certification
requirements. OVC clarifies that pass-
through funding is permissible, and sets
parameters for such funding
arrangements. OVC explains how States
must allocate VOCA funding among
various types of victim service
programs, but does not change the
allocation percentages set out in the
Guidelines. OVC adds a requirement
that States maintain a documented
methodology for selecting all sub-
recipients. Finally, OVC maintains the
default monitoring requirements of the
Guidelines, but now permits States to
seek a waiver from the OVC Director to
use alternatives.
otherwise, ‘‘the term ‘State’ includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, and any other territory
or possession of the United States.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1
44516
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The revised State Administering
Agency Use of Funds for Administration
and Training heading updates the
Guideline provisions regarding SAA use
of funds for administration and training
to make those consistent with statutory
changes that occurred after the
Guidelines were issued in 1997. The
rule lists allowable administrative and
training costs at the SAA level, all of
which are consistent with those set out
in the Guidelines.
The Sub-Recipient Program
Requirements heading sets out the
eligibility and organizational
requirements for sub-recipients. These
provisions mostly track the Guidelines,
except that OVC adds a provision
addressing non-disclosure of
confidential or private information.
The Sub-Recipient Project
Requirements heading sets out rules that
VOCA-funded victim service projects
must follow. These provisions generally
are consistent with the Guidelines. OVC
maintains the existing project match
rules, requiring that sub-recipients
provide a 20% project match, but
excepting U.S. territories (not including
Puerto Rico). OVC adds an exception to
match for projects undertaken by
American Indian and Alaskan Native
tribes, and projects that operate on tribal
lands, as these projects, like those
operating in U.S. territories, often have
difficulties accessing matching
resources.
The Sub-Recipient Allowable/
Unallowable Costs heading lists
activities that sub-recipients may
undertake using VOCA funding. The
majority of the listed costs are the same
as those listed in the existing
Guidelines; but OVC makes some
substantive changes. OVC now allows
the States to provide a broader array of
legal support services (outside of the
emergency context permitted by the
Guidelines) to victims, should States
choose to do so. OVC removes the
prohibition on providing services to
incarcerated victims (e.g., victims of
sexual assault in prison). Although
VOCA funding may not support prison
costs, such as prison guard salaries or
administrative expenses, States are no
longer prohibited from allowing VOCA-
funded organizations to assist
incarcerated victims. OVC also adds
greater flexibility for States to support
transitional housing and relocation
expenses using VOCA funds. OVC adds
greater flexibility for States to allow sub-
recipients to use VOCA funds for
coordination activities, which help
leverage community resources to
provide better and more cost-effective
direct services. Finally, to better align
the program rules with the government-
wide grant rules at 2 CFR part 200, OVC
makes allowable indirect organizational
costs at the sub-recipient level, by
removing the provision in the
Guidelines that prohibited sub-
recipients from charging these to VOCA
funds.
C. Cost and Benefits
As discussed in more detail under the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (in
the Regulatory Review discussion
below), the rule clarifies and updates
existing Guidelines, but does not alter
the existing program structure. Updating
the existing Guidelines to clearly and
accurately reflect the statutory
parameters will facilitate State
compliance with VOCA, and thus avoid
potentially costly non-compliance
findings. The rule makes only a few
substantive changes to the existing
Guidelines, and most of the changes
expand State flexibility in the use of
VOCA funding. Some changes, like
allowing more flexibility to coordinate
and leverage community resources, and
adopt alternative monitoring strategies,
impose no costs but allow States to use
existing funding more efficiently. Other
changes, which allow States to allocate
funding to services not presently
allowable under the Guidelines, could
expand the types of victim service
organizations funded with VOCA funds
and the services provided by existing
organizations. Such allocations of
funding, however, are not mandated
under the rule, and each State will
continue to make the final decision
about whether to change its funding
allocations. This is not a change from
the present discretion that States have to
allocate funding according to their
priorities. OVC anticipates that most
States will continue to allocate the
majority of VOCA funding to victim
services for certain types of crimes (i.e.,
intimate partner violence, sexual
assault, child abuse) at consistent levels
and that any potential reallocations
would be relatively minor (even when
taken in aggregate across States) in
comparison to the overall range of
allowable victim services, and thus
unlikely to create new costs or
significant fund transfers. In any event,
the real benefits of additional allowable
services for currently underserved and
unserved victims are significant.
III. Background
A. Overview
This rule implements OVC’s Victim
Assistance Program, a formula grant
program authorized by Section 1404 of
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, Public
Law 98–473, codified at 42 U.S.C.
