Crime Victim Compensation Program Initiative: Final Program Evaluation Report

Printer-friendly version →

Prepared for: California Victim Compensation Board

Institute for Social Research

September 2017

California State University, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6101
(916) 278-5737

Acknowledgements

As with any large scale, complex, and state-wide research effort, this study’s success is due to the combined efforts of many individuals. While it is impossible to adequately thank all of those who made data collection and interpretation possible, the ISR research team would like to particularly recognize the following CalVCB staff who were essential to the successful completion of the project:

Table of Contents

  1. Acknowledgements
  2. Table of Tables
  3. Table of Figures
  4. Executive Summary
    1. Part A. Underserved Groups
    2. Part B. Reducing Unmet Needs
    3. Part C. Six Years Later: Updating the 2010 Baseline Data Report
  5. Introduction: Evaluating the Implementation Plan
  6. Part A. Underserved Groups
    1. Design
    2. Grant Activities
    3. Objective 1: Increase awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translating key CalVCB materials into 13 languages
    4. Objective 2: Increase awareness, accessibility, and quality of service through outreach and training with internal and external stakeholders
    5. Objective 3: Increase accessibility and quality of service through innovative technology solutions
    6. Stakeholder Survey
    7. Introduction
    8. Methodology
    9. Findings—Quantitative
    10. Findings—Qualitative
    11. Impacts on Applications and Compensation for Underserved Groups
    12. Elderly
    13. Disabled
    14. Frontier/Rural Counties
    15. Human Trafficking
    16. Asian/Pacific Islander
    17. Native American
  7. Part B. Reducing Unmet Needs
    1. Introduction
    2. Sexual Assault
    3. Domestic Violence
    4. Minor Victims of Domestic Violence
    5. Minor Victims of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse (Statutory Rape)
    6. Child Pornography
    7. Funeral/Burial—Residential Security—Crime Scene Cleanup
    8. Child Abduction
    9. Mitigating factors: Age/Physical Condition/Psychological State
  8. Part C. Six Years Later: Updating the 2010 Baseline Data Report Findings with Data from Calendar Years 2011 to 2016
    1. Introduction
    2. 2016 Baseline Data Report Methodology
    3. Data sources
    4. Findings
    5. Claimant Characteristics
    6. Characteristics of Crimes
    7. Benefits
    8. Processing
  9. Summary
    1. Part A. Underserved Groups
    2. Part B. Reducing Unmet Needs
    3. Part C. Six Years Later: Updating the 2010 Baseline Data Report

Table of Tables

  1. Table A1. Part A Logic Model: Proposed underserved groups outcome evaluation
  2. Table A2. Output Measures Grid: measuring activities and determining activity impacts
  3. Table A3. CalVCB documents translated into thirteen languages
  4. Table A4. Additional CalVCB documents translated into Spanish only
  5. Table A5. Collaboration projects identified in CalVCB’s Collaboration Plan Charter
  6. Table A6. List of presentations at the Northern and Southern Regional Conferences
  7. Table A7. Events where CalVCB provided outreach training
  8. Table A8. Events where CalVCB provided other training
  9. Table A9. Events where CalVCB attended, sponsored, or exhibited
  10. Table A10. Number of organizations in partner database that serve underserved groups
  11. Table A11. Trauma-Informed workshops
  12. Table A12. List of materials included in the toolkit distributed to partner organizations
  13. Table A13. Stakeholder groups: types and number of contacts
  14. Table A14. Pilot survey telephone call dispositions
  15. Table A15. Final data set responses by stakeholder group (all survey methods)
  16. Table A16. Observed and expected proportions of stakeholders (email contacts only)
  17. Table A17. Frequency of responses by region
  18. Table A18. Stakeholder group by region
  19. Table A19. Number of years respondent has worked in the field
  20. Table A20. Respondent and organization service characteristics
  21. Table A21. Number of underserved populations served by respondents
  22. Table A22. Number of respondents who serve underserved populations with additional language needs
  23. Table A23. Respondent knowledge of program and grant-related outreach efforts
  24. Table A24. Event attendance and impact
  25. Table A25. Training attendance and impact
  26. Table A26. Toolkit findings
  27. Table A27. Number and percent of stakeholder groups that received a toolkit
  28. Table A28. Scales by stakeholder and region
  29. Table A29. Scales by the number of underserved groups that respondents served, and by the number of underserved groups that have additional language needs
  30. Table A30. Number and proportion of elderly applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  31. Table A31. Number and proportion of elderly applicants by eligibility status
  32. Table A32. Payments for elderly claimants per year bill was received
  33. Table A33. Number and proportion of disabled applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  34. Table A34. Number and proportion of disabled claimants by age
  35. Table A35. Payments for disabled claimants per year bill was received
  36. Table A36. Number and proportion of applications from frontier, rural, and non-frontier or rural counties
  37. Table A37. Number and proportion of frontier county applications by eligibility status
  38. Table A38. Number and proportion of rural county applications by eligibility status
  39. Table A39. Payments for frontier and rural counties per year bill was received
  40. Table A40. Number and proportion of human trafficking victim applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  41. Table A41. Number and proportion of human trafficking victim applicants by eligibility status
  42. Table A42. Payments for victims of human trafficking per year bill was received
  43. Table A43. Number and proportion of API applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  44. Table A44. Number and proportion of API applicants by eligibility status
  45. Table A45. Payments for API claimants per year bill was received
  46. Table A46. Number and proportion of Native American applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  47. Table A47. Number and proportion of Native American applicants by eligibility status
  48. Table A48. Payments for Native American claimants per year bill was received
  49. Table B1. Percent of applications that were sexual assault-related
  50. Table B2. Number and percent of eligible applications for sexual assault
  51. Table B3. Payments for victims of sexual assault per year bill was received
  52. Table B4. Number and percent of domestic violence-related crimes
  53. Table B5. Number and percent of eligibility status for initial domestic violence application
  54. Table B6. Average bill payment for domestic violence (overall) and for domestic violence-related crimes per year bill was received
  55. Table B7. Average total compensation for domestic violence (overall) and for domestic violence-related crimes per year bill was received
  56. Table B8. Percent of applications that were from minor domestic violence victims
  57. Table B9. Eligibility determination for minor victims of domestic violence
  58. Table B10. Payments for minor victims of domestic violence per year bill was received
  59. Table B11. Number and percent of applications from minor victims of statutory rape
  60. Table B12. Eligibility determination for minor victims of statutory rape
  61. Table B13. Payments for minor victims of statutory rape per year bill was received
  62. Table B14. Number and percent of applications from direct victims of child pornography
  63. Table B15. Eligibility determination for minor victims of child pornography
  64. Table B16. Payments for minor victims of child pornography per year bill was received
  65. Table B17. Average bill payment for funeral/burial, residential security, and crime scene cleanup per year bill was received
  66. Table B18. Eligibility determination for child abduction victims
  67. Table B19. Eligible applications, by age
  68. Table B20. Number of cases denied, by age
  69. Table B21. Percent of denied applications
  70. Table C1. Eligible applications: Number and percent with compensation, without compensation, and the percent who submitted a bill within two years after the crime
  71. Table C2. Number and percent of eligible applications submitting a bill within six months, one year, and two years following the crime
  72. Table C3. Eligibility by year, for applications filed within one year of the crime
  73. Table C4. Average bill payment per application, direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  74. Table C5. Average total compensation for direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  75. Table C6. Total compensation paid by crime type, direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  76. Table C7. Percent of total compensation paid per crime type as a percent of all compensation, per year bill was received
  77. Table C8. Average total compensation by application by known insurance status per year bill was received
  78. Table C9. Average percent of eligible claimants getting compensation per crime type per year
  79. Table C10. Number and percent of applications by representation
  80. Table C11. Number and percent of applications by race/ethnicity
  81. Table C12. California resident ethnicity and direct and derivative claimant ethnicity
  82. Table C13. Number and percent of eligible, direct claimants grouped by age
  83. Table C14. Average total compensation per eligible application by age category
  84. Table C15. Number and percent of referral sources provided for years 2015 and 2016
  85. Table C16. Average total compensation by insurance status by crime per year bill was received
  86. Table C17. Average bill payment by benefit by known insurance status per year bill was received
  87. Table C18. Average number of days to file following a crime, by direct and derivative claimants
  88. Table C19. Average days for CalVCB to determine eligibility per application and average days to issue compensation per bill
  89. Table C20. Average days to file from date of crime, by representative type
  90. Table C21. Number and percent of direct victims by gender
  91. Table C22. Average days to determine eligibility by ethnicity
  92. Table C23. Percent of summed total dollars paid per year by category per year per year bill was received
  93. Table C24. Average bill payment by benefit category per year bill was received
  94. Table C25. Average bill payment by benefit category to direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  95. Table C26. Average number of days to determine eligibility, by crime
  96. Table C27. Direct claimants: Average total compensation per application per year bill was received
  97. Table C28. Derivative claimants: Average total compensation per application per year bill was received

