U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office for Victims of Crime 

DECEMBER 2003 

STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO 

FUNDING FOR VICTIMS’ SERVICES 

Introduction 

LEGAL SERIESBULLETIN

#9

Crime victim assistance programs often rely on public funding, either as their principal source of financial support or to fund significant projects. Although federal grant programs are key funding components for crime victim assistance, state-level 

support can play an equal role. This overview describes the major state legislative approaches to creating sources of funding for crime victim assistance. 

Office for Victims of Crime

Advocating for the Fair Treatment of Crime Victims Office of Justice Programs • Partnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Offender-Based Funding 

History 

The notion that offenders should pay for the repercussions of their crime is very old. In 

the 1800s, many states adopted laws that required offenders to pay the Society for the 

Prevention of Cruelty to Children the costs of investigating and prosecuting child abuse 

cases when the society brought the action. Some of these laws are still on the books.1 

Today 

In 1984, the Federal Government endorsed the concept that convicted offenders should 

pay for the consequences of their crimes by passing the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) 

and establishing the Crime Victims Fund (the Fund). This legislation provides that all 

fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments imposed on convicted federal offenders shall be deposited into the Fund and used principally to provide the states 

with funding for crime victim compensation and assistance programs.2 

Today, nearly every state has some form of general offender assessment, penalty, or surcharge that all convicted offenders must pay. This money may go to the state’s victim 

services, victim compensation, or be divided between the two. 

Amount of Surcharges 

The amount of offender surcharges varies. Some states impose a low fee on all offenders, 

including most traffic offenders. Virginia imposes a $3 fee on all traffic and misdemeanor 

offenders and certain felony drug offenders. These fees are deposited into Virginia’s 

victim-witness fund and used to implement victims’ rights.3 Other states impose a higher 

fee but limit its application to convicted felons and misdemeanants. Massachusetts is 

Message From 

the Director 

Over the past three decades, the 

criminal justice field has witnessed an 

astounding increase in statutory enhancements benefiting people who are 

most directly and intimately affected by 

crime. As of 2000, all states had passed 

some form of legislation to benefit victims. In addition, 33 states have recogcrime victims by raising these protections to the state constitutional level. 

nized the supreme importance of 

fundamental and express rights for 

Of course, the nature, scope, and enforcement of victims’ rights vary from 

state to state, and it is a complex and 

often frustrating matter for victims to 

determine what those rights mean for 

them.To help victims, victim advocates, 

and victim service providers understand the relevance of the myriad laws 

and constitutional guarantees, the 

Office for Victims of Crime awarded 

funding to the National Center for 

Victims of Crime to produce a series 

of bulletins addressing salient legal 

issues affecting crime victims. 

Although federal grant programs are 

key in the funding for crime victim assistance, state-level support can play an 

equal role. State Legislative Approaches to 

Funding for Victims’ Services, the ninth in 

the OVC series, gives an overview and 

describes the major state legislative approaches used in recent years to create 

sources of funding for crime victim 

Continued on page 2 
OVC Legal Series


Continued from page 1 

assistance.This bulletin and the others in the Legal Series highlight various circumstances in which relevant laws are applied, 

emphasizing their successful implementation. 

We hope that victims, victim advocates, victim service providers, 

criminal justice professionals, and policymakers in states across 

the Nation will find the bulletins in this series helpful in making 

sense of the criminal justice process and in identifying areas in 

which rights could be strengthened or more clearly defined.We 

encourage you to use these bulletins not simply as informational 

resources but as tools to support victims in their involvement 

with the criminal justice system. 

John W. Gillis
 Director


typical of this approach, imposing a $60 penalty for a felony and 

a $35 penalty for certain misdemeanors.4 Texas imposes a $45 fee 

for felony convictions, a $35 fee for class A and class B misdemeanors and more serious municipal ordinance convictions, and 

a $15 fee for class C misdemeanors and less serious municipal 

ordinance convictions, excluding parking and pedestrian 

violations. The Texas fees are deposited into the Texas Crime 

Victims’ Compensation Fund and other funds that may be appropriated by the Texas legislature for crime victim assistance 

programs.5 

Some states impose far higher penalties. Washington applies 

a surcharge of $500 for felonies and $250 for misdemeanors.6 

Alabama leaves the exact penalty amount to the discretion of 

the court, limited by Alabama statute to a range of $50 to 

$10,000 for felonies and $25 to $1,000 for misdemeanors.7 

Washington State estimates that its surcharge brings in approximately $3 million a year.

8 Virginia’s $3 fee brings in a comparable 

$3.8 million annually.

9 In 1999, Texas court costs raised nearly 

$69 million for the Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund, 

and more than $16 million was appropriated for crime victim 

services.10 

Surcharges for Specific Crimes 

In addition to the general assessments and surcharges applied to 

offenders, several states raise money for particular crime victim 

programs by applying specific assessments to offenders of particular types of crime: 

•	 Child pornography. Illinois imposes a fine on offenders convicted of child pornography charges. When child pornography fines are greater than $10,000, 100 percent of the 

amount above $10,000 goes to the Child Sexual Abuse 

Fund, which is used for grants to private entities treating and 

counseling victims of child sexual abuse.11 With the explosion of child pornography on the Internet and the renewed 

determination of the criminal justice system to pursue these 

offenders, fining perpetrators may be a potential source of 

funding for many programs to help victims. 

•	 Other offenses against children. Indiana imposes a $100 

fine on convicted offenders of various violent and sexual 

offenses against children. Funds raised from these fines 

are used for child abuse prevention programs.12 California 

also imposes several specific fines, up to $10,000, for such 

offenses.13 

•	 Domestic violence. Many states impose special fees on convicted batterers that are used to support battered women’s 

shelters.14 California gives courts the option of ordering the 

defendant to pay up to $5,000 to a battered women’s shelter 

in lieu of ordering a fine.15 Florida and Idaho impose fines 

on those who violate protective orders. A part of these fines 

is used to fund domestic violence programs.16 

•	 Sex offenses. In Illinois, a $100 fine is imposed on anyone 

convicted of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. The 

collected fines are deposited into the Sexual Assault Services 

Fund.17 Several other states use fines collected from sex offenders to fund other programs not directly related to the 

victim, such as programs for sex-offender registration,18 

sex-offender treatment,19 and AIDS education.20 

•	 Pimping or soliciting a prostitute. In Minnesota, fines are 

imposed on those who solicit prostitutes or make a profit 

from prostitution. The funds raised are used partly to fund 

child protection teams and partly to fund programs for those 

who have escaped or want to escape prostitution.21 

•	 Crimes against the elderly or disabled. South Carolina allows courts to impose civil fines up to $30,000 on offenders 

convicted of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of adults in longterm care facilities. After the attorney general’s costs of litigation, remaining funds are deposited into the Adult 

Protective Services Emergency Fund.22 Iowa imposes a civil 

penalty up to $5,000 for consumer fraud against the elderly. 

Funds collected through fines are used to fund investigation 

and prosecution of such offenses.23 

2 
STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO FUNDING FOR VICTIMS’ SERVICES 

Other Forms of Offender Penalties 

In addition to fines and costs assessed against convicted offenders 

as part of the sentence, other forms of offender penalties are used 

to fund crime victim services: 

•	 Probation, parole, and supervisory status. Several states 

impose costs on offenders placed on probation or other forms 

of supervised release. Many states impose fees on domestic 

violence offenders placed on probation, and the states use 

the fees to fund domestic violence programs. In California, 

a person on probation for a hate crime may be ordered to 

make compensation to a community-based program serving 

victims of hate crime.24 Arizona imposes a general supervision fee on offenders who are placed on parole, probation, 

or community supervision, and funds raised from these fees 

are deposited into the state’s victim compensation and 

assistance fund.25 

•	 Inmate earnings. Colorado, South Carolina, and Utah withhold a percentage of an inmate’s earnings through prison or 

community release work programs.26 This money may go to 

fund victim assistance or may be deposited into the state’s 

crime victim compensation fund. 

