Vermont victim-services funds face multi-fund shortfalls; agencies ask legislature for $2.9 million in base and contingency support

The Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services and partner victim-service organizations warned the Judiciary Committee on Oct. 12 that three state special funds and federal grant reductions are creating immediate shortfalls for programs that support crime victims across the state.

Jennifer Pullman, director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, told the committee that the center’s three special funds — the victim’s compensation special fund, the restitution special fund and the domestic and sexual violence fund — “are continuing to look at declines, continuing to experience deficits.” She said the victim’s compensation fund is showing a projected deficit of $562,000, the restitution fund a projected deficit of $324,000 and the domestic and sexual violence fund a projected deficit of about $93,000.

Why this matters: The shortfalls affect direct payments to victims, statewide victim-advocate positions and grants to local nonprofit programs, Pullman said. She emphasized the compounding effect of a recent $1.1 million VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) funding loss and asked the legislature to consider general-fund support to avoid cuts to a network of programs that provide crisis hotlines, legal services, child-advocacy centers and trafficking response work.

“Right now we are asking for a million and a half dollars for general fund dollars, either one time or by base,” Pullman said, adding a specific request for $600,000 for the compensation program and $115,000 to support the center’s administrative costs. She said the $1.5 million request is meant to replace the $1.1 million VOCA loss and to allow modest inflationary increases for programs that have been flat-funded for roughly 15 years.

Sarah Robinson, co-executive director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence, presented a parallel request for the domestic and sexual violence special fund. Robinson said that fund currently supports about $784,000 in annual distributions (driven by two surcharges: a $13.50 surcharge on civil and criminal judgments and a portion of the $80 marriage-license fee, of which $50 currently goes to the fund) and has faced deficits most years since fiscal 2015. For FY 2026 the network is requesting two items: $1.2 million in base general-fund dollars to stabilize distributions and preserve staff positions, and a $4.1 million contingency fund that could be drawn if federal funds are eliminated.

“If federal funds are cut or cut significantly, especially while the legislature is out of session, that contingency fund would act as an insurance policy,” Robinson said, describing the contingency as reappropriable if unused.

Officials described prior and possible policy responses. Pullman noted the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) report that examined special funds and listed seven recommendations; the legislature has implemented three, including a surcharge fix, higher marriage-license fees for the domestic-violence fund and shifting some victim-advocate funding to the general fund. Other JFO recommendations she cited that remain for exploration include diverting a portion of criminal-traffic fines from the transportation fund, studying a tax on alcohol sales, adding a registration surcharge for motor vehicles and exploring fees related to alcohol and firearms purchases. Pullman also recommended examining “priority of payment” statutes like Hawaii’s to direct limited special-fund revenue toward core victim services.

Local courtroom staff and prosecutors described how the funding and staffing gaps translate to delays and higher workloads on the ground. Zach Waite, deputy state’s attorney in Washington County, said his individual caseload tops 350 active cases and that victim advocates and administrative staff carry far higher caseloads: “350 cases as a deputy state’s attorney is quite burdensome,” he said, adding that advocates often have “double, if not more” the caseload. Waite and other courtroom staff said longer dockets, limited capacity to hire experts and transportation shortages for incarcerated defendants have slowed case resolution and raised the workload for advocates and administrators.

Megan Place, a Windsor County victim’s advocate, said the average victim-advocate caseload across the state is about 600, while national best-practice caseloads are closer to 150–200. “We are staying late. We are not taking vacation. We are working through lunch,” she said, describing the toll of repeated crisis work and the effect on survivors’ ability to engage with the criminal-justice process.

Jennifer Bufard, administrative coordinator for the Chittenden County state’s attorney’s office, described a backlog in court orders and expungements: “I have over 500 of those orders sitting in my inbox waiting for me to process,” she said, explaining the administrative time required to verify counts and upload documents across mismatched court and office databases.

What lawmakers heard and did not decide: Committee members pressed for data and emphasized the urgency, but the session recorded no formal votes or budget decisions. Officials urged lawmakers to consider a mix of base general-fund additions and contingency reserves, and to review statutory or fee-based options identified in the JFO report. Pullman and Robinson both framed their requests as stopgaps and as part of multiyear strategies to stabilize services that have been flat-funded for about 15 years.

Context and limits: Witnesses repeatedly noted that some of the revenue declines trace to policy choices outside victims services, including criminal-justice reform and changes in law-enforcement practices that reduce fine- and fee-based revenue streams. Pullman said those policy changes are desirable but have budgetary consequences for funds that rely on court fines and surcharges. The testifiers also emphasized that many program functions are funded by federal grants; the state requests aim to replace federal reductions, not to supplant current federal resources.

Next steps mentioned at the hearing included committee staff review of posted budget documents and follow-up conversations between the judiciary committee and agency staff as the committee develops budget recommendations.