Table of Figures

  1. Figure A1. Spanish language applications by month, 2016
  2. Figure A2. Applications by month, 2016, for languages other than English or Spanish
  3. Figure A3. California survey response regions
  4. Figure A4. Respondent position descriptions
  5. Figure A5. Number of respondents who provide services to each of 13 underserved groups
  6. Figure A6. Application languages used by respondents who helped victims apply for compensation
  7. Figure A7. Event opinions
  8. Figure A8. Training opinions
  9. Figure A9. Toolkit opinions

Executive Summary

The California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB) developed three objectives with corresponding strategies to improve awareness, access, and efficiency of compensation delivered to crime victims.1 In 2016, CalVCB contracted with the Institute for Social Research (ISR) to perform an outcome evaluation composed of the following three components: 2

Part A: Evaluate the Implementation Plan’s impacts on the identified underserved groups and stakeholders

Part B: Analyze changes in victim eligibility and compensation payment rates as a result of enacted legislation to reduce unmet needs

Part C: Update CalVCB’s 2010 Calendar Year Baseline Data Report3 using calendar years 2011 to 2016

Part A. Underserved Groups

During the initial phases of the grant activities, CalVCB’s research identified the following 13 underserved victim groups (USGs) in California: disabled, elderly, LGBTQ, homeless/unstable housing, victims of human trafficking (sex or labor), deaf and hard of hearing, immigrants, immigrants from indigenous areas in Mexico, Native American tribal communities, API, limited English proficiency populations, residents of rural or frontier counties, and communities impacted by gang violence. About 75 percent of victims who apply for services receive application assistance from system-based victim advocates.4 Accordingly, many of the Implementation Plan awareness activities focus on outreach to and training of victim service providers, first responders, law enforcement, emergency medical service providers and other stakeholders.5 CalVCB expected to see four key improvements upon implementation: three short-term and one long-term. Efforts concentrated on a wide range of activities to accomplish the three short-term objectives:

Objective 1: Increase awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translating key CalVCB materials into 13 languages

Objective 2: Increase awareness, accessibility, and quality of service through outreach and training with internal and external stakeholders

Objective 3: Increase accessibility and quality of service through innovative technology solutions

Accomplishing these three objectives would result in the overarching long‐term goal: within USGs, more victims of violent crime will apply for compensation for crime‐related costs beginning in calendar year 2016. Higher rates of applications from USGs will indicate CalVCB successfully reduced service gaps through accomplishing the three short‐term objectives.

Grant Activities

The majority of the grant activities undertaken by CalVCB will provide long-term and sustainable changes to the program. One of the most critical components of the grant activities is by necessity an ongoing effort, which will continue to require CalVCB’s attention and investment: outreach to stakeholders through large-scale events, like the two regional conferences held in 2015, or the co-sponsored conference for law enforcement held in 2016, as well as all of the stakeholder events wherein CalVCB provided outreach training, attended, or exhibited (nearly 50 events).

Stakeholder Survey

ISR’s stakeholder survey evaluated the effectiveness of CalVCB’s program improvements during the grant period. Findings of the survey report that nearly all of the respondents were aware of victim compensation and CalVCB, however, roughly half were aware of the recently implemented program improvements.

A majority of respondents who attended an outreach event or training were aware of program improvements such as the increase in benefit limits and translation of the application and publications.

Less than half of the respondents were aware that they or their organization received a toolkit (program publications). However, of those who were aware, 90 percent told a colleague about the toolkit, and 36 percent requested another toolkit. Four-fifths of those who were unaware of the toolkit provided their mailing address so that CalVCB can add them to their mailing list.

ISR created three scales to measure: program awareness, awareness of grant activities, and application use. Analysis of these scales suggest that CalVCB’s outreach and training efforts have been effective, particularly for advocates and other stakeholders, and that CalVCB should continue to make efforts to provide outreach to health providers.

ISR also examined bivariate correlations to determine if there is a correlation between how many USGs a respondent serves and average scores on the three scales. There is a moderate correlation between the number of USGs respondents serve and each of the three scales as presented in Table A29. This measure suggests that CalVCB’s outreach and training efforts have been effective in reaching the stakeholder groups most likely to serve the identified USGs.

Impacts on Applications and Compensation for Underserved Groups

ISR used CalVCB program application and payment data to measure the impact of grant activities on USGs.6 Of the thirteen USGs, the available program data somewhat limit analysis to the following six groups: elderly, disabled, frontier7 and rural8 counties, victims of human trafficking, API, and Native Americans. ISR compared relative proportions of these groups9 by each calendar year from 2011 to 2016. Positive changes indicate increasing awareness of application requirements and increases in Victim Witness (VW) staff responsiveness and quality of services.

Proportion of applicants

There was a statistically significant increase in the overall proportion of applicants in 2016 compared to 2011 for victims of human trafficking, elderly, and disabled applicants who were elderly. In contrast, there was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applicants in 2016 compared to 2011 for Native Americans, frontier counties, and rural counties.

Proportion of applicants denied

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applicants who were denied in 2016 compared to 2011 for the elderly, APIs, and rural counties.

Payments

Many of the groups displayed a U-shaped trend for average bill payments and average total compensation. Payments for 2011 and 2016 were often higher than the years between. These U-shaped trends may be driven at least in part by benefit caps implemented at the direction of CalVCB’s board, beginning in 2011, many of which lasted several years.

There was a statistically significant increase in the average bill payment for 2016 in comparison to some of the prior years, except 2011, for elderly, disabled, API, and Native American claimants. Additionally, there was a statistically significant increase in the average total compensation for disabled and API claimants for 2016 in comparison to some of the prior years, except 2011.

Part B. Reducing Unmet Needs

CalVCB’s Needs Assessment report10 indicated that after exhausting all means of compensation (through various forms of insurance coverage), many victims still had unmet needs.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta sponsored two pieces of legislation during legislative session 2015-2016: Assembly Bills (AB) 1140 and 2160, to increase accessibility to the program and meet unmet needs through increases in compensation limits for certain reimbursable costs. AB1140 was enacted into law on January 1, 2016, which increased the funeral/burial benefit limit from $5,000 to $7,500, and removed barriers to eligibility and accessing benefits for several types of crimes. AB2160 would have increased the limits for residential security, relocation, and crime-scene cleanup expenses; however, it did not pass. Through regulation changes, CalVCB increased the maximum benefit limit from $63,000 to $70,000, effective January 1, 2017.

ISR used CalVCB program application and payment data to measure the impact of grant activities on groups with unmet needs: higher compensation rates in certain types of benefits might indicate that some unmet needs have lessened. ISR identified compensation claims for the particular costs with the increased ceilings, and tested differences in average bill payments and for average total compensation.

Proportion of applicants

There were statistically significant differences in the proportion of applications between 2016 and 2011: there was a 1.6 percent increase in the proportion of applications for victims of domestic violence and a 0.5 percent decrease in the proportion of applications for victims of sexual assault.

Proportion of applicants denied

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applicants denied between 2016 and 2011 for all age groups age 70 or younger, minor victims of domestic violence, and victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.

There was a decrease in the proportion of applicants denied between 2016 and 2011 for minor victims of child pornography and child abduction, although there were insufficient cases to determine if the difference in proportion was statistically significant.

These findings suggest that the legislative changes from AB1140 have had an impact in removing barriers to eligibility and accessing benefits for several types of victims, crimes, and mitigating circumstances.