10603. This section of VOCA authorizes
OVC to provide an annual grant from
the Crime Victims Fund to each State
for the financial support of services to
victims of crime by eligible crime victim
assistance programs. This rule
supersedes the VOCA Guidelines
(published at 62 FR 19607) that have
been in effect since April 22, 1997, and
reflects changes in OVC policy, the
needs of the crime victim services’ field,
and VOCA itself, as well as the
comments submitted in response to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
OVC’s Victim Assistance Program is
funded from the Crime Victims Fund.
The Fund receives Federal criminal
fines, penalties, and assessments, as
well as certain gifts and bequests, but
does not receive any general tax
revenue. The Crime Victims Fund is
administered by OVC and amounts that
may be obligated therefrom are allocated
each year according to the VOCA
formula at 42 U.S.C. 10601. The amount
annually available for obligation
through the VOCA formula allocations
typically has been set by statute,
through limits in the annual DOJ
appropriation act, at less than the total
amount available in the Fund. The
VOCA formula specifies that (in most
years) the first $20M available in the
Fund for that year will go toward child
abuse prevention and treatment
programs, with a certain amount to be
set-aside for programs to address child
abuse in Indian Country. After that,
such sums as may be necessary are
available to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the U.S. Attorneys
Offices to improve services to victims of
Federal crime, and to operate a victim
notification system. The remaining
balance is allocated as follows: 47.5%
for OVC’s Victim Compensation
Program, 47.5% for OVC’s Victim
Assistance Program, and 5% for the
OVC Director to distribute in
discretionary awards in certain
statutorily defined categories. Generally,
under the distribution rules for the
Victim Compensation Program, if a
portion of the 47.5% available for
Compensation is not needed for that
purpose, it is (per the statutory formula)
made available to augment the Victim
Assistance Program. The Victim
Assistance Program distributes funds to
States as mandated by VOCA, at 42
U.S.C. 10603. The VOCA statutory
distribution formula provides each State
with a base amount (presently $500,000
for each State and the District of
Columbia; $200,000 for each eligible
territory), and distributes the remainder
proportionately, based on population.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
44517
B. History of This Rulemaking
OVC published the Final Program
Guidelines, Victims of Crime Act,
FY1997 Victim Assistance Program on
April 22, 1997 (62 FR 19607). Those
Guidelines were based on OVC
experience with the Victim Assistance
Program, legal opinions rendered since
the inception of the program in 1986,
and comments from the field on the
Proposed Program Guidelines, which
were published in the Federal Register
on February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7256).
On September 3, 2002, OVC
published a notice of Proposed Program
Guide at 67 FR 56444, seeking
comments to refine the administration
of the Victim Assistance Program
further; thereafter, however, OVC chose
not to issue final guidance to supersede
the 1997 Guidelines. After receiving
comments on the 2002 Proposed
Program Guide, OVC instead decided to
pursue the publication of codified
program regulations rather than merely
revise the guideline document.
Throughout 2010, OVC sought
preliminary input from the victim
services field regarding improving
victim services and potential
modifications to the Victim Assistance
Program rules that would facilitate such
improvement.
OVC incorporated this input into a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which
it published at 78 FR 52877 (Aug. 27,
2013), and OVC received 108 public
comments over a 60 day period. OVC
considered all comments submitted
during the comment period in drafting
this final rule.
IV. Discussion of Comments and
Changes Made by This Rule
The 1997 Guidelines have been
outpaced by changes in VOCA,
developments in the crime victim
services field, technological advances,
and new approaches to State
administration of VOCA funding. This
rule updates the program Guidelines to
account for developments over the last
decade and a half, and to reflect more
accurately program parameters
applicable to each participating entity.
In so doing, OVC hopes to allow
administering agencies and victim
service providers fully to leverage the
progress that the field has made over the
last decade in knowledge of victim
needs, victim service strategies, and
efficient program administration, with
the end goal of assisting crime victims
more effectively. Many of the provisions
in the existing Guidelines have been
retained in substance, though the text
has been reformatted in some cases.
OVC describes below the main
substantive changes to the program
Guidelines, and the comments received.
