Coalition Against Domestic Violence, appropriation, operations plan and audited financial statement required, quarterly and end-of-year reports required
Summary
HB184 appropriates $169,633 from Alabama’s State General Fund to the Coalition Against Domestic Violence for fiscal year 2026. The bill is a targeted grant/appropriation measure rather than a broad policy change, and it ties the release of funds to basic fiscal accountability requirements. Before money is released, the Coalition must submit an operations plan for fiscal year 2026 and an audited financial statement covering fiscal year 2024.
The bill also requires ongoing reporting after the appropriation is made. The Coalition must provide quarterly reports on planned expenditures and accomplishments, plus an end-of-year performance report describing work completed, services provided, costs, and measures of effectiveness. The Director of Finance must forward these reports to the Legislative Council, and the act becomes effective October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB184 amends state spending for fiscal year 2026 by creating a specific General Fund appropriation to a private nonprofit serving domestic violence victims. It does not create a new regulatory program or alter substantive domestic violence law, but it does impose conditions on the disbursement and oversight of state funds under the Budget Management Act and related budget statutes. The practical effect is to authorize state support for domestic violence services while increasing reporting and audit requirements for the recipient organization and the Department of Finance.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House of Origin and the Second House unanimously, with no recorded dissenting votes in the available history. The lack of committee transcript discussion and the unanimous votes suggest general agreement with funding domestic violence services and with the accountability conditions attached to the appropriation.
Contention
No notable substantive controversy is reflected in the available record. The only potential point of interest is the bill’s use of reporting and audit conditions before release of funds, which may reflect legislative concern about oversight and performance measurement for the recipient. However, there is no evidence in the voting history or transcripts of opposition to the appropriation amount, the recipient organization, or the reporting requirements.