Connecticut nonprofit organizations that provide counseling, advocacy, and legal support to victims of crime are bracing for a 60 to 80 percent reduction in federal funds that, combined with the end of American Rescue Plan dollars, will force them to end victim service programs or possibly even close completely.

Jennifer Pizzano, director of victim services for Survivors of Homicide — a small nonprofit that provides support, counseling, and advocacy to friends and families of homicide victims – says her small organization receives most of its money through a federal fund established under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), and they will be forced to close their doors completely unless they get additional financial support.

“We’ll shut down,” Pizzano said. “We’re very small, there’s only myself and my victim advocate, and we provide services throughout the state of Connecticut. An 80 percent cut will shut us down, there’s no other way around it. We’ve faced cuts in the past, we’ve been able to dig in with some fundraising, and getting some community grants, but there’s no way to fix this if it’s 60 to 80 percent.”

“There aren’t a lot of programs like ours available,” Pizzano said. “We’re one of the few in the country that specifically provide services to these secondary survivors.”

The problem for Survivors of Homicide, and for victim service programs across the state, is a reduction in the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), created under VOCA. The CVF is funded through criminal fines and fees paid by corporations and individuals involved in “white-collar crime.” However, a long spate of lower fines and fees collected through prosecution has left the fund depleted, and its federal cap imposed by Congress has dropped from a one-time high in 2018 of $4.4 billion to a proposed $1.5 billion in 2025, meaning there will be a lot less money to be distributed to states for victim services.

The declining federal money to Connecticut for victim services has been made up for with $48 million in ARPA funds distributed over the last three years, combined with prudent money management by the Office of Victim Services (OVS), which administers the federal money and spreads it out over several years to account for the fund’s volatility.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV), has been circulating information to lawmakers saying the $8.5 million in federal funding that supports victims of domestic violence is about to drop to $2.5 million in 2025. They are requesting $3.2 million in state funding to “help stabilize domestic violence services in Connecticut,” but CCADV President and CEO Meghan Scanlon says they will have to cut services regardless.

Connecticut’s share of VOCA funds has dropped from $36.45 million in 2018 to a proposed $9.1 million in 2025, according to CCADV’s information sheet, and Scanlon says CCADV will no longer be able to fund their civil advocacy program, which helps domestic violence survivors navigate the civil court system, including in obtaining restraining orders.

“We’ve been fortunate to have the governor’s support and the legislature’s support over the last three years to fill that gap, but we’re essentially facing that fiscal cliff,” Scanlon said. “We’re working with our state partners to see if there’s a way to keep and save some of those core services, but civil advocacy – it’s something that we would love to keep but something that we realistically can’t keep.”

“It’s a federal issue that started in 2019 but impacted Connecticut and other states starting in fiscal year 2023,” Scanlon said. “We know we’re going to have to go without unless we can solve this funding challenge.”

Beth Hamilton, president of the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, says VOCA accounts for most of their funding for sexual assault victim services in the state. The looming cliff could “decimate” their workforce and threaten programs like their 24-hour sexual assault hotline.

“We use VOCA funding to staff our 24/7 sexual assault hotlines, we also use it for almost all our other core services, things like accompaniments in medical, police, and court settings, being able to provide counseling and support groups,” Hamilton said. “How do we plan for a scenario where two-thirds of our workforce might be decimated by these cuts, and how do we continue to provide these critical services that no one else does in the state? How do we make some really tough decisions about what that means, about what services stick around and what services have to take a back seat while we figure out additional funding?”

OVS Deputy Director Marc Pelka says the CVF has enjoyed some massive deposits over the last twenty years that sustained funding for crime victim services, but the decreased deposits and delayed settlements are trickling down to states like Connecticut. 

However, he says that while nonprofit partners are expecting a 60 to 80 percent cut in federal funds, OVS is not yet sure how much of a reduction they will face when the ARPA dollars run out. Pelka also says OVS still has roughly $21 million in grant funding left over from the last two years that hasn’t been committed.

“It’s because of ARPA authorizations and spreading out grant funds in this agency that the contractors receiving these funds have been essentially level from 2020 through the current fiscal year,” Pelka said. “But the Office of Victim Services has not indicated any cut yet to the contractors.”

The CVF currently shows a balance of $3.26 billion, but Pelka says only 40 percent of that is available because 60 percent of the money is from two “very large settlements” that “still have litigation attached.” Another $1 billion is for un-obligated grant funds from this year but will not be available next year.

“As of last month, September, the federal agency said there was $270 million in remaining balance,” Pelka said. 

In 2021, Congress passed the “VOCA Fix Act,” pushed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, meant to bolster the CVF. Thus far, it has not worked as quickly as intended “due in large part to the fact that the decision to require a fine or fee as part of prosecution is at the sole discretion of the appointed federal prosecutor,” the CCADV fact sheet said.