Structure and General Comments
The rule reorganizes the provisions of
the Guidelines, primarily to
accommodate the requirements for
publication in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), but also to organize
information more logically. The rule
omits repetition of statutory language,
except where needed for context and
ease of use. OVC notes that the rule is
drafted to be read in conjunction with
VOCA (42 U.S.C. 10603). OVC also uses
consistent terminology throughout the
document.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the proposed rule conflated
provisions applicable to VOCA-funded
projects in some cases with provisions
relating to a VOCA-eligible program,
and several endorsed the National
Association of Victim Assistance
Administrators’ (NAVAA) suggestions
for reorganizing it. In the final rule, OVC
more clearly distinguishes between the
two concepts, and adopts most of the
NAVAA’s helpful suggestions for
reorganizing the rule.
In connection with reorganizing the
provisions of the final rule for greater
logical consistency and clarity, OVC has
moved or renumbered many of the
sections of the proposed rule. In order
to assist readers, a derivation table is
included listing the sections of the final
rule and the corresponding section or
sections of the proposed rule. The
public comments on provisions of the
proposed rule are discussed below
according to where those provisions are
codified in the final rule.
Final rule
NPRM
§ 94.101 .................
§ 94.102 .................
§ 94.103 .................
§ 94.103(f),(g) ........
§ 94.104 .................
§ 94.105(a),(b) .......
§ 94.105(c) .............
§ 94.106 .................
§ 94.107(a)–(d) ......
§ 94.107(e) .............
§ 94.108(a),(b)(1) ...
§ 94.108(b)(2) ........
§ 94.109(a),(b)(1–
11).
§ 94.109(b)(12) ......
§ 94.110 .................
§ 94.111 .................
§ 94.112(a) .............
§ 94.112(b) .............
§ 94.112(c) .............
§ 94.113 .................
§ 94.114 .................
§ 94.115 .................
§ 94.116 .................
§ 94.101
§ 94.102
§ 94.103; § 94.112(i)–(j);
NEW
§ 94.105; § 94.108(d)
§ 94.106
New
§ 94.107
§ 94.110
§ 94.118(f)
§ 94.111(b),(c)
§ 94.103(b)(3)
§ 94.111(a); § 94.112
New
§ 94.113
§ 94.104(a); § 94.106(c)
§ 94.104(b);
§ 94.108(b)–(e)
§ 94.104(c)–(e)
§ 94.115(d)
§ 94.104(g);
§ 94.115(a)–(c)
§ 94.104(h)
NEW
§ 94.114
Final rule
NPRM
§ 94.117 .................
§ 94.118 .................
§ 94.119 .................
§ 94.120(a)–(f) .......
§ 94.120(g) .............
§ 94.121 .................
§ 94.122 .................
§ 94.115(e); § 94.109
§ 94.104(f); § 94.116
§ 94.117
§ 94.118
New
§ 94.108(a); § 94.119
§ 94.120
Many commenters expressed their
desire that the Crime Victims Fund
‘‘cap’’ be raised substantially. As such a
change requires legislative action, it is
beyond the scope of OVC’s authority to
do so. However, we note that the
Department of Justice Fiscal Years 2015
and 2016 Appropriation Acts did
substantially increase—more than
threefold—the cap for those years. See
Department of Justice Appropriation
Act, 2015, Public Law 113–235, Div. B,
Title II, Sec. 510 (setting the obligation
cap at $2.361B compared to $745M
available to OVC in FY 2014);
Department of Justice Appropriation
Act, 2016, Public Law 114–113, Div. B,
Title II, Sec. 510 (setting the cap at
$3.042B, of which approximately
$2.663B is available to OVC).
General Provisions
§ 94.101 Purpose and Scope; Future
Guidance; Construction and
Severability; Compliance Date
The general provisions of the final
rule—including statement of purpose,
future guidance, and construction and
severability—are largely unchanged
from the proposed rule. OVC added a
paragraph describing the date on which
SAAs must comply with the rule. The
rule applies upon its effective date to all
OVC grants made after that date, except
for funding under such grants that was
obligated before the effective date. Pre-
award obligations are a standard
practice of SAAs under the VOCA
Assistance Program, as the annual
appropriation cycle typically does not
permit for awards to be made until late
in the fiscal year. VOCA Assistance
grants typically have an award period
that extends retroactively to October 1st
of the fiscal year of the award, thus
there may be funds under grants made
after the effective date that were
obligated by the SAA prior to the
effective date, and subsequently ratified
by OVC’s approval of the grant. The
final rule does not apply retroactively,
and thus it does not require that SAAs
anticipate rules that are not in effect
when making such obligations.