Payments

There was a statistically significant increase in the average bill payment for 2016 in comparison to 2015 for minor victims of child pornography, and victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, domestic violence-related assault, or sexual assault.

There was a statistically significant increase in the average total compensation for 2016 in comparison to 2015 for homicide survivors for domestic violence-related homicide, only. The average total compensation per claimants for domestic violence-related homicide in 2016 ($3,719) increased by 34 percent over 2015 ($2,783).

These findings may indicate that legislative changes from AB1140 have been effective in increasing compensation for several crime types. However, CalVCB should confirm this positive outcome with at least two more years of application and compensation data.

Payments for benefits

There was a statistically significant increase in the average bill payment for 2016 compared to all prior years for funeral/burial benefit payments. The average total compensation per claimants for funeral/burial benefit payments in 2016 increased by 17 percent in comparison to 2015.

This finding suggests that the regulatory changes to benefit limits have had an impact for funeral/burial benefit payments.

Part C. Six Years Later: Updating the 2010 Baseline Data Report Findings with Data from Calendar Years 2011 to 2016

As part of CalVCB’s program assessment performed under the OVC Grant, CalVCB developed a Baseline Data Report (BDR)11 that characterized application and compensation outcomes for claims submitted related to crimes that occurred in 2010.

Key Methodological Changes

Victims can file an application for compensation up to three years after a qualifying crime. CalVCB instituted grant-related programmatic changes that affect data from 2015 and 2016. Data-driven results from crimes occurring in 2016 will lag until after December 2019. Using three years of data for crime occurring in 2010, the 2010 BDR primarily reported median results for measures such as the number of days to process applications, compensation per benefit category, etc. It also presented three-year total compensation figures for crimes committed in 2010.

Because so many of CalVCB’s program improvements began in 2015 and 2016, ISR had to include data from 2016 applications (applications filed up to June 30, 2017). To overcome this unavoidable limitation, ISR turned to methodology that allows for comparisons that are not dependent on sample sizes, including:

Findings

There were several key findings from the comparison of data over the six years (2011-2016).

Applications by representative type

The proportion of applications by representative type has remained fairly consistent across the six-year period. Roughly four-fifths (79%) of applicants were represented by Joint Power(JP)/Victim Witness Center (VWC) staff, while nearly a fifth (18%) of applicants had no representation. Attorneys represented two percent of applicants, one percent of applicants had an ineligible representative, and less than one percent of applicants had a family member as a representative.

This finding suggests that the ongoing training provided by CalVCB for JP/VWC staff is a necessary component in providing application assistance to applicants.

Proportion of applicants

There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of Hispanic applicants between 2016 (56.0%) and 2011 (51.5%). This finding may suggest that CalVCB’s outreach efforts to make the stakeholders aware of the availability of the application and primary correspondence in Spanish had an impact on Hispanic applicants whose primary language was Spanish, although we cannot determine if this is true, as there is no record of the application language in the data files prior to 2016.

Time to process application

There was a decrease in the average time to determine eligibility per application for 2016 in comparison to 2011. These findings may indicate increasing quality of services provided by program staff and VWC staff, as well as better responsiveness and understanding of eligibility requirements.

Time to pay bill

There was a decrease in the average time to pay a bill for 2016 in comparison to 2011 for all applications, indicating increasing quality of service. The average time to pay a bill in 2016 (25.9 days) is 3.2 days shorter than 2011 (29.1 days). Overall, these findings show that CalVCB has greatly improved their processing time, both in terms of determining eligibility and in processing claims and making payments.

Compensation

Between 2011 and 2016, there were several statistically significant changes in the average bill payment13 for several benefits. There was an increase in the average bill payment for funeral/burial and medical benefits for all claimants, direct claimants, claimants with insurance, and claimants with no insurance. For all claimants, as well as claimants with insurance, there was an increase in the average bill payment for dental and income/support loss benefits; while direct claimants only had an increase in the average bill payment for dental benefits. For derivative claimants and claimants with insurance there was a small increase in the average bill payment for mental health benefits. In contrast, there was a decrease in the average bill payment for rehabilitation and relocation benefits for claimants in general, and specifically for direct claimants, claimants with insurance, and claimants with no insurance.

Additionally, between 2011 and 2016, there were statistically significant changes in the average total compensation14 for some crime types. There was an increase in the average total compensation for homicide survivors for direct claimants, derivative claimants, and claimants with no insurance. In contrast, there was a decrease in the average total compensation for victims of assault for direct claimants and claimants with no insurance. For derivative claimants, there was a decrease in average total compensation for victims of stalking.

Introduction: Evaluating the Implementation Plan

CalVCB sought and obtained funds from the 2013 Crime Victim Compensation Program Initiative, awarded by the US Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). CalVCB researched and identified service gaps with several grant‐funded studies (Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis Reports15), and analyzed existing CalVCB program data. CalVCB identified a varied rate in applications for compensation based on reported crime rates, particularly by victims of violent crimes who were potentially members of underserved groups. Additionally, CalVCB surveyed a sample of victims and advocates, who reported that some victims received insufficient compensation to cover some of their crime‐related costs. CalVCB developed and implemented an extensive plan to mitigate identified gaps and barriers, so that more victims of violent crimes would be aware of, apply for, and receive compensation for crime‐related costs. CalVCB also addressed unmet needs by introducing new legislation aimed at raising compensation limits for certain crime‐related costs.

CalVCB developed three objectives with corresponding strategies to improve awareness, access, and efficiency of compensation delivered to crime victims. 16 In 2016, CalVCB contracted with ISR to perform an outcome evaluation composed of the following three components: 17

Part A: Evaluate the Implementation Plan’s impacts on the identified USGs and stakeholders

Part B: Analyze changes in victim eligibility and compensation payment rates as a result of benefits enacted to reduce unmet needs

Part C: Update CalVCB’s 2010 Calendar Year Baseline Data Report18 using calendar years 2011 to 2016

Part A. Underserved Groups

CalVCB’s research identified the following 13 USGs: disabled, elderly, LGBTQ, homeless/unstable housing, human trafficking (sex or labor), Deaf and hard of hearing, immigrants, immigrants from indigenous areas in Mexico, Native American and tribal communities, API, limited English proficiency, rural/frontier counties, and communities impacted by gang violence.

About 75 percent of victims who apply for services receive application assistance from system-based victim advocates19. Accordingly, many of the Implementation Plan awareness activities focus on outreach to and training of victim service providers, first responders, law enforcement, emergency medical service providers and other stakeholders.20 CalVCB expected to see four key improvements upon implementation: three short-term and one long-term. Efforts concentrated on a wide range of activities to accomplish the three short-term objectives:

Objective 1: Increase awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translating key CalVCB materials into 13 languages

Objective 2: Increase awareness, accessibility, and quality of service through outreach and training with internal and external stakeholders

Objective 3: Increase accessibility and quality of service through innovative technology solutions

In the long-term, accomplishing these three objectives would result in the overarching long‐term goal: within USGs, more victims of violent crime will apply for compensation for crime‐related costs beginning in calendar year 2016. Higher rates of applications from underserved groups will indicate CalVCB successfully reduced service gaps through accomplishing the three short‐term objectives.

For Part A, ISR evaluated CalVCB’s implementation plan in a three‐step process:

This is a complex Implementation Plan with extensive and varied activities planned to achieve multi‐faceted short‐term objectives and long‐term outcomes. For this outcome evaluation, ISR developed a logic model, an important planning and evaluation tool often used to design program evaluations. Logic modeling provides a way to structure relationships between what will be invested in a program, what activities come from those investments, and what changes or outcomes are expected. They often follow a conventional structure, composed of the following elements: the situation or “problem” at hand, the resources available to address the situation, activities the program will perform (interventions), outputs (services delivered to participants due to the intervention activities), short‐term outcomes (impacts, changes, or improvements), and long‐term overarching goals.

