This bill would amend the funding framework that supports the states to adopt certain rights for sexual assault survivors, tying a portion of federal grants to whether a state has enacted survivor protections at or above the standards in 18 U.S.C. 3772. It creates a three-tier funding scheme and requires the Attorney General to allocate dollars accordingly, with a prohibition on double-dipping across tiers.
The bill also makes two substantive changes to evidence-kit handling: it extends retention to not less than 20 years and simplifies the process by removing the requirement for a written disposal-notification request. Taken together, the provisions aim to align state policy with survivor protections while embedding longer evidence retention into practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends NDAA 2023 Sec. 5903(a) to create a 60/25/15 funding tier split based on whether a state has laws or policies protecting survivor rights at or above the level of 18 U.S.C. 3772, or substantially similar protections. It also adds a new allocation mechanism and prevents receipt of funds from more than one tier.
Who It Affects
States eligible for grants and their attorney general offices, state and local law enforcement, prosecutors, and survivor-services programs; survivors in states that enact the required protections.
Why It Matters
It creates a federal incentive structure to harmonize survivor rights across states and embeds long-term evidence retention into practice, potentially improving case outcomes and survivor trust in the system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1931 would rewrite how the federal government distributes certain grants to states for sexual assault survivors’ rights. States would be evaluated on whether they have enacted protections that meet or closely resemble the rights in 18 U.S.C. 3772.
Those protections determine which funding tier a state falls into, and funding would be allocated accordingly (60% to Tier 1, 25% to Tier 2, 15% to Tier 3). Importantly, a state can only receive funds from a single tier, preventing stacking across tiers.
Separately, the bill strengthens the long-term handling of sexual assault evidence. Section 3772(a)(2)(A) would require retention of evidentiary kits or related materials for not less than 20 years.
The disposal-notification process is also adjusted by removing the explicit requirement for a written request before disposal or continuation of preservation, replacing it with a general “request” mechanism. These changes aim to reduce legal risk for survivors and ensure that critical evidence remains available for investigations and prosecutions.Overall, SB1931 uses federal funding levers to encourage states to adopt survivor-centered rights and aligns evidence-retention practices with a longer horizon for case development and accountability.
It does not alter existing rights independently but ties financial incentives and administrative processes to broader survivor-protection goals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a three-tier funding allocation for states based on survivor-rights protections linked to 18 U.S.C. 3772.
A state may not receive funds in more than one funding tier.
Evidence-kit retention is extended to not less than 20 years under 3772(a)(2)(A).
The disposal/ preservation notification process is simplified by requiring only a “request” (not a “written request”).
Funds are allocated through the NDAA 2023 framework with explicit tier-eligibility rules and a capped use of funds per state.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Tiered funding for state incentives
This section amends the NDAA 2023 to redefine the formula by which grant funds are allocated to states based on survivor-rights protections. The statute introduces a three-tier structure (60/25/15) corresponding to explicit, compatible, or substantially similar protections to 18 U.S.C. 3772. Importantly, a state cannot receive funding from more than one tier, preventing stacking of benefits. These changes operationalize a federal incentive for states to enact survivor-rights laws and related policies.
Preservation of evidence kits
The retention period for sexual assault evidence kits and related materials is amended to not be shorter than 20 years. This change increases the window for evidence availability, supporting investigations and potential prosecutions over a longer horizon. It also affects agencies responsible for evidence handling and storage, which may require adjustments to their archival practices and budgets.
Notification for disposal/preservation
The language requiring a written notification before disposal or continued preservation of evidence kits is replaced with a general “request” mechanism. This reduces procedural friction and clarifies that a formal written request is not a prerequisite to initiate actions related to notification, potentially speeding up preservation decisions and aligning with modern record-management practices.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- States that have enacted survivor-rights laws or policies and are eligible for higher funding tiers, enabling programmatic expansion and enforcement of rights.
- Sexual assault survivors in eligible states benefit from stronger statutory rights and improved access to justice, as well as longer availability of evidence for investigations.
- State law enforcement agencies and prosecutors gain resources and clearer authorities for implementing survivor-protective protections and pursuing prosecutions.
- Survivor-services organizations and advocacy groups in participating states benefit from a policy environment that supports survivor rights and potentially increased funding for services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government bears the incremental cost of increased funding under the NDAA 2023 framework.
- State governments face implementation costs to enact survivorship protections and to manage expanded retention requirements (storage, logistics, and auditability).
- Local law enforcement and court systems may incur higher administrative and storage costs associated with longer evidence-kit retention and compliance monitoring.
- Policy-alignment efforts within states may require staff training, system upgrades, and interagency coordination to meet the new tier criteria.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether tying federal funding to state survivor-rights protections will effectively harmonize protections across the country without overburdening states financially or creating inequities in how rights are implemented.
The bill’s design hinges on linking funding to survivor-rights adoption, which could drive rapid policy changes in some states while lagging in others. The longer evidence-kit retention period, while beneficial for potential prosecutions, raises storage costs and privacy considerations.
The “single tier” rule may incentivize states to choose between adopting stronger protections versus accepting a different tier, potentially creating uneven adoption across states. The simplification of disposal-notification processes reduces friction but may also affect survivors’ control over their own evidence and privacy in ambiguous ways.
The bill also assumes that alignment with Section 3772 leads to meaningful improvements in outcomes without detailing enforcement or oversight mechanisms at the state level.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.