However, OVC will permit SAAs to
apply the provisions that expand SAA
discretion in the use funds (e.g., the
final rule permits SAAs to fund a greater
range of transitional housing services
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1
44518
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
than the Guidelines permit) to VOCA
assistance funding under OVC grants
made before the effective date of the
rule that is obligated on or after the
effective date. As most of the changes in
this rule are of a permissive nature and
expand SAA discretion, OVC does not
anticipate that implementation of the
rule will be burdensome, though some
effort by SAAs to understand the
changes and communicate these to
applicants for sub-awards will be
necessary.
§ 94.102 Definitions
The final rule contains several terms
and definitions that are used
throughout. These are set out in section
94.102 for ease of reference.
The definition of crime victim and
victim of crime remains unchanged from
the Guidelines, and is meant to be a
broad definition, taking into account
many kinds of harm resulting from
criminal acts. States are encouraged to
include those domiciled in their states
who are victimized while working in
their official capacities overseas as
VOCA eligible victims.
Some commenters liked the proposed
definition, but others wanted OVC to
include more examples in the definition
to illustrate coverage of a broader range
of harms. OVC kept the more conceptual
definition from the proposed rule, as it
is substantively the same as the long-
standing Guideline definition and
because—as one commenter pointed
out—this definition has been
sufficiently broad to encompass the
harm from various crimes on a wide and
diverse range of individuals.
OVC has added a definition of the
term spousal abuse that clarifies that the
term includes domestic and intimate
partner violence. Spousal abuse was the
terminology used in the victim services
field in the 1980s, and consequently in
VOCA, but the term has since fallen out
of use, as it is under-inclusive of the
range of relationships in which this type
of victimization frequently occurs. OVC
retains the term in the final rule because
it is a statutory term, but clarifies that
OVC understands it to encompass
domestic and intimate partner violence.
This is consistent with longstanding
OVC practice and the Guidelines, which
use the term ‘‘domestic abuse’’ when
describing the priority category of
‘‘spousal abuse.’’ Several commenters
supported the proposed definition, but
asked that OVC include the more
commonly-used term ‘‘domestic
violence’’ in the definition. OVC agrees,
and has done this. OVC has also
removed ‘‘dating violence,’’ as this
concept is encompassed already by the
more general concept of ‘‘intimate
partner violence.’’ Some commenters
asked that OVC clarify how this
definition (which affects the priority
category of ‘‘spousal abuse’’) would
affect LGBTQ survivors of domestic or
intimate partner violence. OVC notes
that States may serve (and count those
services toward the priority category) all
victims of domestic and intimate
partner violence—encompassing
violence or abuse by one person against
another in a domestic context or
intimate-partner context—as the OVC
definition does not require legal
recognition of any particular
relationship, nor does it implicate State
or territorial laws concerning marriage
rights.
A commenter noted that OVC did not
propose to define ‘‘sub-recipient’’ or
‘‘VOCA project,’’ and asked that OVC
define these terms so as to differentiate
between a VOCA-funded project, and
the organization that is eligible to
receive VOCA funds to undertake the
project. OVC agrees and adds these
definitions, and has made conforming
changes throughout the rule.
The final rule adds a definition of the
statutory term victim of child abuse, in
order to clarify that the term covers a
broad variety of harm to children. Child
abuse victims are a statutorily-mandated
priority category, and the clarification
makes plain that VOCA-funded State
victim assistance programs may support
a broad variety of victim assistance
projects that address the abuse of
children.
OVC received many comments on the
proposed definition of child abuse.
Many commenters supported the
proposed definition. Other commenters
supported the proposed definition, but
recommended changes or expressed
concerns about certain parts of it. One
commenter worried that the inclusion of
the concept of children exposed to
violence may lead states to view a non-
offending parent who cannot leave an
abusive household as a co-offender.
OVC notes that the definition of child
abuse in this rule does not control (or
affect) how a state views or treats
potential offenders. Nonetheless, it is
OVC’s express intent that the definition
should not be misconstrued to mean
that failure to leave an abusive
relationship, in the absence of other
action constituting abuse or neglect, is
itself abuse or neglect. A commenter
asked that the definition encompass sex
and labor trafficking, and several others
asked OVC to include slurs and family
rejection as examples of the emotional
abuse of children encompassed by the
definition. OVC notes that the definition
of child abuse is sufficiently broad to
encompass these harms without listing
specific abusive activities, if States
consider them to be child abuse. Some
commenters worried that the inclusion
of exposure to violence would dilute
available resources, and confuse States
operating victim assistance programs.