Table A1 presents ISR’s logic model for CalVCB’s Implementation Plan. This model is more complicated than typically seen because the breadth and depth of the intended improvements are meant to impact thousands of service providers, potential applicants, and service agencies, as well as CalVCB staff. To create large‐scale impacts, CalVCB identified an extensive number of activities that would produce dozens of activity outputs to examine, evaluate, and analyze. Some activities produce more than one kind of impact, which complicates an outcome analysis to some degree. Evaluating a less complex Implementation Plan might be more linear in design (a known quantity of product precedes an improvement, the quantity is higher after improvement, the difference is presumably due to the improvement), but the complexity of CalVCB’s Implementation Plan is due to such a rich amount of information. CalVCB hopes that other state compensation programs benefit from CalVCB’s successful strategies and lessons learned

There is a limited amount of pre‐existing data to fully describe the pre‐implementation situation, and much of the intended impacts are difficult to measure (such as “increased quality”). Many activities create new materials for applicants or different ways to engage with stakeholders and by definition cannot be measured in any kind of pre to post‐method.

The largest set of activities falls under Objective 2’s multi‐pronged collaboration plan. Determining measureable outputs for such intangible activities that fall under outreach, collaboration, or facilitation is complex. Evaluation research has identified several processes that influence outreach and collaboration. For example, Mattessich, Murray‐Close, and Mooney (2001)21 proposed that factors related to previous interactions, membership characteristics, and communication play a strong role. Through the development of informal and formal relationships, use of communication channels, and distribution of outreach materials, collaborative groups can overcome challenges that makes cooperation seem unlikely (Carter, 2005, pg. 3‐5).22 Collaboration is not merely about exchanging information, but also developing a sense of awareness of other parties and what motivates them (Keiser, 1998). Evaluation professionals acknowledge the difficulty in measuring such efforts. Evaluative tools, such as the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory,23 can assist in assessing factors that influence the success of working relationships.

Table A1. Part A Logic Model: Proposed underserved groups outcome evaluation

Situation

Resources

Activities

Outputs*

Outcomes

Long term goals

CalVCB suspected that their compensation services are under‐utilized to an unknown extent.

CalVCB performed a needs assessment/gap analysis of their services, with a federal grant administered through the Office of Victims of Crime. CalVCB identified numerous gaps in and access to their compensation services to crime victims in CA

Increased compensation is necessary to adequately cover many costs incurred due to victimization. The needs assessment identified recurring unmet needs.

Many victims speak a language other than English. CalVCB identified 13 languages necessary to service CA crime victims.

CalVCB determined additional underserved victim groups: victims with limited English proficiency, disabled, elderly, LGBTQ, homeless, subject to gang violence, etc.

Continuing OVC grant funds

CalVCB staff

Contracted translation and eLearning services

ISR

CalVCB board members

External stakeholders

Victims' services agencies

Translate key documents

N translated documents, languages; peer reviewed, hits on website

Objective 1:

Increased awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translation of CalVCB materials

Increase the number of applications from violent crime victims, particularly victims in underserved groups

Increase the amount of compensation CalVCB pays to victims

Communicate translated documents availability

Communication efforts about translated documents

Train CalVCB staff on utilizing translated documents

Training materials, schedules, N participants

Develop two regional conferences

N guest speakers, participants, evaluation survey

Objective 2: Increase awareness,
accessibility, and quality of service delivery through training and outreach to advocates, service providers, law enforcement, and medical personnel

Participate in law enforcement conference

Conference materials, notifications sent

Create a multi‐pronged collaboration plan, to include outreach to and training of multiple stakeholder groups

Informational material “toolkits”

Outreach to state licensing boards

First responder outreach and technical training materials, schedules, etc.

Victim Services training and outreach materials, participation, etc.

Partner database: combine known lists (including SharePoint directory, CalOES grantees, conference/training attendees)

Facilitate collaboration between Joint Powers and Community Based Organization

Provide "trauma-informed" workshops for CalVCB staff

Create eLearning training modules for five stakeholder groups

Narratives developed; N modules created; N people trained

Objective 3:

Increase accessibility and quality of service delivery through innovative information technology solutions

Put application links on partner websites and apps

Placing web links and other electronic contact methods on partner websites and apps partners have developed

*Additional and more detailed descriptions of outputs are in Table A2, the “Output Measures Grid”

Design

ISR assessed the Implementation Plan’s short‐term outcomes with appropriate research‐oriented methods, including document review (also known as content analysis), quantitative measuring, and survey evaluation. Table A2 provides a more detailed way to see the relationships between activities and desired impacts, and categorizes the activities by measurement method. Note that some activities have multiple desired impacts and are listed under more than one impact column. For example, a stakeholder survey can ask questions that indicate awareness of the CalVCB program as well as the respondent’s opinion of the program’s service quality.

To illustrate the document review measurement category, one can examine and describe whether translated documents were competently reviewed for cultural relevancy and sensitivity to the targeted language groups. Conference and training material content was reviewed, as well as what types of content are included in informational packets sent to various stakeholders.

Quantitative assessment is a process that begins by identifying countable outputs, such as the number of outreach presentations CalVCB performed, or the number of clicks on a website link with a newly translated application form. Subsequent work with tallied outputs can consist of comparing and describing differences between groups, such as noting the number of times CalVCB provided outreach presentations to mental health providers compared to law enforcement groups.

Surveys: Program evaluation often includes surveys of program recipients, program staff, external stakeholders, etc. CalVCB conducted several surveys before and during the implementation period, and ISR proposed an additional set of surveys that assessed activity impacts.

CalVCB surveys:

ISR created and conducted a stakeholder survey including the following groups:

Table A2. Output Measures Grid: measuring activities and determining activity impacts
  Types of impacts for Objectives 1, 2, and 3
Awareness Accessibility Quality Responsiveness

Output Measurements

Document Review

Regional conference materials LE conference materials Various outreach materials
(pamphlets/PowerPoints/press releases) Toolkits
Conference agreements
Contracts with Constant Contact/eLearning/Translation services Internal project management docs
Partner database

Translated documents
New documents mentioned in various communications
New compensation rules mentioned in various communications

Peer‐reviewed translated documents CalVCB staff training on translated docs (schedules/materials/syllabi) Technical training (schedules/materials/syllabi)
IT meetings for database requirements Trauma‐informed workshops (schedules/materials/syllabi)

Internal translation training held

Quantitative

N email blasts N toolkits sent initially
N toolkits requested/sent
N regional conference speakers
N regional conference attendees
N other meetings (one‐time only, regularly scheduled, internal, external, licensing boards, victim services providers, mental health and medical providers, etc.)
N outreach presentations N conference booths
Percent of projected tasks finished

N translated languages N translated docs
N web‐links on partner/stakeholder websites
N apps with web‐link
N times translated docs have web hits
N translated apps filed May evaluate webpage
accessibility for visually impaired (ADA‐type issues)

N peer reviewed (by language) N internal translation trainings scheduled/held
N participants for internal translated doc trainings
N eLearning modules created
N Webinars held (which partner types)

N toolkits sent after requested
N time to send

Surveys

Existing:
Regional conference evaluations

New:
Partner survey (to include all partner groups mentioned in SOW)

Existing:
Regional conference evaluations

New:
External stakeholder webinar/training evaluations
Internal staff surveys to evaluate internal trainings/workshops (using translated materials, learning trauma‐informed interactions)

New:
Partner survey Internal staff surveys to evaluate trainings/workshops (using translated materials, learning trauma‐informed interactions)

Grant Activities

CalVCB identified three objectives with corresponding strategies to improve awareness, access, and efficiency of compensation delivered to crime victims in the Implementation Plan.

Objective 1: Increase awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translating key CalVCB materials into 13 languages

Translate the application, program documents, and outreach materials

One of the major objectives identified by CalVCB to help reach their USGs was to Increase awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translation of CalVCB materials24 As CalVCB identified in their Implementation Plan, over a quarter of California residents are foreign-born, and more than a third (43%) speak a language other than English at home. CalVCB planned to translate the program application, principal brochure, and frequently utilized correspondence into 13 languages widely used in California (Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Farsi, Hmong, Korean, Lao, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese). To accomplish this, CalVCB used two vendors: Accent on Languages, which translated the documents and Lan Do & Associates, LLC, which provided peer review services. CalVCB also used volunteers from their Victim Witness Assistance Centers (VWAC) to review the material. CalVCB announced the availability of these materials in a press release on their website on February 2, 2016.25 CalVCB continued to translate additional documents and materials into Spanish and the 12 other widely used languages in the first half of 2016. Table A3 displays the items CalVCB translated into the 13 widely used languages, and Table A4 displays the additional documents and materials CalVCB translated into Spanish only.

