Project Information

Bid Title

VOCA Case Management and Legal Services - To provide victim assistance under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).??

Issuing Agency

State of Connecticut Judicial Branch

Location

Connecticut

Published Date

Dec 23, 2025

Closing Date

Jan 13, 2026

Government Level

State & Local

Status

Closed

Ref. #

02-2511

Original Source

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Inquiries

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Documents

Join to Access Full Details

Project Description

Due Date	Bid No	Pre-Bid Date	Description
Jan 06, 2026 02:30 P.M. Jan 13, 2026 02:30 P.M.	02-2511		VOCA Case Management and Legal Services - To provide victim assistance under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). Deadline to Submit Written Questions: Friday, December 12, 2025 by 4:00 p.m. RESPONDENTS CURRENTLY REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE'S SUPPLIER DIVERSITY/SET-ASIDE PROGRAM ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Click Here to View Attachment 1 - Final Rule for VOCA Click Here to View Attachment 2 - Certifications Regarding Lobbying Click Here to View Attachment 3 - Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Click Here to View Attachment 4 - Certification Regarding Debarment Click Here to View Attachment 5 - Certification of Federal Rules Click Here to View Attachment 6 - Proposal Summary Click Here to View Attachment 7 - Scope of Services Click Here to View Attachment 8 - Volunteer Waiver Request Click Here to View Attachment 9 - 2025-2026 5 Month Budget Form Click Here to View Attachment 9 - 2026-2027 12 Month Budget Form Click Here to View Attachment 10 - Proposers Match Certification Form Click Here to View Attachment 11 - Grant Match Waiver Policy Click Here to View Addendum No. 1 Click Here to View Addendum No. 2 Commodity Class: 040

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

Commodity Codes

• NAICS 541110Offices of Lawyers
• NAICS 541611Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

* Disclaimer: Government BidHub provides information on bids, RFPs (Requests for Proposals), and RFQs (Requests for Qualifications) solely for convenience and informational purposes. This site is not an official public notice board. For official details, responses, or inquiries, please contact the relevant government agency directly.