OVC acknowledges resource
limitations facing many States, but
keeps the expanded definition in the
final rule to allow States to prioritize
within the category based on local
capacity and needs. The Department’s
own Defending Childhood initiative
demonstrated the importance of services
for children exposed to violence, and
the new definition will permit services
addressing this. OVC, in response to
several comments, has clarified in the
definition that it encompasses harm to
children, and is not meant to include
adults who were victimized as children.
This does not, however, preclude States
from funding services to adults
victimized as children; it merely means
that States cannot count such services
under the child-abuse priority category.
SAA Program Requirements
§ 94.103 Purpose of State-Level VOCA
Funding; SAA Eligibility
Section 94.103(a) sets forth the
purpose of OVC’s annual VOCA formula
grants to the States. Several commenters
asked that OVC re-draft the language to
make it less confusing. OVC agrees and
has done so. Commenters also asked
that OVC add a statement about State
discretion in determining sub-award
recipients and amounts. OVC agrees and
has added a sentence accordingly.
Section 94.103(b) sets forth the
general rules for State eligibility
certifications required by VOCA. OVC
requires States to submit these
certifications annually in their
applications for funding. Reporting and
technical requirements specific to a
given fiscal year are set out in the
annual program solicitation, or in
supplemental OVC communications if
time does not permit publication in the
solicitation.
Section 94.103(c) clarifies that a SAA
may award its VOCA funds to another
organization to distribute—known as
pass-through administration—and
highlights SAA obligations with regard
to use of administrative and training
funds, monitoring, and reporting should
this method be used. Several
commenters supported pass-through
administration, but advocated that pass-
through entities should have specific
expertise and experience related to the
use of the funding (e.g., a pass through
entity administering funds for sexual
assault services would have experience/
expertise related to sexual violence).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
44519
OVC does not disagree with the
commenters’ views, but believes that
States are in the best position to choose
which entity should administer pass-
through funding, and thus maintains the
rule as proposed. A commenter asked
for clarification regarding the proposed
requirement that SAAs not use a pass-
through mechanism to bypass the
statutory limitation on use of
administrative funds. OVC has rewritten
this statement to be clearer.
A commenter was concerned that the
proposed rule eliminated language in
the guidelines about things that States
should consider in strategic planning
and asked that OVC add it back to the
final rule. OVC agrees that the language
is desirable and has added a new
paragraph (d) with this language.
Finally, several commenters expressed
concern that OVC did not highlight the
need for States to consider sustainability
of services in strategic planning. OVC
agrees that sustainability is an important
consideration, and has added this to
paragraph (d).
Section 94.103(g) sets forth that SAAs
shall, upon request, and consistent with
2 CFR 200.336, permit OVC access to all
records related to the use of VOCA
funding. Access to SAAs’ records is
subject to the provision of the
government-wide grant rules at 2 CFR
200.336, which permits access to the
true names of crime victims only in
extraordinary and rare circumstances,
not for routine monitoring, and requires
protection of sensitive information by
all agencies involved if access is
granted.
§ 94.104 Allocation of Subawards
OVC moved the provisions of
proposed section 94.104, Eligible crime
victim assistance programs, to a new
heading titled ‘‘Sub-recipient Program
Requirements,’’ which includes sections
94.111 through 94.115 of the final rule.
Comments on the proposed section
94.104 are addressed below in the
discussion of sections 94.111 through
94.114.
In the final rule, section 94.104,
Allocation of subawards (which was
proposed as section 94.105), sets forth—
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 10603(a)(2)(A)
(priority category), and (B) (underserved
category)—how SAAs must allocate
their subawards. The allocation
amounts in the final rule are the same
as those in the Guidelines and proposed
rule. Some commenters noted that
victims of a priority category might also
be underserved victims in some
circumstances (e.g., child victims of sex
trafficking might be underserved in a
particular jurisdiction, however, sex
trafficking of a minor would also be
child sexual abuse), and that this causes
confusion in reporting allocation
amounts to OVC. Moreover, some
victims with certain demographics (e.g.,
LGBTQ, American Indian/Alaskan
Native) may be underserved even in the
priority categories (e.g., victims of
sexual assault). In response, the final
rule clarifies that SAAs may count
funds allocated to such projects in
either the priority or underserved
category, but not both.
Section 94.104(c) sets out the criteria
by which SAAs must identify (for
allocation of funds, reporting, and
compliance purposes) services that
assist previously underserved
populations of victims of violent crime.