Table A3. CalVCB documents translated into thirteen languages
Translated CalVCB documents 13 widely used languages
CalVCB Application X
CalVCB Brochure "Crime Hurts Everyone WE CAN HELP" X
Completed Application Acknowledgement Letter X
Incomplete Application Letter X
Incomplete Application Reply Form X
Eligibility Allow Letter X
Eligibility Deny Letter X
CalVCB Fact Sheet 2015 X
Benefit Determination Deny Letter Modules X
Appeal Reply Form X
Deny Expense Letter X
No Application Signature Letter X
Allow Expenses Letter X
Income Loss Verification Letter X
Late Filing Consideration Form X
Relocation Packet Instructions X
Relocation Expense Verification Form X
Relocation Rental Agreement Verification X
Income Loss Verification Modules X
Partial Allow Letter X
Final Deny Letter X
Table A4. Additional CalVCB documents translated into Spanish only
Translated CalVCB documents Spanish only
Eligibility Determination Deny Modules X
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Letter X
First Responder Card X
Restitution Offenders Guide X
Victim Representative Fact Sheet X
Representative Confirmation Letter X
Acknowledgement Letter-FAQ X
Interior Car Cards for mass transit X
Poster X
Taillight Bus Display X
Application Recertification Letter X
Application Recertification Reply Form X

Figure A1 displays the number of Spanish language applications filed in 2016. Over the course of the year (2016) there is a small, but gradual increase in the number of Spanish language applications overall (as indicated by the trend line).

In the months immediately following the press release (February and March), there is a sizeable spike in the number of Spanish language applications, from 474 in January to 642 in February (35 percent increase), and up to 878 in March (an 85.2 percent increase). The numbers of Spanish applications level out in the subsequent months, but never decrease down to the level prior to the press release (January 2016). CalVCB trained their staff on how to access and use the newly translated documents in August of 2016. Additionally, CalVCB provided guidance to their staff regarding the translation of other documents, as needed, for specific claimants.26

Figure A1. Spanish language applications by month, 2016

Figure A2 displays the number of applications by month for all languages besides English and Spanish. There is a noticeable spike in the number of applications in the months immediately following the press release (March and April) and again, in September, after CalVCB trained their staff on how to access and use the forms.

Figure A2. Applications by month, 2016, for languages other than English or Spanish

Objective 2: Increase awareness, accessibility, and quality of service through outreach and training with internal and external stakeholders

Develop and implement a Collaboration Plan

CalVCB created a Collaboration Plan Charter to lay out each of the components of the collaboration projects, and assigned project teams and deliverables.27 The Collaboration Plan Charter identified these nine objectives:

  1. Renew efforts to leverage partnerships and conduct cross messaging
  2. Strengthen relationships with a multitude of community-based organizations (CBOs), agencies, and service providers
  3. Increase awareness with health clinics, faith-based organizations, and job centers that work closely with underserved communities
  4. Enhance relationships with traditional partners; Board of Behavioral Sciences, Board of Psychology, and Medical Board
  5. Strengthen existing relationships with key stakeholders such as Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking and Inter-Tribal Council of California
  6. Develop new partnerships to leverage resources in conducting outreach to underserved communities such as service providers, law enforcement, and medical personnel
  7. Solidify our partnerships with the Office of Emergency Services, Covered California (California’s Affordable Care Act implementer) and Family Justice Centers across California
  8. Create a plan for CBO collaboration and partnership efforts
  9. Create and disseminate education tools to increase understanding of the compensation program for service providers, law enforcement, and medical personnel

The Collaboration Plan Charter identified 11 collaboration projects to meet the nine objectives listed above. The collaboration projects identified below include the strategies listed under Objective 1 and Objective 3. CalVCB has completed all but two of the collaboration projects.

Table A5. Collaboration projects identified in CalVCB’s Collaboration Plan Charter
Collaboration Projects28 Objective Completed
Translate the application, program documents, and outreach materials. 3, 8
Conduct two Regional Conferences. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Plan and implement a co-sponsored conference regarding the underserved with law enforcement as primary audience 6, 9
Conduct outreach presentations to the Board of Behavioral Sciences, Board of Psychology, and Medical Board. 4
Maintain and strengthen relations with advocates (VW and CBOs) and providers (technical training). 1, 2, 8, 9
Increase connections and collaboration opportunities with victim services. 1, 5, 6, 7
Create partner database. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8
Create a plan for JPs to collaborate with CBOs 9
Provide Trauma-Informed Services Workshops for staff. 1,2,6,7,8
Develop and distribute eLearning courses for advocates, medical providers, and mental health providers. 1, 3, 6, 9
Update and distribute publication materials (toolkits). 3, 6, 9
✓ completed ✧ partially completed
Regional conferences

CalVCB planned and conducted two regional conferences (northern and southern) for advocates, service providers, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and medical personnel. The title of the two conferences was “Strategic Collaborations for Reaching the Underserved Victims of Crime.” CalVCB held the Northern Regional Conference on September 23, 2015, at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) Conference Center, and CalVCB held the Southern Regional Conference on October 8, 2015, at the University of California, Los Angeles Covell Commons. Table A6 lists the presentations and speakers for both of the conferences.

Table A6. List of presentations at the Northern and Southern Regional Conferences

Northern Regional Conference
Presentation Speaker(s)
Welcome & Opening Remarks

Julie Nauman, Executive Officer, VCGCB

Jeff Reisig, District Attorney, Yolo County

Leilani Kupo, Director, UC Davis Women’s Resources and Research Center

Plenary Session: Findings on Underserved Victim Populations in California Mindy Fox, Deputy Executive Officer, CalVCB
Innovative Strategies for Reaching Marginalized Victim Populations Suguet Lopez, Executive Director, Lideres Campesinas-Organizacion en California, Migrant Worker Population
Breakout Session I: Making the Criminal Justice System Accessible to Underserved Victims

Moderator: Chief Matthew Carmichael, UC Davis Police Department

Panelists:

Joyce Moser, Victim Advocate, Humboldt County Victim Witness Center, Tribal Communities and Isolated Regions

John Torres, Deputy Director, Youth Alive!, Gang Violence

Elisabet Medina, Human Trafficking Specialist, Opening Doors, Human Trafficking

Shari Roeseler, Executive Director, Society for the Blind, People with Disabilities

Breakout Session II: Reaching Underserved Victims

Moderator: Laura Valdes, Victim Services Program Director, Yolo County District Attorney’s Office

Panelists:

Lidia Salazar, Programs Co-Director, Community United Against Violence, San Francisco, LGBTQ

Maichew Chao, Lao Family Community Development, Refugees and Immigrants

Suzanne Schultz, Family Crimes Coordinator, San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, Elder Abuse

Chris Stambaugh, Executive Director, The Grace Network, Homeless Youth

Luncheon Speaker: We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For Elaine Whitefeather, Executive Director, A Community for Peace
Building Collaboration and Partnerships with Providers of Victim Services

Moderator: Leilani Kupo, Director, UC Davis Women’s Resource and Research Center

Panelists:

Debbie Davis, R.N., Executive Director, Children’s Nurturing Project, Solano County Trauma Recovery Center

Beth Hassett, Executive Director, WEAVE, Sacramento

Celina Alvarez, Director of Crisis Support Services and Community Education, Empower Yolo

Nilda Valmores, Executive Director, My Sister’s House

Breaking Down Barriers to Accessing CalVCB Benefits

Moderator: Sylvia Nieto, Director, Victim Witness Assistance Program, Santa Cruz County

Panelists:

-Marlene Dederick, Manager, California Victim Compensation Program

-Kasey Halcon, Program Director, Victim Witness Assistance Program, Santa Clara County

-Monica O’Neal, Civil Attorney, Victim Witness Coordinator, Butte County District Attorney

Keynote Address Elizabeth Smart, Abduction Survivor an Founder of the Elizabeth Smart Foundation
Closing Remarks Julie Nauman, Executive Officer, VCGCB
Southern Regional Conference
Presentation Speaker(s)
Welcome & Opening Remarks