•	 Surplus restitution. A few states apply “surplus restitution” 

to crime victim services. This is restitution that has been 

paid to the collecting agency but was either declined by the 

victim or the crime victim could not be located. The restitution surplus is deposited into a state fund for crime victim 

services.27 

Current Issues Relating to 

Offender-Based Funding 

Enforcement of Surcharges 

Resistance. Many states have found courts reluctant to order 

convicted offenders to pay penalties and surcharges and to collect 

the penalties and surcharges that would be used to support victim 

services. Courts indicate that imposing and collecting penalties 

slows the judicial process and burdens court personnel with additional duties. Some state laws specifically provide that such fees 

can be waived. For instance, New Hampshire allows the court to 

suspend all or part of the penalty assessment if it “would work a 

hardship on the person convicted or on such person’s immediate 

family.”28 

Strengthening laws. Other states have attempted to strengthen 

their laws regarding ordering and collecting offender fees. Several 

have taken the New York approach, which provides that “under 

no circumstances shall the mandatory surcharge or the crime 

victim assistance fee be waived.”29 A few states have provided 

the means to enforce the imposition and/or collection of such 

penalties. Pennsylvania’s law provides that “the district attorney, 

the bureau [of victim services], the commission [on Crime and 

Delinquency], or any direct victim . . . shall have standing to 

seek a mandamus order requiring the county to collect the costs 

imposed.” The Pennsylvania statute also provides that the costs 

must be paid before the defendant can be eligible for probation, 

parole, or accelerated rehabilitative disposition.30 

Strong enforcement. Texas has even stronger enforcement provisions that apply to the collection of costs for victim compensation and could be applied to the collection of costs to fund 

victim services. Under Texas law, if the attorney general has reason to believe that a court has not been assessing costs due, or 

has not made an effort to collect costs, the attorney general must 

send the counsel a warning letter. The court must respond to the 

charges within 60 days. If the court does not respond or the attorney general considers the response inadequate, the attorney 

general may request an audit of records. If the evidence indicates 

the court is not assessing costs or making a reasonable effort to 

collect costs, the attorney general may refuse to award compensation to residents of that jurisdiction or may notify the State 

Commission on Judicial Conduct of the findings. Failure or 

refusal to order and collect costs is official misconduct and constitutes grounds for removal from office.31 

Competing Interests 

Although offender penalties are an equitable way to fund crime 

victim assistance programs, they can face competition. The payments for victim services can be adversely affected as legislatures 

look to offenders to shoulder more and more of the costs of the 

criminal justice system, such as prison room and board, maintenance of DNA databanks, and indigent offender defense funds. 

To protect these funds, many states have provided that victim 

services and/or compensation assessments have priority over payments for other court costs. However, restitution to direct victims 

usually retains the highest priority over other assessments.32 

3 
OVC Legal Series


Funding Through Fees 

In addition to imposing fines and penalties on offenders, states 

have imposed nonoffender-based fees for certain services, which 

are used to fund crime victim programs. For instance, many states 

add a surcharge when issuing a marriage license. The money collected is used to fund domestic violence or child abuse programs. 

Connecticut uses part of the marriage license surcharge to fund 

rape prevention programs.33 Indiana uses marriage license fees 

to fund its general victim/witness assistance programs.34 Surcharge amounts range from $3 in Minnesota to $38 in New 

Hampshire.35 

In addition to marriage license fees, many states charge an additional fee for filing for divorce. This amount ranges from $1 in 

Oregon to $32 in Ohio.36 Utah assesses an additional $2 fee on 

all civil filings. This money is deposited into the Children’s Legal 

Defense Account for guardian ad litem programs and other programs involving child custody and visitation.37 

The amount of money raised through such fees can be significant. Nevada adds a $15 surcharge to its marriage license fee. 

This money is deposited into an account to aid victims of domestic violence.38 In 1999, this program brought in $2.1 million.39 

Ohio’s $32 surcharge for filing for divorce and its $17 fee for each 

marriage license raised $3,203,668 for domestic violence shelters 

in 1999.40 

Similarly, many states have attached fees, ranging from $1 to 

$10, for issuing birth certificates. The money collected generally 

goes to the Children’s Trust Fund or to fund child abuse and prevention programs.41 A few states add a Children’s Trust Fund surcharge when issuing a birth certificate “suitable for display.”42 

A few states impose fees on the reinstatement of a driver’s license 

after its suspension or revocation for drunk or drugged driving. 

Illinois imposes a $60 reinstatement fee on first-time offenders. 

Thirty dollars of the fee is deposited into the Drunk and Drugged 

Drivers Prevention Fund. For reinstatement after a second or 

subsequent suspension or revocation for impaired driving, the 

fee is $250, and $190 of that is deposited into the fund.43 

As illustrated above, when states impose fees on government 

services that have a logical connection to specific crime victim 

programs, they have found a source of funding limited only by 

the creativity of advocates and policymakers. 

State-Facilitated Funding by 

Private Citizens 

Personal Income Taxes 

Many states use various approaches to facilitate private giving 

for crime victim services. One method is to place a voluntary income tax checkoff box on tax forms that individual taxpayers 

may check to designate payment to crime victim programs. This 

is most commonly used to fund state children’s trust funds.44 A 

few states also fund domestic violence programs this way.

45 Iowa 

tax forms have a box that taxpayers may check to designate a 

payment for sexual assault and domestic violence programs.46 

The amount of money that can be raised through checkoff boxes 

on income tax forms appears to be relatively low. The checkoff 

box for the Child Abuse Prevention Fund47 on Arizona’s income 

tax form raises approximately $190,000 a year.

48 Colorado’s longstanding income tax form checkoff box for its Domestic Abuse 

Program Fund49 brought in almost $400,000 from 1999 tax returns.50 Some laws specify that if a certain amount is not raised 

by using an income tax form checkoff box, it will be eliminated. 

Montana eliminates a checkoff box from its tax form if it generates less than $10,000 in 2 consecutive years.51 

Missouri also promotes the support of domestic violence programs through its income tax system by providing a tax credit for 

contributions to domestic violence shelters. Half of a taxpayer’s 

contribution to any domestic violence shelter is credited against 

that individual’s total state tax liability. Contributions during the 

tax year must be at least $100 to qualify for the credit, and the 

credit cannot exceed $50,000 a year.

52 

Special License Plates 

Another state-sponsored activity that attracts private support for 

victims’ programs is the sale of special license plates, commonly 

used to support children’s programs. In Nevada, drivers can order 

special license plates, and the proceeds support programs for 

missing or exploited children.53 Ohio offers a special “Celebrate 

Kids!” license plate for an additional $25. Of that fee, $15 goes to 

support the Ohio Court-Appointed Special Advocate/Guardian 

Ad Litem to help abused, neglected, and dependent children.54 

The license plate sales bring in approximately $225,000 a year.

55 

Juror Fees 

A few states have passed laws allowing jurors to donate their fees 

to crime victim-related programs, including the Court Appointed 

4 
STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO FUNDING FOR VICTIMS’ SERVICES 

Special Advocate Volunteer Account,56 the victim’ compensation fund, the child welfare service fund, and a fund for domestic 

violence programs. Texas raised $199,213.50 for domestic violence programs in 1999 through these donations.57 

Miscellaneous Approaches 

Although many of the legislated funding mechanisms states use 

fall into the primary categories discussed above, states also use 

various other approaches. 

Local Property Taxes 

Illinois gave county boards special taxing authority to fund creation of Children’s Advocacy Centers—interdisciplinary centers 

that coordinate investigation and victim assistance in cases of 

child sexual abuse. The county boards must adopt a resolution for 

such funding by taxation and submit it to the voters at a general 

election.58 Similarly, Ohio allows county boards to levy a property 

tax, with voter approval, to provide grant money for crime victim 

assistance programs.59 

Urban Action Bonds 

Connecticut sells urban action bonds, whose proceeds are used 

to build and renovate centers for the elderly, shelter facilities for 

domestic violence victims, and emergency shelters.60 Individual 

programs apply to the Department of Social Services for money 

from the bonds. Eight domestic violence groups recently applied 

for and were awarded a total of $400,000 over 4 years for renovation of their facilities.61 

