In 1984, the Crime Victims Fund (CVF, or the Fund) was established by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA, P.L. 98-473 ) to provide funding for state victim compensation and assistance programs. Since 1984, VOCA has been amended several times to support additional victim-related activities. These amendments established within the CVF discretionary grants for private organizations; the Federal Victim Notification System; funding for victim assistance staff in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA); funding for the Children's Justice Act Program; and assistance and compensation for victims of terrorism. In 1988, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was formally established within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer the CVF. As authorized by VOCA, the OVC awards CVF money through formula and discretionary grants to states, local units of government, individuals, and other entities. The OVC also distributes CVF money to specially designated programs, such as the Children's Justice Act Program and the Federal Victim Notification System (see Figure 1 ). The OVC's mission is to enhance the nation's capacity to assist crime victims and to improve attitudes, policies, and practices that promote justice and help victims. According to the OVC, this mission is accomplished by (1) administering the CVF, (2) supporting direct services for victims, (3) providing training programs for service providers, (4) sponsoring the development of best practices for service providers, and (5) producing reports on best practices. The OVC funds victim-support programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories. Notably, Congress has amended VOCA several times to provide support for victims of terrorism. These amendments established CVF-funded programs for (1) assistance to victims of terrorism who are injured or killed as a result of a terrorist act outside the United States, (2) compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism within the United States, and (3) an antiterrorism emergency reserve fund to support victims of terrorism. This report provides background and funding information for VOCA programs and the CVF. It describes the process through which CVF funds are allocated and explains how the CVF impacts the annual budget for DOJ. It then provides an analysis of selected issues that Congress may consider regarding the CVF and the federal budget. The CVF does not receive appropriated funding. Rather, deposits to the CVF come from a number of sources including criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments collected by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, federal courts, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons from offenders convicted of federal crimes. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act ( P.L. 107-56 ) established that gifts, bequests, or donations from private entities could also be deposited to the CVF. The largest source of deposits into the CVF is criminal fines. Large criminal fines, if collected, can have a significant effect on deposits into receipts for the CVF. For example, from FY1996 through FY2004, fines collected from 12 defendants in federal courts accounted for 45% of all deposits to the CVF during this time period. Table 1 provides the amounts deposited into the CVF in each fiscal year from 1985 through 2016. As Table 1 illustrates, since 2000 there has been considerable fluctuation in the amounts deposited each fiscal year. For example, from FY2013 to FY2014 the monetary amount collected rose by over 140% and then decreased by approximately 26.0% in FY2015. This was followed by a 43.7% decrease in FY2016. Table 1 provides the annual amounts collected from FY1985 through FY2016. During the last decade, over $20 billion has been deposited into the CVF. Large criminal fines levied in cases of financial fraud and other white collar crimes likely contributed to the sizeable growth of the Fund. Although OVC had expected deposits to remain high due to major fines levied against federal offenders (in particular, against corporate violators of federal law), deposits into the Fund fluctuate from year to year and sometimes decrease, as they did from FY2015 to FY2016. Further, DOJ has identified the prosecution of violent offenders as a priority. While this does not mean that prosecutions against corporate offenders that pay substantial criminal fines will decline, if these prosecutions were to decline it may effect a further decline in the deposit amounts to the CVF. In the history of the CVF, two caps have affected the balance and distribution of the Fund: a cap on deposits and an obligation cap. In 1984, Congress placed a cap on how much could be deposited into the CVF for the first eight years. As shown in Table 1 , from FY1985 through FY1992, the annual cap on deposits ranged from $100 million to $150 million. In 1993, Congress lifted the cap on deposits, establishing that all criminal fines, special assessments, and forfeited bail bonds could be deposited into the CVF. From FY1985 to FY1998, deposits collected in each fiscal year were distributed in the following fiscal year to support crime victims services. In 2000, Congress established an annual obligation cap on the amount of CVF funds available for distribution to reduce the impact of fluctuating deposits and ensure the stability of funds for programs and activities. Congress establishes the CVF cap each year as a part of the appropriations for DOJ. In FY2015, Congress