Julie Nauman, Executive Officer, VCGCB

Mike Ramos, District Attorney, San Bernardino County

Lydia Bodin, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Plenary Session: Findings on Underserved Victim Populations in California Mindy Fox, Deputy Executive Officer, CalVCB
Innovative Strategies for Reaching Marginalized Victim Populations Suguet Lopez, Executive Director, Lideres Campesinas-Organizacion en California, Migrant Worker Population
Breakout Session I: Making the Criminal Justice System Accessible to Underserved Victims

Moderator: Donna Wills, Project Director, Victim Witness Office, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Panelists:

Megan Riker-Rheinschild, Victim Advocate, Santa Barbara County Victim Witness Center, Oaxacan, Migrant Populations

Ronnetta Johnson, Director, Victim Assistance Programs & Dispute Resolution Service Programs, Orange County, Gang Violence

Kay Buck, Executive Director, Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), Human Trafficking

Peggie Reyna, Project Director, Deaf, Disabled and Elder Services, People with Disabilities

Breakout Session II: Reaching Underserved Victims

Moderator: Suzanne Schultz, Family Crimes Coordinator, San Joaquin County DA Office

Panelists:

Mieko Failey, Staff Counsel, LA LGBT Center, LGBTQ

Poorva Gaur, Outreach Specialist, SAHARA, South Asian Women, Refugees

Paul Greenwood, Deputy District Attorney and Chief of Elder Abuse Prosecutions, San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, Elder Abuse

Amy Turk, Chief Program Officer, Downtown Women’s Shelter, Homeless

Luncheon Speaker: Compassion Fatigue

Christine Ward, Executive Director, I-CAN Crime Victims Assistance Network and Crime Victims Action Alliance

Jessica Heskin, Victim Advocate, Violence and Sexual Assault Services Program, California State University, Sacramento

Building Collaboration and Partnerships with Providers of Victim Services

Moderator: Patricia Wenskunas, Founder & CEO, Crime Survivors, Inc.

Panelists:

Jennifer Young, MSW, LCSW, Program Director, Special Service for Groups, Trauma Recovery Center

Sherisa Dahlgren, VP, Clinical Operations, Joyful Heart Foundation

Maricela Rios-Faust, MSW, LCSW, Associate Executive Director/Chief Operations Officer, Human Options

Breaking Down Barriers to Accessing CalVCB Benefits

Moderator: Ronnetta Johnson, Interim Executive Director, Director, Victim Assistance Programs & Dispute Resolution Services, Community Service Programs, Orange County

Panelist:

Linda Finnerty, Program Coordinator, Victim Services Unit, Kern County District Attorney’s Office

Connie Arambula, Victim-Witness Assistance Program, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Marlene Dederick, Manager, County Liaison and Support Sections, CalVCB

Keynote Address (Southern Conference) Azim Khamisa, Author and Founder, Tariq Khamisa Foundation
Closing Remarks Julie Nauman, Executive Officer, VCGCB

There were 254 attendees at the Northern Regional Conference, and 162 attendees at the Southern Regional Conference. CalVCB asked conference attendees to complete an evaluation at the end of the conference; for the Northern Regional Conference, 73 of the 254 attendees completed the evaluation. Evaluations from the Northern Regional Conference showed the following:

For the Southern Regional Conference, 35 of the 162 attendees completed the evaluation. The Southern Regional Conference responses were very similar to the evaluations from the Northern Regional Conference:

Co-sponsored conference for Law Enforcement

CalVCB co-sponsored a two-day training conference with UC Davis on April 11-12, 2016, titled “Leave No Victim Behind.” The goal of the conference was to help law enforcement LE to better understand the communities they serve and help them reach underserved victims. CalVCB presented “Serving underserved victims and compensation.”

Outreach presentations to Board of Behavioral Sciences, Board of Psychology, and Medical Board

CalVCB attended a committee meeting at the Board of Behavioral Sciences with the intent of sharing program updates and networking for future collaborative opportunities; however, CalVCB was never put in contact with the appropriate person to establish those activities.  CalVCB also reached out to the Board of Psychology, with the similar disappointment of not having the right contacts to move forward with collaborative efforts.

Maintain and strengthen relations with advocates (VW and CBO) and providers (technical training)

CalVCB provided monthly webinars for advocates with program updates. CalVCB provided technical training (CalVCB 101 for Advocates) to 1,080 advocates between February 2015 and January 2017 (783 unduplicated advocates).

Appendix A Table 1 displays the number of unduplicated advocates who participated in the CalVCB 101 for Advocates webinar, by county. CalVCB provided training to advocates in every county except for five: Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra, and Siskiyou. Modoc, Mono, Plumas, and Sierra are all frontier counties,29 and Siskiyou is a rural county.30 Frontier and rural counties were one of the identified USGs. CalVCB successfully provided training to advocates from the five other frontier counties31 and the thirteen other rural counties,32 making progress in providing technical training to advocates in frontier and rural counties. Although many of the advocates serve all crime victims, some indicated specialties targeting USGs, including elderly, victims of human trafficking, LGBTQ, limited English proficiency, communities impacted by gangs, and Immigrants.

CalVCB provided technical training to mental health providers through monthly webinars,33 and posted information about these webinars on CalVCB’s website. From January 23, 2015 through August 25, 2017 1,015 mental health providers received training through these webinars. Topics included the following:

CalVCB created a welcome email for new providers, which CalVCB distributes to all new providers receiving payment from CalVCB on behalf of crime victims. The welcome email contains an information tree with embedded links to sections of the CalVCB website pertinent to providers, including the following:

Additionally, the email explains the basics about submitting bills to CalVCB, provides information regarding CalVCB and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and contact information for further questions.

Increase connections and collaboration opportunities with victim services

CalVCB added their logo with a hyperlink to many partner’s websites. CalVCB added their contact information (Customer Service Section number and all Victim Witness numbers) to 211, Grace Network, and 1800victims.org. CalVCB established regular and ongoing meetings with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), the California Crime Victims’ Association (CCVAA), the Inter-Tribal Council of California, and the Domestic Violence Prevention Collaboration (DVPC). CalVCB staff partnered with stakeholders to provide outreach training (Table A7), other training (Table A8), or to attend and to exhibit (Table A9), at stakeholder events and conferences. Many of these stakeholder events and conferences were for all crime victims. However, some of these stakeholder events and conferences focused on targeted underserved groups, specifically: elderly, deaf and hard of hearing, API, human trafficking, Native American/Tribal communities, and immigrants.

Table A7. Events where CalVCB provided outreach training
Event Date
CalVCB Outreach Training at the San Francisco District United Citizenship and Immigration Services' Human Trafficking Engagement Conference in San Francisco 1/27/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training at the San Francisco District United Citizenship and Immigration Services' Human Trafficking Engagement Conference in San Jose 2/2/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training at the Child Abuse Prevention Center’s Domestic Violence Training 2/25/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to Trauma Recovery Centers via WebEx 3/7/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to law enforcement at the Folsom Police Department 3/12/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to advocates at the My Sister’s House Advocate training 4/13/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to WEAVE Advocates 4/22/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to NorCal Services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing staff 4/27/2016
CalVCB Outreach Trainings to CALCASA members 5/2/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to Advocates at the Child Abuse Prevention Center 5/3/2016
CalVCB Outreach Trainings to CPEDV members 5/9/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to the Sacramento Family Justice Center Advocates 6/9/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training to San Mateo County Victim Witness Advocates 9/20/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training at the Tribal Chief of Police Training 10/19/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training, and Exhibit at the Crimes Against Children, Teens, and Women Training Conference 11/16/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training at the Napa County Victim Witness Training Conference 12/9/2016
CalVCB Outreach Training at USCIS Human Trafficking Event 1/19/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training and Exhibit at the Food For Thought Human Trafficking Event 1/21/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training at the CalOES Elder Abuse Training Conference 2/1/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training to Sacramento International Rescue Committee 2/23/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training at CCVAA Victim Witness Training 3/1/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training at My Sister's House Spring Advocate Training 3/18/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training to DOJ Health Quality Enforcement (HQE) 3/28/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training at the Connections Café, Folsom Cordova Community Partnership 3/29/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training to DOJ Women Employees Advisory Committee 3/30/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training at ICAN Volunteer Training 4/1/2017
CalVCB Outreach Training at Legal Assistance for Seniors' Conference on Elder Abuse 5/23/2017
Table A8. Events where CalVCB provided other training
Event Date
AB1140 Training to Domestic Violence Prevention Collaboration (DVPC) staff 3/3/2016
AB1140 Training to CalOES staff 3/10/2016
CalVCB Policy Updates at McGeorge VOC Resource Center's Victim Services Collaborative Meeting 9/16/2016
Table A9. Events where CalVCB attended, sponsored, or exhibited
Event Date
Exhibited at Parents of Murdered Children (POMC) National Day of Remembrance 9/25/2015
Exhibited at Break Free 9/26/2015
Attended Courage Worldwide’s Human Trafficking press conference 1/11/2016
Sponsored and exhibited at the My Sister’s House Intersections of Human Trafficking Conference 2/24/2016
Exhibited at Fairfield High School 3/11/2016
Exhibited at Crime Victims United of California's March on the Capitol 4/7/2016
Co-Sponsored, presented and exhibited at UC Davis Law Enforcement Training Conference "Leave No Victim Behind" 4/11/2016
Exhibited at CDCR Resource Fair 4/12/2016
Presented proclamation to Yolo County at the DA's 10th Annual Crime Victims' Tribute 4/14/2016
Spoke at CALCASA's Denim Day rally at the Capitol 1/25/2016
Presented and exhibited at the 30th annual Children's Network Conference 9/14/2016
Exhibited at the California Probation, Parole & Correctional Association's 85th Annual Training Conference & Vendor Show 9/22/2016
Exhibited at the 49th annual Native American Day event 9/23/2016
Exhibited at Yarmarka International Festival 10/5/2016
Exhibited at the Hope and Healing for the Traumatized Child Training Conference 11/3/2016
Exhibited at Grace Network Human Trafficking Conference 11/22/2016
Exhibited at Hope Church Conference 11/29/2016
Exhibited at the Preventing and Eliminating Human Trafficking Training Conference 1/31/2017
Create partner database

CalVCB created a Partnership Database Project Charter Collaboration Plan in October of 2015. By the end of January 2016, CalVCB had created a Microsoft Access database to house partner information, exported the existing resource directory from SharePoint, and established procedures to collect information from advocates regarding CBO referrals for underserved populations. Starting in February 2016, CalVCB worked on filling in missing information on CBOs entered into the database and adding CalOES grantees to the database. As of Spring 2017, the CalVCB partner database has close to 3,000 entries (2,923), from 19 different partner types, and representing all 58 California counties. Over a third of the partners are law enforcement, and another fifth are CBOs. CalVCB will make additional entries on an ongoing basis, as CalVCB identifies new organizations. Table A10 displays the underserved groups served by organizations in the partner database.

Table A10. Number of organizations in partner database that serve underserved groups
Underserved group Number of organizations
Disabled 106
Deaf/HOH 72
LGBTQ 65
Human Trafficking 84
Tribal 42
Gang 48
Elderly 170
Limited English Proficiency 19
Immigrant 285
Indigenous Immigrant 52
API 57
Homeless 144
Frontier/Rural counties 39
Create a plan for Joint Powers to collaborate with community based organizations

CalVCB developed guidelines and outreach materials for JPs to collaborate with CBOs. The outreach material was pilot tested with a live audience, and CalVCB created a tracking system to track outreach events done by JPs. CalVCB trained the JP staff through an all staff meeting with JP staff joining via WebEx, and the outreach materials were distributed to JP staff.

Provide Trauma-Informed Services Workshops34 for staff

In August of 2014, CalVCB submitted an issue paper and received approval to launch the Trauma-Informed Services Workshops beginning October 2014. The goal of the project was to institutionalize trauma-informed services to improve objective claims analysis, customer service, and workplace environment and culture. The trauma-informed approach to services asks professionals to consider how they can avoid adding new stress or re-traumatization to their clients; how they can help their clients heal; and what measures their organization can put in place to create an overall environment that promotes recovery and healing.35

In preparation for the upcoming workshops, in October of 2014, the initial project launch began with a collaborative two-day training offered during Domestic Violence Awareness Month. CalVCB staff were surveyed in December of 2014 to measure interest in various trauma-informed services topics (n=123). In January of 2016, the CalVCB Strategic Plan Core Value, Dedication included the following: “We provide trauma-informed assistance to victims” and Goal 1 includes “Ensure our services are trauma-informed.” Table A11 lists the 17 trauma-informed workshops that CalVCB offered during 2015 and 2016.

Workshop participants completed evaluations at the end of each trauma-informed workshop held in 2015 and 2016. Over two-thirds (69%) of respondents (n=983)36 were from agency headquarters, and nearly a third (29%) were from JP staff; the remainder were from public sector (1%) and CBOs (1%). Evaluations of the workshops held in 2015 and 2016 were overwhelmingly positive. Over ninety percent of respondents rated the trauma-informed workshops as excellent (63-69%) or good (26-29%) across three dimensions. The trauma-informed workshop dimensions:

Over four-fifths of respondents evaluated the trauma-informed workshop trainers as excellent (71-77%) or good (14-18%) across four dimensions. The trauma-informed workshop trainer dimensions:

Table A11. Trauma-Informed workshops
Title Date Number of sessions Guest Speaker/ Organization Number of attendees Date posted to YouTube Number of views on YouTube
Intimate Partner Violence 10/1/2014 1 Michelle Colman/ Executive Director, Stand Up Place 135 11/14/2014 623
What is Trauma? 10/1/2014 1 Dr. James T. Kent, Ph.D./Consulting Psychologist, CalVCB 135 11/25/2014 287
Psychobiology of Trauma 10/2/2014 1 Sarah Meredith/Education and Outreach Director, Campus Violence Prevention Program, UC Davis 124 11/25/2014 286
Trauma-Informed Care 10/2/2014 1 Dr. Linda Barnard, Marriage& Family Therapist 124 11/25/2014 911
Human Trafficking Awareness 1/22/2015 1 Elisabet Medina/ Human Trafficking Specialist, Opening Doors, Inc. 22 2/3/2015 557
Impacts of Domestic Violence on Children 2/19/2015 2

Elaine Whitefeather/ Executive Director, A Community for Peace

Dave Cropp/ Detective Sergeant, Sacramento Police Department Family Violence Unit

67 2/20/2015 782
Rights & Resources for Crime Victims 3/9/2015 2 Miriam Elmenshawi/ Director and Principal Attorney at McGeorge School of Law, Victims of Crime Resource Center 51 3/11/2015 254
Compassion Fatigue: When Helping Hurts 4/23/2015 1

Christine Ward/ Executive Director, I-CAN Crime Victims Assistance Network and Crime Victims Action Alliance

Jessica Heskin/ Victim Advocate, Violence and Sexual Assault Services Program at the Student Health and Counseling Services, CSUS

13 N/A N/A
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Panel 5/20/2015 1

Moderator: Mica Mione/ CalVCB Manager, TAP Team

Panelists:

Dr. Angie Rosas/ Medical Director, Sutter Health Bear Program

Scott Triplett/ Supervising Deputy District Attorney, Sacramento DA’s Office

Sarah Meredith/ Director, Center for Advocacy Resources U Education (CARE)

Jill Spriggs/ Laboratory Director, Sacramento County Office of the DA Laboratory of Forensic Services

Beth Hassett/ Executive Director, WEAVE Inc.

Rob Patton/ Supervisor, Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, Sexual and Elder Abuse Bureau

122 5/20/2015 483
Serving Victims who are Vision or Hearing Impaired 6/11/2015 2

Shari Roeseler/ Executive Director/CEO, Society for the Blind

Carrie Michaels/ DeafSAFE

58 6/11/2015 406
Domestic Violence Awareness 10/23/2015 1

Jessica Merrill/ Communications & Development Manager, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

Jacquie Marroquin/ Capacity-Building Program Manager, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

Don Bents/ Executive Director, Sacramento LGBT Community Center

78 10/23/2015 229
Improving Benefits to Tribal Communities 11/16/2015 2

Yeshelle Sparks/ Tribal Advocate Regional Coordinator, Inter-Tribal Council of California, Inc.

Connie Reitman/ Executive Director, Inter-Tribal Council of California, Inc.