Food and Beverage Taxes 

Since 1989, Washington has imposed a $1-per-gallon tax on the 

syrup used to make soft drinks.62 This tax brings in about $4 

million annually to fund the reduction of violence and drug 

enforcement account.63 In Florida, counties have the option of 

adopting a tax on food, beverages, or alcoholic beverages. Funds 

raised can be used to support the construction and operation of 

domestic violence shelters and to help the homeless.64 

Inmate Arts and Crafts 

Louisiana passed an unusual funding mechanism, the Inmate 

Arts Trust Fund. Under Louisiana law, arts and crafts created by 

inmates were to be sold and the proceeds used to pay for services 

to crime victims. This law was passed in 1995, but the administrative procedures to implement the program were never put in 

place. So, although arts and crafts of inmates have been sold, the 

proceeds were never used to fund crime victim services as intended, and the legislation was repealed in 2001.65 

Conclusion 

Crime victim assistance is an essential public service and, as 

such, merits the states’ commitment to adequate funding. As 

states strive to create funding sources for victim assistance, they 

have a wide range of legislative options, including adoption of 

offender-based penalties, charging nonoffenders’ fees for governmental services that are logically connected to crime victim 

needs, and implementing private and innovative fundraising 

efforts. With the state’s encouragement and facilitation, these 

can all work to provide the critical financial support for services 

to help victims in the aftermath of crime. 

Notes 

1. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15:571.12 (West 2002); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 

9:6-6 (West 2001). 

2. This method of creating the VOCA Fund was initially called 

for as part of the 1982 Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 

Victims of Crime. The task force stated that “it is appropriate that 

these monies collected as a result of criminal activity be used to 

help victims.” President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final 

Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

December 1982:6. 

3. VA. CODE ANN. § 19.2-11.3 (Michie 2001). 

4. MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 258B, § 8 (Law. Co-op. 2002). 

5. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. §§ 56.55, .541 (Vernon 2002). 

6. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.68.035 (2002). 

7. ALA. CODE § 15-23-17 (2001). 

8. Conversation with Steve Eckstrom, Washington State Office 

of Crime Victims Advocacy, August 1999. The difficulty in 

calculating the amount of funds resulting from the surcharge is 

principally due to two factors: the money is retained at the local 

level, and collection of the money is uncertain during the offender’s incarceration. 

5 
OVC Legal Series


9. Telephone interview with Wendy Lohr Hopp, Victims 

Services Section, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice 

Services (July 17, 2000). 

10. Crime Victims’ Compensation Division, Office of the Texas 

Attorney General, 1999 Annual Report, 5, 12. 

11. 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/5-9-1.8 (2001). 

12. IND. CODE ANN. § 33-19-6-12 (Michie 2001). 

13. For example, CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 266k, 288 (Deering 2001). 

14. For example, NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 200.485 (Michie 2001); 

WIS. STAT. § 973.055 (2001). 

15. CAL. PENAL CODE § 243 (Deering 2001). 

16. FLA. STAT. ch. 741.30 (2001); IDAHO CODE § 39-6312 (Michie 

2001). 

17. If the victim and offender are family members, the fine is 

divided between the Sexual Assault Services and the Domestic 

Violence Shelter and Services Funds. 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.7 (2001). 

18. IOWA CODE § 692A.6 (2002). 

19. For example, COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-21-103 (2001); TENN. 

CODE ANN. § 39-13-709 (2001). 

20. CAL. PENAL CODE § 288a (Deering 2001). 

21. MINN. STAT. § 609.3241 (2001). 

22. S.C. CODE ANN. § 43-35-80 (Law. Co-op. 2001). 

23. IOWA CODE § 714.16A (West 2002). 

24. CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.95 (Deering 2001). 

25. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 31-411, -418, -466 (2001). 

26. COLO. REV. STAT. § 17-27-104 (2001); S.C. CODE ANN. § 

24-3-40 (Law. Co-op. 2001); UTAH CODE ANN. § 63-63a-4 (2001). 

27. For example, FLA. STAT. ANN. ch. 960.0025 (Harrison 2001). 

28. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 188-F:31 (2000). 

29. N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 420.35 (Consol. 2002). 

30. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1101 (2001). 

31. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 56.59 (Vernon 2002). 

32. For example, CAL. PENAL CODE § 1203.1d (Deering 2001); 

COLO. REV. STAT. § 24-4.1-119 (2001). 

33. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 7-73 (2001). 

34. IND. CODE ANN. §§ 33-17-14-2, -19-9-2, -19-9-4 (Michie 

2001). 

35. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 173-B:15, 457:29 (2000); MINN. STAT. 

§ 517.08 (2001). Minnesota’s $3 fee is used to support supervised 

visitation centers. 

36. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2303.201 (Anderson 2001); OR. REV. 

STAT. § 417.825 (2001). 

37. UTAH CODE ANN. § 63-63a-8 (2001). 

38. NEV. REV. STAT. § 122.060 (2001). 

39. A. Wagner, “Marriage License Fees in Nevada Aid Programs 

for Battered Women,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 12, 2000. 

40. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 2303.201, 3113.34 (Anderson 2001). 

Telephone interview with Janey Sulser, Crime Victims’ Section, 

Office of Ohio Attorney General (end of June 2000). 

41. For example, MINN. STAT. §§ 119A.12, 144.226 (2001). 

42. ALASKA STAT. § 18.50.225 (Michie 2001); WASH. REV. CODE 

ANN. § 70-58-085 (West 2002). 

43. 625 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/6-118 (2001). 

44. As examples, see ALA. CODE § 26-16-31 (2001); LA. REV. STAT. 

ANN. 47:120.35 (West 2002); and VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 32, § 5862b 

(2001). 

45. For example, COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-801 (2001). Virginia 

has an income tax form checkoff box for its Family and 

Children’s Trust Fund, which funds any programs addressing violence in families. VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-346.3:1 (Michie 2001). 

46. IOWA CODE § 236.15B (2002). 

47. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 43-613 (2001). 

6 
STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO FUNDING FOR VICTIMS’ SERVICES 

48. Telephone interview with Valerie Roberson, Arizona 

Department of Economic Security (June 2000). 

49. COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-801 (2001). 

50. Telephone interview with Mary Ann Ganey, Colorado 

Domestic Abuse Program Fund (July 5, 2000). 

51. MONT. CODE ANN. § 15-30-155 (2001). 

52. MO. REV. STAT. tit. § 135.550 (2001). 

53. NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 432.154 (Michie 2001). 

54. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4503.72 (Anderson 2001). 

55. Telephone interview with Ohio court-appointed special 

advocate/guardian ad litem representative (end of June 2000). 

56. UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-46-28 (2001). 

57. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 61.003 (Vernon 2002). Crime Victims’ 

Compensation Division, Office of the Texas Attorney General, 

1999 Annual Report, 5, 12. 

58. 55 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 80/4, /6 (2001). 

59. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 307.62, 5705.19 (Anderson 2001). 

60. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 4-66c (2001). 

61. Telephone interview with Mary McInerney, Executive 

Director, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

(July 7, 2000). 

62. WASH. REV. CODE §§ 82.64.010, 82.64.020 (2001). 

63. M. McCloy, “State Takes Steps to Aid Rape Victims; $1 

Million Program Will Begin in July,” The Arizona Republic, June 

14, 2000, at B5. 

64. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 212.0306 (West 2001). 

65. Law of 1996, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. ch. 49, § 46:2640 

(repealed 2001). 

About This Series


OVC Legal Series bulletins are designed to inform victim advocates 

and victim service providers about various legal issues relating to 

crime victims.The series is not meant to provide an exhaustive 

legal analysis of the topics presented; rather, it provides a digest of 

issues for professionals who work with victims of crime. 

Each bulletin summarizes— 

❋ Existing legislation. 

❋ Important court decisions in cases where courts have 

addressed the issues. 

❋ Current trends or “hot topics” relating to each legal issue. 

The OVC Legal Series bulletins were created by the National Center 

for Victims of Crime (NCVC) under grant number 1999–VF–GX–K007 

awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice.The opinions, findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations expressed in this bulletin are those of the author/ 

NCVC and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

First edition December 2003 

Reprinted September 2006 

NCJ 199477


7 
PRESOR

TED STANDARD


POSTAGE & FEES PAID


DOJ/OVC


PERMIT NO. G–91


U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs Office for Victims of Crime *NCJ~199477* Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300