set the CVF obligation cap at $2.361 billion, a 216.9% increase over the FY2014 cap. Congress did not specify directions for the increase in CVF funds, which were distributed to crime victims programs according to the formula established by VOCA. In FY2016, Congress set the cap at $3.042 billion, a further increase to the cap; however, $379 million was transferred to the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) for purposes outside of VOCA and $10 million was designated for the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for oversight and auditing purposes. After deducting these amounts specified in P.L. 114-113 , the obligation cap was equal to $2.653 billion, a 12.4% increase over the FY2015 cap. In FY2017, however, Congress set the cap at $2.573 billion, a 15.4% decrease compared to the FY2016 cap. From this amount, $326 million was transferred to OVW (again for purposes outside of VOCA) and $10 million was again designated for the DOJ OIG for oversight and auditing purposes. Of note, the Administration's FY2018 budget request specifies that $610 million be transferred from the CVF to OVW and agencies within the Office of Justice Programs for non-VOCA grant programs. In the accompanying explanatory statement for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 (Division B, P.L. 115-31 ), Congress explains that collections into the CVF have slowed, and to ensure solvency of the Fund the FY2017 obligation cap was calculated based on the three-year average of collections into the CVF. Language restricting the use of certain funds, particularly as they relate to abortions, is commonly included in appropriations language. Appropriations riders may or may not apply to the programs authorized by the CVF, depending on how those riders are framed. Amounts in the CVF are not appropriated; rather, the CVF is funded through fines and penalties as specified in VOCA. Funding for a current year's grants is provided by the previous year's deposits to the CVF, and the OVC is authorized to use the capped amount for grant awards in a given year. After the yearly allocations are distributed, the remaining balance in the CVF is retained for future expenditures. The difference between the fund's balance and the capped amount due to the obligation limitation is scored as a reduction or offset (i.e., as a Change in Mandatory Program or CHIMP) in the DOJ total discretionary spending in a given fiscal year. Moreover, that offset also affects the discretionary spending total in measures reported in the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. VOCA law requires that all sums deposited in a fiscal year that are not obligated must remain in the CVF for obligation in future fiscal years. If collections in a previous year exceed the obligation cap, amounts over the cap are credited to the CVF, also referred to as the "rainy day" fund, for future program benefits. For example, in FY2000 funding for the year was capped at $500 million despite the fact that collections were over $985 million in FY1999. In FY2000, approximately $485 million remained in the CVF and was credited for future use. Table 1 provides the balances that remain credited to the CVF at the end of each fiscal year from FY2000 through FY2016. As previously stated, the OVC awards CVF money through formula and discretionary grants to states, local units of government, individuals, and other entities. The OVC also awards CVF money to specially designated programs. Grants are allocated according to statute (see Figure 1 ) established by the VOCA. The OVC and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) manage the Children's Justice Act Program, a grant program designed to improve the investigation, handling, and prosecution of child abuse cases. Up to $20 million must be distributed annually to the Children's Justice Act Program. Of the designated funds, ACF receives up to $17 million to manage this program for the states, while the OVC distributes up to $3 million for tribal populations. In FY2016, the ACF received $17.36 million from the CVF to fund the Children's Justice Act Program. Table 2 provides funding data from FY2012 through FY2016. The OVC provides annual funding to support victim-witness coordinators within each of the 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices. In accordance with the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance , these personnel provide direct support for victims of federal crime by assisting victims in criminal proceedings and advising victims of their rights, such as their right to make oral and written victim impact statements at an offender's sentencing hearing. Table 3 provides the number of full-time employees supported with CVF funding and the amount of CVF funding that the EOUSA victim-witness coordinator program has received from the OVC from FY2012 through FY2016. The OVC provides annual funding to support victim witness specialists within the 56 FBI field offices. These specialists, or coordinators, personally assist victims of federal crime and provide information on criminal cases throughout case development and court proceedings. Table 4 provides the amount of CVF funding that the FBI's Victim Witness Program has received from the OVC in FY2012-FY2016. The OVC provides annual funding to support the Victim Notification System (VNS), a program administered by the EOUSA and jointly operated by the FBI, EOUSA, OVC, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. VNS is the vehicle through which victims are notified