In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions.
Summary
HB2476 amends Pennsylvania’s Crime Victims Act by expanding the definition of “out-of-pocket loss” for purposes of victim compensation. The bill keeps the existing categories of reimbursable losses, such as unreimbursed medical and counseling expenses, assistive devices, crime-scene cleanup, and relocation costs, but revises the relocation provision to explicitly cover individuals and common household pets living in the victim’s household. It also adds a definition of “common household pet,” describing domesticated animals traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than commercial purposes.
Under the bill, relocation-related reimbursement would apply when there is an immediate need to protect the safety and health of the direct victim, household members, and household pets, as verified by a medical provider, human services provider, or law enforcement. The measure would take effect 60 days after enactment and would amend the definitions section of the Crime Victims Act rather than creating a new program or fund.
Impact
The bill would change state law by broadening the statutory definition of reimbursable victim losses under the Crime Victims Act, which affects how the Office of Victims’ Services administers compensation claims. In practice, it would allow eligible claimants to seek reimbursement for temporary or permanent relocation expenses not only for the direct victim but also for other household residents and common household pets, and it clarifies the scope of pet-related boarding expenses. The amendment could increase the number and size of claims paid from victim compensation resources and would guide agencies and claimants in interpreting eligible expenses.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a victim-support expansion with a narrow, practical focus on safety-related relocation and pet protection, suggesting a generally sympathetic policy purpose rather than a controversial overhaul. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials leaves the overall political reception unclear.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the fiscal and administrative impact of expanding reimbursable losses, since including additional household members and pets could increase compensation claims and require more detailed eligibility determinations by the Office of Victims’ Services. Another possible issue is the breadth of the new relocation language, particularly how agencies will verify an “immediate need” and determine which animals qualify as “common household pets.” No specific opposing arguments or named stakeholders were included in the provided context.