Panel approves redirected funding for victim notification system amid concerns about drawing from compensation fund
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The committee adopted an amendment to source a victim notification appropriation from the Victim Compensation Fund rather than the general fund, then returned Senate Bill 16-73 as amended following testimony that cities and county attorneys rely on the notification system and warnings that diverting compensation dollars could harm victims' services.
House Appropriations members adopted a chairman’s amendment on March 25 that reduced the requested appropriation for a statewide victim notification system and switched the source from the general fund to the Victim Compensation Fund, then returned Senate Bill 16‑73 as amended with a due pass recommendation.
Staff originally described the bill as a $5,000,000 general‑fund appropriation to a law enforcement victim notification fund, and the chairman’s amendment reduced the amount to $2,594,800 and proposed using Victim Compensation Fund dollars instead. Jen Morrison, representing the Arizona Sheriffs' Association, said county attorneys and sheriff offices rely on the compensation fund to reimburse crime victims and urged caution about using those reserves to support a notification system.
Mike Williams, who represents VersaTerm (a vendor of notification software), said the program is constitutionally mandated and that notification systems—used statewide and by the Phoenix Police Department’s Community Connect platform—deliver timely updates to victims. "Just in Phoenix alone, in the last year, they sent out 1,600,000 texts," Williams said.
Several lawmakers objected to reducing or diverting compensation dollars. A victims' advocate and some committee members called the change “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” arguing that compensation reserves are meant to reimburse victims for losses. Others said the notification program is a state responsibility and worthy of dedicated funding; the chair said he was open to "cow" amendments to identify a non‑general funding source and welcomed ideas before the floor.
On the chairman's amendment the committee recorded a roll call (amendment passed 9 yeses, 7 noes, 2 not voting). The committee then returned SB 16‑73 as amended with a due pass recommendation and encouraged members to negotiate a sustainable funding source prior to floor action.