of major case events relating to the offender, such as the release or detention status of the offender. Table 5 provides the amount of CVF funding that the VNS has received from the OVC in FY2012-FY2016. After the Children's Justice Act, victim witness, and VNS programs are funded, remaining CVF money is distributed as follows: Victim Compensation Formula Grants (47.5%); Victim Assistance Formula Grants (47.5%); and OVC Discretionary Grants (5%). Amounts not used for state compensation grants are made available for state victim assistance formula grants. As shown in Figure 1 , while both compensation and assistance grants are allotted the same percentage of the remaining balance, the state victim assistance grant program receives 47.5% of the remaining balance plus any funds not needed to reimburse victim compensation programs at the statutorily established rate. As mentioned, 47.5% of the remaining annual CVF money is for grant awards to state crime victim compensation programs. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico have victim compensation programs. The OVC awards each state 60% of the total amount the state paid (from state funding sources) to victims in the prior fiscal year. According to VOCA, a state is eligible to receive a victim compensation formula grant if the state program meets the following requirements: (1) promotes victim cooperation with requests of law enforcement authorities, (2) certifies that grants received will not be used to supplant state funds, (3) ensures that non-resident victims receive compensation awards on the same basis as victims residing within the state, (4) ensures that compensation provided to victims of federal crimes is given on the same basis as the compensation given to victims of state crime, and (5) provides compensation to residents of the state who are victims of crimes occurring outside the state. The formula grants may be used to reimburse crime victims for out-of-pocket expenses such as medical and mental health counseling expenses, lost wages, funeral and burial costs, and other costs (except property loss) authorized in a state's compensation statute. Victims are reimbursed for crime-related expenses that are not covered by other resources, such as private insurance. Since FY1999, medical and dental services have accounted for close to half of the total payout in annual compensation expenses. In FY2015, 45.2% of the total payments were for medical and dental expenses. According to OVC data, assault victims represent the highest percentage of victims receiving compensation each year. Victims of assault represented 39.3% all claims filed during FY2015. Nearly half of assault claims for FY2015 were "domestic and family violence-related." Table 6 provides the amount of CVF funding that was allotted to OVC's Victim Compensation Program from FY2012 through FY2016. The other 47.5% of the remaining annual CVF money (see Figure 1 ) is for the Victim Assistance Formula Grants Program. Amounts not used for state compensation grants are made available for the Victim Assistance Formula Grants Program. This program provides grants to state crime victim assistance programs to administer funds for state and community-based victim service program operations. The grants support direct services to crime victims including information and referral services, crisis counseling, temporary housing, criminal justice advocacy support, and other assistance needs. Assistance grants are distributed by states according to guidelines established by VOCA. States are required to prioritize the following groups: (1) underserved populations of victims of violent crime, (2) victims of child abuse, (3) victims of sexual assault, and (4) victims of spousal abuse. States may not use federal funds to supplant state and local funds otherwise available for crime victim assistance. The time period in which states must use their annual award includes the year it was given to the state plus three years. VOCA establishes the amount of funds allocated to each state and territory. Each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico receive a base amount of $500,000 each year. The territories of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa receive a base amount of $200,000 each year. The remaining funds are distributed based on U.S. census population data. Table 7 provides the amount of CVF funding that the OVC allotted for the Victim Assistance Grant Program from FY2012 through FY2016. According to the OVC, victims of domestic violence make up the largest number of victims receiving services under the Victim Assistance Formula Grants Program. In FY2015, 47.8% of the 3,716,668 victims served by these grants were victims of domestic violence. This percentage has remained relatively stable since 2000, when 50.1% of all victims served by the victim assistance grants were victims of domestic violence. Five percent of the CVF money available after the specially designated program allocations have been made (see Figure 1 ) is for discretionary grants. According to VOCA, discretionary grants must be distributed for (1) demonstration projects, program evaluation, compliance efforts, and training and technical assistance services to crime victim assistance programs; (2) financial support of services to victims of federal crime; and (3) nonprofit victim service organizations and coalitions to improve outreach and services to victims of crime. The OVC awards discretionary grants each year through a competitive application process. Table 8 