SAAs must identify such a service for
underserved victims of violent crime by
the type of crime they experience (e.g.,
victims of elder abuse) or the
characteristics of the victim (e.g.,
LGBTQ victims), or both (e.g., victims of
violent crime in high crime urban
areas). Underserved victims may differ
between jurisdictions, but some
examples of victim populations often
underserved at the time of this
rulemaking may include, but are not
limited to, DUI/DWI victims; survivors
of homicide victims; American Indian/
Alaskan Native victims in certain
jurisdictions with insufficient victim
service resources; victims of physical
assault; adults molested as children;
victims of elder abuse; victims of hate
and bias crimes; victims of kidnapping;
child victims and adult survivors of
child pornography; child victims of sex
trafficking; victims of violent crime in
high crime areas; LGBTQ victims;
victims of federal crimes, victims of
robbery; and victims of gang violence.
OVC has removed from the final rule the
examples of possibly underserved
victim populations, as such a list may
change over time and is more
appropriately set out in the preamble
and supplementary OVC guidance, as
necessary.
A commenter asked that OVC add
economic crimes, such as identity theft,
to the list of examples of underserved
victims. OVC notes that, for the
underserved victim category, VOCA
requires funding be allocated to projects
serving ‘‘previously underserved
populations of victims of violent crime’’,
and identity theft is not a violent crime.
OVC, therefore, declines to make the
change, but does note that States may
still fund services for victims of such
crimes, but cannot count those services
toward meeting the required allocation
for the underserved victim category.
A commenter asked that OVC increase
the percentage of funding required to be
allocated to underserved populations.
OVC has kept the mandated percentage
at its present level, which balances the
need for stability in state victim
assistance funding with the need to
ensure State victim assistance programs
are responsive to emerging needs. The
commenter also asked that OVC clarify
that the exception allowing States to
deviate from the underserved and
priority percentages should be used
sparingly. OVC notes that such requests
are extremely rare (OVC has record of
only one); thus, as a practical matter, an
additional limitation of the exception is
unnecessary. Other commenters asked
OVC to require States to consult with
sub-recipients prior to requesting
approval to change allocations. As
explained above, OVC anticipates such
requests will be extremely rare, and
declines to add such a requirement. The
same commenter asked that OVC not tie
exceptions for allocations for the sexual-
assault priority category to overall crime
rates, explaining that crime rates in a
given time period are not necessarily
reflective of victim service needs during
the corresponding time period, as
victims may not seek services
immediately. OVC agrees, and the final
rule allows other types of data to be
used in supporting an exemption
request.
A commenter asked that OVC require
States to consult with rape crisis centers
and sexual assault coalitions about the
needs of sexual violence victims. OVC
agrees that such consultation may be
useful, but declines to include such a
requirement in the rule, as OVC prefers
to allow States to consult with a wide
variety of stakeholders as appropriate.
Section 94.104(e) sets for the
minimum requirements for SAAs sub-
award process. It requires that SAAs
have a documented methodology for
selecting sub-recipients, follow DOJ
grant rules regarding conflicts of
interest, and encourages SAAs to fund
eligible sub-recipients through a
competitive process, which is described.
The proposed rule would have
required competition of all sub-awards.
Some commenters liked the proposed
competition requirement, but others
were opposed to it. Several commenters
noted that requiring competition could
increase administrative costs for SAAs,
and could destabilize small victim
assistance programs that would no
longer be able to rely on consistent
funding. Commenters noted that this
may decrease the availability of services
in rural areas where there are not many
providers. A commenter from a SAA
explained that it uses a conduit funding
process in which it distributes funds to
local victim witness units based on a
formula, and these units then sub-award
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1
This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.
* Disclaimer: This website provides information about bids, requests for proposals (RFPs), or requests for qualifications (RFQs) for convenience only and does not serve as an official public notice. Individuals who wish to respond to or inquire about bids, RFPs, or RFQs should contact the relevant government department directly.
Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts
With Free Trial, you can:
You will have a full access to bids, website, and receive daily bid report via email and web.
See Also
Request for Information (RFI) for Learning Management System Access Health CT is issuing
State Government of Connecticut
Bid Due: 6/12/2026
SECOG Eastern Shoreline Path Planning Services in Waterford The Southeastern Connecticut Council of
State Government of Connecticut
Bid Due: 6/05/2026
Bid Number: 4519 Bid Title: Risk Management Program Assessment and Accreditation Support Consultant
City of Norwalk
Bid Due: 6/09/2026
Project: Risk Management Program Assessment and Accreditation Support Consultant Ref. #: 4519 Department:
City of Norwalk
Bid Due: 6/09/2026