S-1870-115
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 368.
Sponsored by John Hoeven (R-ND)
What it does
The SURVIVE Act would amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to require the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime to issue grants directly to federally recognized Indian tribes. These grants would fund services for crime victims including domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, child abuse programs, child advocacy centers, elder abuse programs, medical care, legal services, relocation assistance, and transitional housing. The bill would also set aside 5% of the Crime Victims Fund specifically for these tribal grants.
Who benefits
Native American and Alaska Native crime victims living on or near tribal lands who would gain access to domestic violence shelters, rape crisis services, child advocacy, elder abuse programs, medical care, legal services, and transitional housing. Tribal governments and tribal service organizations would receive direct federal grant funding to build and sustain these programs. Children, women, and elders in tribal communities — groups with statistically elevated rates of victimization — would be the primary direct recipients of services.
Who is hurt
State and local victim service organizations that currently receive Crime Victims Fund grants could see their share of available funding reduced, since 5% of the fund would be redirected to tribal grants. Non-tribal victim service providers in states with large tribal populations may face increased competition for a smaller pool of remaining funds. Taxpayers who oppose dedicated set-asides from existing funds may object to the reallocation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Native American communities face some of the highest rates of violent crime, sexual assault, and domestic violence of any population in the United States, yet tribal governments have historically been excluded from or underserved by federal victim assistance programs designed primarily for state and local agencies. Because tribes are sovereign nations with a unique government-to-government relationship with the United States, direct grant authority — rather than routing funds through states — is the appropriate and legally consistent mechanism for delivering services. The 5% set-aside, supporters contend, is a modest and targeted allocation that reflects the federal government's trust responsibility to tribal nations and would allow tribes to build culturally appropriate, community-based services that outside providers cannot replicate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting 5% of the Crime Victims Fund to a single population category creates a structural funding disadvantage for the broader network of state and local victim service organizations, many of which already operate under tight budgets and serve overlapping or equally underserved communities. Critics may contend that existing grant programs, if properly administered, could serve tribal victims without a mandatory set-aside that reduces flexibility across the fund. Some may also question whether a percentage-based carve-out is the most efficient mechanism, arguing that a separate appropriation would better serve tribal needs without reducing resources available to non-tribal crime victims who are also in urgent need of services.