Pelka says the VOCA Fix Act increased deposits to the fund, but since the law was not retroactive, the increased deposits were not enough to account for the fund’s downward slide.

“There was a lot of hope attached to that federal law and federal policymakers intended this to halt the decline in collections and stabilize the fund,” Pelka said. “It has stabilized it, the steep decrease in the fund has stabilized, but it has not made up for the ground that was lost.”

Pelka says that both President Joe Biden and members of Congress have proposed further legislative fixes like dedicating federal tax revenue to stabilize the fund, but there’s no telling when or if such measures will be enacted.

Although Connecticut does fund some victim service positions and nonprofits, Pelka says the VOCA grants are “unique” because they are expansive and cover such a wide array of services and service providers, whereas other grants have stricter parameters. As far as seeking help for maintaining victim services, Pelka said OVS is speaking with all stakeholders and trying to get the information out to those who would be affected. 

“It’s a complicated matter because it involves every state in the country,” Pelka said. “The same percentage reduction in federal funds that Connecticut is seeing, all other states are seeing.” 

Nevertheless, that unique and all-encompassing grant will be greatly reduced in the next year, and the nonprofit groups who help victims of crime believe the state may have to step in to keep some of their services afloat. 

“We’re trying to work with legislators and the administration saying, we’re a state that has not put in our state budget any victim service dollars,” Hamilton said. “We’ve let the federal government be the one upholding those services for our state and in reality, we are really doing something that provides a critical resource for the state.”

“It’s scary,” Pizzano said. “I’ve been here for eighteen years. We’ve had ups and downs before, but this would just be catastrophic. Unfortunately, there are a lot of states going through the same thing.”

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Marc was a 2014 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow and formerly worked as an investigative reporter for Yankee Institute. He previously worked in the field of mental health and is the author of several books...

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. This is tragic. Victims need the communities help. Please contact your representative and get the funding for these important projects.

  2. Federal Defunding of State Programs: A Complex Relationship
    Federal Justification for Defunding State Programs

    While the federal government often provides general justifications for defunding programs at the state level, the specific reasons can vary widely depending on the program, the state, and the prevailing political climate. Common justifications might include:

    Fiscal Constraints: The federal government may face budgetary pressures that necessitate reductions in spending, including allocations to state programs.
    Program Ineffectiveness: If a program is deemed to be ineffective or inefficient in achieving its stated goals, the federal government may choose to redirect funding.
    State Mismanagement: In cases where a state is perceived to be mismanaging federal funds, the government may reduce or eliminate funding to ensure accountability.
    Policy Disagreements: Federal and state governments may have differing policy priorities, leading to disagreements over the allocation of resources.
    Past Actions Prompting Federal Intervention

    The specific actions that have prompted federal intervention in state programs can vary significantly over time. However, some common examples include:

    Natural Disasters: Following natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods, the federal government often provides emergency funding to states to assist in recovery efforts.
    Economic Crises: During economic downturns, the federal government may implement stimulus programs or provide financial assistance to states to help mitigate the negative impacts.
    Public Health Emergencies: In response to public health crises such as pandemics or epidemics, the federal government may allocate additional funds to states for disease prevention and control.
    Civil Rights Violations: If a state is found to be violating federal civil rights laws, the government may withhold funding as a means of enforcing compliance.
    Important Note: The relationship between the federal and state governments is complex, and the decision to defund a state program is often influenced by a variety of factors. While the federal government may provide justifications for its actions, it is important to consider the broader context and the specific circumstances surrounding each individual case.

    1. Elimination of crime victim funding has been an agenda since the welfare reform act. First implemented in the state of Connecticut. There is a long history. Connecticut has been focused on criminal justice reform and failing to weigh the rights and protections of victims. Low crime statistics are being reported in Connecticut. A lot of crimes are being plea bargained and dropped. Cost savings for the state. Connecticut is sitting on a surplus of money. Many years back they could not keep up with state benefits . In the last several years they have closed prisons saving tons of money. The condition of the remaining prison is still a problem. The federal funding comes from the department of justice. The attorney general’s have a lot to do with the funding. Attorney general William Tong is the vice president of attorney generals association. Many Republicans attorney general’s have left the association based on the projects being promoted through the association. A lot of the funding appears to be what benefits the state. Not necessarily the people living in it. Much of the studies on programs are self reported. The public has little knowledge of the funding and determinations. Connecticut is stating that they are the leader in criminal justice reform. Many are feeling that they are decrimazing crimes for cost savings. Not protecting the interest of the victims. Defunding important programs for cost savings. Connecticut attorney general and senator Blumenthal have a heavy influence over the department of justice and funding. People are looking for answers and not getting them.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *