Public Safety - Gun Violence Victim Relocation Program - Establishment
HB 605 would create a new Gun Violence Victim Relocation Program within the Victim Services Unit of the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy. The program is intended to help victims of gun violence relocate when they face safety risks because of the violence itself or because they live near the suspected perpetrator. Eligible participants would be accepted by the Victim Services Unit unless they are suspected of having perpetrated the violence, and their personal information would be kept confidential.
The bill directs the Unit to provide relocation assistance, including help with moving expenses, security deposits, rent, counseling, legal assistance, job training, and services for individuals with disabilities. It also requires coordination with law enforcement, housing authorities, and social services, along with public outreach to inform victims about the program. The bill further instructs the Unit to create an appeal process for denied applicants, adopt implementing regulations, establish an oversight commission, and report annually to the Governor and General Assembly beginning in 2028.
HB 605 would amend Maryland law by adding a new subtitle to the Public Safety Article and by incorporating the relocation program into the existing Victim Services Unit structure in the Criminal Procedure Article. It would also create a special, nonlapsing Gun Violence Victim Relocation Program Fund, funded by state appropriations, private donations, interest earnings, and other accepted money, and exempt that fund from the general interest-transfer rule in State Finance and Procurement law. The bill requires a $10 million appropriation for fiscal year 2028.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of victims and focused on public safety, confidentiality, and practical assistance for people displaced by gun violence. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s sponsor later withdrew it in the House, so it did not advance to enactment in the provided history.
Notable points of potential contention include the cost of the program, the proposed $10 million appropriation, and the administrative burden of creating a new relocation system, oversight commission, and reporting structure. Another possible issue is eligibility and verification, including the requirement that applicants show a need to relocate for safety and the exclusion of suspected perpetrators. Housing protections for renters and coordination with local agencies may also raise implementation questions.
The bill would add a new program to Maryland’s Public Safety Article and integrate it into the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy’s Victim Services Unit under the Criminal Procedure Article. It would create a dedicated special fund, exempt that fund from the normal interest accrual rule, and require a future state budget appropriation of $10 million for fiscal year 2028. The measure would affect victims of gun violence seeking relocation assistance, as well as state agencies responsible for victim services, housing coordination, and program oversight.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate a strongly pro-victim, public-safety-oriented approach, with emphasis on relocation, confidentiality, and wraparound support services. No committee testimony or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. The only clear procedural outcome is that the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor in the House, which suggests it did not reach final consideration.
The main likely points of contention are funding, administration, and eligibility. The bill would require a substantial appropriation and create a new special fund, which could prompt budget concerns. It also gives the Victim Services Unit broad responsibilities—screening applicants, protecting confidentiality, coordinating with multiple agencies, and establishing an oversight commission and appeal process—which may raise implementation and oversight questions. Eligibility standards, including proximity to violence or a suspected perpetrator and exclusion of suspected perpetrators themselves, could also be debated.