provides the amount of CVF funding that the OVC allotted for discretionary grants from FY2012 through FY2016. The Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve was established in P.L. 104-132 to meet the immediate and long-term needs of victims of terrorism and mass violence. The OVC accomplishes this mission by providing supplemental grants to states for victim compensation and assistance and also by providing direct compensation to victims (U.S. nationals or officers or employees of the U.S. government, including Foreign Service Nationals working for the U.S. government) of terrorist acts that occur abroad. The Director of the OVC is authorized to set aside $50 million of CVF money in the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve to respond to the needs of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and subsequently, to replenish any amounts expended so that not more than $50 million is reserved in any fiscal year for any future victims of terrorism. After funding all other program areas, as listed above, the funds retained in the CVF may be used to replenish the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve. This reserve fund supports the following programs: Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance Program (AEAP), International Terrorism Victim Expense Reimbursement Program, Crime Victim Emergency Assistance Fund at the FBI, and Victim Reunification Program. Over the past two years, the OVC has responded to several incidents of terrorism and/or mass violence in the United States with grants from the AEAP. Following incidents of terrorism or mass violence, jurisdictions may apply for AEAP funds to be used for crisis response, criminal justice support, crime victim compensation, and training and technical assistance expenses. In January 2014, OVC announced the award of $8.4 million to assist victims, witnesses, and first responders of the Boston Marathon bombings, an incident that resulted in the deaths of three spectators and a police officer, and the injuries of hundreds more. The grant award was received by the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance to assist organizations with "costs, both incurred and anticipated, for organizations providing crisis intervention services and trauma-informed care, continuum of care, socioeconomic support, wrap-around legal services and other victim assistance." In 2013, AEAP funds were also used to support victims of mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Oak Creek, WI; and Aurora, CO. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the OVC used money available in the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve account to immediately respond to the needs of victims. The OVC awarded $3.1 million in victim assistance funding and $13.5 million in victim compensation funding to the states of New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The funds were used by these states to coordinate and provide emergency assistance to victims in the form of crisis counseling and other direct services, and to offset out-of-pocket expenses for medical and mental health services, funeral costs, and lost wages. In addition to providing funds to states, the OVC provided other assistance and services to victims, including the following: OVC staff worked to identify the short- and long-term needs of victims and related costs, as well as to coordinate its efforts with other federal agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Immediately following the attacks, the OVC set up a call center that offered a 24-hour, toll-free telephone line for collecting victim information and providing referrals for financial, housing, and counseling assistance. Approximately 37,000 victims and family members received assistance and referrals through the call center. The OVC also established a Victim and Family Travel Assistance Center, which handled all logistical arrangements and paid travel and lodging costs for 1,800 family members traveling to funerals and memorial services. The OVC designed and operated a special "Hope and Remembrance" website to provide victims with answers to frequently asked questions, official messages from U.S. government sources, news releases, etc. Congress may confront several issues when considering the balance of the CVF, the annual obligation cap on the CVF, and possible amendments to VOCA. These issues include using the CVF for purposes other than those explicitly authorized by VOCA, making adjustments to the CVF cap such as eliminating the cap, and amending VOCA to accommodate new programs or to adjust the allocation formula. Congress may also consider the purposes for which certain pools of victim services monies can be used. Because the CVF balance remains significantly larger than the amount distributed to victims each year, there are several issues Congress may consider, and in some cases already has considered, regarding the balance of the Fund. One is whether to use receipts from the CVF to fund grant programs that are not authorized by VOCA. In the past, Congress has passed legislation that made CVF money available to support programs authorized outside of VOCA. For example, the National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 110-181 ) included a provision mandating that the Attorney General transfer from the emergency reserve of the CVF "such funds as may be required" to cover the costs of special masters appointed by U.S. district courts in civil cases brought against state sponsors of terrorism. Until FY2016, CVF money had not been used to fund grant programs outside of those authorized by VOCA; however, in the FY2016 and FY2017 appropriations acts, CVF funds were transferred to the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to be used for specified grant programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. The Administration's FY2018 budget request proposes to use the CVF to fund multiple DOJ accounts not authorized by VOCA, including those that address domestic violence, sex offenders, trafficking victims, and child abuse. While it could be argued that funds for non-VOCA grant programs go to support crime victims, it raises a question about whether these actions might pave the way for the CVF to be used to support grant programs that might not be victim-focused. On the other hand, the CVF has a balance of more than $9 billion, which indicates that receipts to the fund, for certain years, exceeded the congressionally specified cap; however, as mentioned, Congress substantially increased the cap in FY2015 and increased it further in FY2016 (see Table 1 ). In addition, deposits into the Fund decreased by approximately 44% from FY2015 to FY2016. In a time of fiscal constraint, the CVF might provide an avenue to fund some DOJ grant programs while reducing DOJ's discretionary appropriation; however, as shown by the drop in CVF deposits in FY2016, there is no guarantee that receipts going into the CVF will be consistent from one year to the next. Therefore, if Congress were to further increase the cap and continue to use funding from the CVF for non-VOCA programs, it may not be possible to ensure that there will be a consistent level of funding to support these programs in future budget cycles. Congress may also decide to rescind funds from the balance of the CVF, as it did in November 2015 through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-74 ). This law required the rescission and permanent cancellation of $1.5 billion from the balance of the CVF. This unprecedented rescission and cancellation did not carry any specification as to any redirection for the funds, but rather was treated as a general offset. This action did not impact, at least not directly, the annual obligation cap on the CVF. Congress could decide to eliminate the cap on the Crime Victims Fund altogether. If Congress should decide to eliminate the cap and allow all collected funds to be distributed in a given fiscal year, it could possibly have significant consequences for the DOJ budget. As mentioned, the capped amount and remaining balance in the CVF are considered part of the DOJ budget total. These amounts impact the DOJ appropriation, are used to offset spending limits for DOJ programs, and are included in the overall budget score for DOJ. If Congress were to eliminate the cap, it would have to make up the amount of the CVF through offsets. Moreover, Congress may consider whether VOCA programs would be able to use all money in the fund if the obligation cap were eliminated. While VOCA may be amended in many possible ways, this report presents two options that Congress may choose to consider. Congress may decide to reassess the allocation formula of the CVF (see Figure 1 ) or consider the addition of new programs to be supported through the CVF. VOCA Assistance Administrators have voiced concern that fluctuations in annual obligations can directly impact fund availability for victim assistance formula grants and, to a lesser extent, discretionary grants. The addition of new programs, increases in funding to other programs funded by the CVF, and new management and administration costs cause a reduction in funding available for victim assistance formula grants and discretionary grants. Congress may choose to review the allocation formula to determine if changes should be made to reduce the impact of fluctuations in obligated funds on these grants. Since 1984, VOCA has been amended several times to support additional victim-related activities and accommodate the needs of specific groups of victims, such as child abuse victims and victims of terrorist acts. Congress may choose to continue amending VOCA to further accommodate the needs of additional special populations, such as victims of elder abuse and rural victims. While support for victims of elder abuse is an allowable use of the Fund, as the "baby boom" generation ages, it is possible that elder abuse will grow as a social concern. Similarly, victims in rural areas are supported through VOCA programs, but they face unique barriers to assistance such as lack of qualified service professionals and higher costs and availability of transportation to obtain services. Other populations with unique risks and needs may present themselves, and Congress may choose to use VOCA as one potential vehicle to address those risks and needs. Currently, the VOCA formula does not incorporate American Indian tribal governments for its two largest programs; the victim assistance and victim compensation formula grant programs. While tribal governments are eligible to receive assistance and compensation funds from their respective state victim programs (e.g., in the form of sub-grants), some have argued that there should be a dedicated amount from the Crime Victims Fund directed to American Indian tribes each year. In the 114 th Congress, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs marked up the Securing Urgent Resources Vital to Indian Victim Empowerment Act (SURVIVE Act; S. 1704 ), which would have amended VOCA to create a special allotment (5% of the annual obligation capped amount) for tribes. These funds would have been used to create a new grant program for tribal crime victims services and compensation to be administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Administration's FY2018 budget request proposes to set aside 5% of the FY2018 obligation cap for grants and assistance to American Indian tribes "to improve services and justice for victims of crime." Federal spending can be divided into the budget categories of discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and net interest. In certain circumstances, reductions in mandatory spending can generate offsets that allow higher levels of discretionary spending than would otherwise be permitted under congressional budget rules or under statutory caps on discretionary spending. Changes in mandatory spending (CHIMPs) are provisions in appropriations acts that reduce or constrain mandatory spending, and they can provide offsets to discretionary spending. The obligation limitation on the CVF has been the CHIMP item that has generated the largest offset of discretionary spending in recent years. In the 115 th Congress, the Fairness for Crime Victims Act of 2017 ( H.R. 275 ) has been introduced, and if enacted would adjust the way CHIMPs affect the CVF and how it is used as an offset of discretionary spending. Also, the bill is intended to ensure that the CVF annual obligation cap is never less than the average amount of deposits into the CVF of the previous three fiscal years. As mentioned, the FY2017 obligation cap was calculated based on a three-year average of collections into the CVF.

Summary: In 1984, the Crime Victims Fund (CVF, or the Fund) was established by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA, P.L. 98-473) to provide funding for state victim compensation and assistance programs. Since 1984, VOCA has been amended several times to support additional victim-related activities. These amendments established within the CVF (1) discretionary grants for private organizations, (2) the Federal Victim Notification System, (3) funding for victim assistance staff within the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, (4) funding for the Children's Justice Act Program, and (5) assistance and compensation for victims of terrorism. In 1988, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was formally established within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer the CVF. As authorized by VOCA, the OVC awards CVF money through grants to states, local units of government, individuals, and other entities. The OVC also distributes CVF money to specially designated programs, such as the Children's Justice Act Program and the Federal Victim Notification System. Deposits to the CVF come from criminal fines, forfeited appearance bonds, penalties and special assessments collected by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, federal courts, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Since 2002, Congress has allowed gifts, bequests, and donations from private entities to be deposited into the CVF. Of note, the largest source of deposits into the CVF is criminal fines. At the end of FY2016, the CVF had a balance of more than $9 billion. When the CVF was created in 1984, Congress placed a cap on how much money could be deposited into the CVF each year. Congress eliminated the cap for deposits in 1993. From FY1985 to FY1998, deposits collected in each fiscal year were distributed in the following fiscal year to support crime victim services. In FY2000, Congress established an annual obligation cap on CVF funds available for distribution to reduce the impact of fluctuating deposits and to ensure the stability of funds for crime victims programs and activities. Since 2000, Congress has established the annual obligation cap in appropriations law. In FY2015, Congress set the CVF obligation cap at $2.361 billion, a 216.9% increase over the FY2014 cap. In FY2016, Congress set the cap at $3.042 billion, a further increase to previous caps; however, $379 million was transferred to the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW; for purposes outside of VOCA) and $10 million was designated for the DOJ Office of the Inspector General for oversight and auditing purposes. In FY2017, however, Congress set the cap at $2.573 billion, a 15.4% decrease compared to the FY2016 cap. From this amount, $326 million was transferred to OVW (again for purposes outside of VOCA) and $10 million was designated for the DOJ Office of the Inspector General for oversight and auditing purposes. Over the past few years, Congress has taken a number of unprecedented actions involving the CVF. In the 114th Congress, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) included a provision (§702) that required the rescission and permanent cancellation of $1.5 billion from the balance of the Crime Victims Fund. In addition, in FY2017 Congress calculated the obligation cap based on a three-year average of collections into the CVF. In considering the CVF allocation and future caps, there are several issues on which policymakers may deliberate. Congress may consider whether to adjust the manner in which the CVF is allocated, amend VOCA to accommodate additional victim activities or groups, further adjust the cap and allow use of the CVF for grant programs other than those explicitly authorized by VOCA (as they did for FY2016 and FY2017), or make other adjustments to the CVF cap—such as eliminate the cap altogether.