Editorial: Victims’ fund needs evaluation

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 | 7:15 a.m.

For 25 years Nevada has been partially compensating victims of crime for medical bills, loss of work and any counseling needed as a result of their physical injuries and psychological shock. Victims are grateful for the help, but the difference between their costs and the amount of compensation can be numbing.

A story in Tuesday's Las Vegas Sun by reporter Abigail Goldman recounted the story of a 50-year-old man who was intentionally run down in his neighborhood by a speeding driver. He has received $16,860 in state compensation, but his hospital bills tally up to about $450,000.

Altogether, nearly 1,800 victims received compensation last year from a budget of about $6.5 million.

Even with victims receiving little money in proportion to their actual costs, managers of the compensation program often find themselves approving awards, as much as a million dollars worth, with the money to pay for them not yet in hand. "The claims come in, the bills come in, the money trickles in from various sources. It is always kind of a catch-up situation," Bryan Nix, the program's coordinator, told Goldman.

With funding tight, awards for any one individual are capped at $35,000, and compensation for lost wages is capped at $300 a week. Funeral expenses are limited to $3,500, and counseling is cut off after the bill tops $5,500. A compensation officer said a vicious circle awaits some crime victims - they lose their jobs, then their apartments and then end up on the streets.

Clearly, the budget for this program needs to be increased, and in a way that does not affect general taxpayers. The state is raising about $5 million a year from prison industries and fees on people caught up in the court system. And last year it received $1.6 million from the federal government, all from fees and forfeitures raised from federal offenders.

The 2007 Legislature should hold a hearing on this program and evaluate all of its budgetary sources. It strikes us that a program begun in 1981 might not be entirely up to date in justifying revenues with costs. Perhaps fees should be increased proportionate to the increase in hospital bills over the years. It is not right that victims of crimes should find themselves victimized all over again by bills.