50 11/16/2015 367
Human Trafficking Awareness/ The Grace Network 1/14/2016 2 Chris Stambaugh/ Founder and Executive Director, The Grace Network 87 1/14/2016 169
Tips for Speaking with People in Crisis 3/10/2016 2 Mindi Russell/ Executive Director, Law Enforcement Chaplaincy (LECS) 63 3/10/2016 379
Trauma & Memory Interruption 4/14/2016 1 Gena Castro-Rodriguez/ Chief of Victim Services Office of District Attorney, San Francisco 100 4/14/2016 515
T Visas & U Visas 5/12/2016 1

Kathy Differding/ Program Manager, Citizenship/Immigration Program California Human Development

Theo Cuison/ Immigration Attorney, Legal Advisory Board Member WEAVE, Inc.

Kishwer Barrican/ Staff Attorney, Opening Doors, Inc.

58 5/12/2016 270
Trauma-Informed World Café 7/20/2016 2 Mica Mione/ CalVCB Manager, Training and Policy Team 43 N/A N/A
Beyond Diversity: Building Bridges of Commonality 8/10/2016 2 Elaine Whitefeather/ Executive Director, A Community for Peace 65 8/10/2016 164
Communities Impacted by Gang Violence Panel 9/8/2016 1

Moderator: Marlene Dederick/ CalVCB Manager, Processing Branch

Panelists:

Raymond Aguilar/Boys & Men of Color Movement Builder, Fathers & Families

Brendon Harrison/Youth Fellow, Fathers & Families

Stephanie James/ Chief Probation Officer, San Joaquin County

Eric Jones/Chief of Police, Stockton Police Department

Sammy Nunez/ Executive Director, Fathers & Families

96 9/8/2016 209
Investigating Strangulation 10/2016 Online training PAVTN.net – offered on the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention’s website 28 N/A N/A
How Trauma Impacts Behavior 11/10/2016 1 Dr. Linda Barnard/ Marriage & Family Therapist 68 11/10/2016 279
Total 19 28   1,587 16 7,170

In June 2016, CalVCB conducted a staff survey (n=83) to assess staff interest in future workshop topics, and staff perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the project. CalVCB asked respondents to rate their interest in 20 topics and CalVCB selected eight topics with the highest interest for future workshops (CalVCB already held one workshop in November 2016). Here is the list of those eight Trauma-Informed workshop topics:

The survey results indicate that staff perceptions regarding the impact of the project are mostly positive. Four-fifths (80%) of the respondents agree or strongly agree that that their comprehension of the impact of trauma on victims has increased as a result of the Trauma-Informed Services Project. Two-thirds of respondents agree or strongly agree that the project has improved their ability to assist claimants with dignity, respect, and understanding (66%), and increased their ability in objective claims analysis (67%). More than half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have experienced a more positive and supportive work environment and culture (61%) and increased their workplace satisfaction (60%) as a result of the project.

CalVCB completed one trauma-informed workshop in July of 2017, and CalVCB scheduled four more trauma-informed workshops for 2017-2018:

Objective 3: Increase accessibility and quality of service through innovative technology solutions

eLearning courses for advocates, mental health providers, and medical providers

CalVCB contracted with Monarch Media, Inc. to produce eLearning courses for victims of crime, advocates, mental health providers, and medical providers. CalVCB worked with the vendor on the content, design, and knowledge check questions for each course. CalVCB included the descriptions below for all the courses in an August 11, 2017 press release37 announcing the availability of the Medical Provider eLearning course:

“The Overview course (15 minutes) provides a general overview of CalVCB’s history, mission, benefits and funding sources. The course is available in English and Spanish.

Helping Crime Victims Heal: A Course for Medical Providers (50 Minutes): This course familiarizes medical providers and their billing agents with covered medical expenses and benefit limits. It also explains how reimbursement and recovery sources are applied.

Helping Crime Victims Heal: A Course for Mental Health Providers (90 Minutes): This module clarifies the required documentation mental health treatment providers must submit, as well as CalVCB program session limits and payment rates.

Helping Crime Victims Heal: A Course for Advocates (2.3 Hours): This course helps victim advocates learn about eligibility and benefits to assist crime victims seeking help through the compensation program.”

As of September 2017, CalVCB and the vendor developed and posted all five of the courses online:

Update and distribute publication materials (toolkits)

CalVCB updated their materials, creating a toolkit to distribute partner organizations. Each package contained an introduction letter from the CalVCB program, and a material request form,38 so that partner organizations would know how to request printed materials from CalVCB’s Public Affairs Office. There is no charge for materials, shipping or handling, and many of the materials are available on CalVCB’s website. Table A12 displays the list of materials included in the toolkit.

Table A12. List of materials included in the toolkit distributed to partner organizations
Name of Form Web Address
CalVCB Fact Sheet (English)39 https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/fs/CalVCPFactSheet-English.pdf
CalVCB Fact Sheet (Spanish) https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/fs/Spanish.pdf
CalVCB Fact Sheet for Native Americans https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/fs/NativeAmerican.pdf?1-7-17
Victim Representative Fact Sheet40 https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/fs/VictimRepresentativeFactSheet-English.pdf
We Can Help Brochure (English) 41 https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/CalVCP_Eng.pdf?12-28-16
We Can Help Brochure (Spanish) https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/CalVCP_Span.pdf?1-4-17
A Victim’s Restitution Guide42 https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/RestVictims.pdf?12-28-16
First Responder Card (English) Not applicable
First Responder Card (Spanish) Not applicable
Mental Health Brochure https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/MentalHealthProvider.pdf?7-13-17
Medical/Dental Brochure https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/provider.pdf?12-28-16
Poster "We Can Help"43 https://victims.ca.gov/docs/posters/CalVCBPoster-18x24-English.pdf
Compensation Benefit Reference Guide https://victims.ca.gov/docs/forms/victims/CalVCPBenefitReferenceGuide.pdf?1-31-17

CalVCB distributed the toolkit to 2,324 partner organizations in May of 2016, using the newly created partner database (see discussion above). CalVCB sent out additional materials, upon request by the partner organization, to 120 partner organizations in the fall of 2016. This distribution was in addition to the ongoing efforts of CalVCB’s Public Affairs Office to provide materials upon request by partner organizations; as of May 9, 2017, CalVCB’s Public Affairs Office had 564 material requests from partner organizations for printed publications.

Stakeholder Survey

Introduction

ISR designed and administered a survey sent to several thousand potential stakeholders across the state of California. ISR designed a survey to measure the effectiveness of certain program improvements CalVCB began implementing in 2015. This document describes the survey administration and summary findings.

This survey analysis section begins with a description of the survey development, pilot testing and revising the survey instrument, and data collection, followed by general characteristics of the responding participants. It presents findings specifically relevant to program improvements CalVCB implemented as part of the Office for Victims of Crime Program Initiative Grant, including the number of underserved groups represented by the respondents, their assessments of CalVCB outreach efforts, etc. The final section of the survey analysis provides qualitative analyses of respondent impressions of events, trainings, and program improvements.

Methodology

Contact sources

CalVCB provided more than ten sources of potential contacts, covering multiple types of stakeholders who could potentially have contact with victims of violent crime: law enforcement personnel, victim witness assistance center advocates, members of CBOs, mental health providers, and various government agencies. Lists of stakeholders included training attendees, sign-up sheets from various outreach events/presentations, CalVCB’s Partner Database, etc. The total number of potential contacts included nearly 8,000 separate listings. Cleaning out duplicate entries, incorrect phone numbers/email addresses, inaccurate or no longer applicable contact information reduced the total number to approximately 4,500 potential respondents, and 4,400 entries included at least one email address. Most entries had no telephone number, and many consisted of simply an email address, without a first or last name. A handful of potential participants appeared to have two different email addresses (such as a Yahoo address and a Gmail address). ISR emailed both addresses not knowing for sure if it was the same recipient. In order to reach potential respondents not on CalVCB’s contact lists, ISR asked everyone to forward the survey invitation to anyone else who might wish to help in this research.

ISR characterized potential stakeholder participants typically by using CalVCB’s data sources. Occasionally an entry did not supply enough information for exact characterization, but we attempted to label every entry to the best of our ability. Table A13 presents the final characterization of CalVCB’s contact lists.

Table A13. Stakeholder groups: types and number of contacts
 Stakeholder group Number of contacts Percent
Law enforcement (including police and sheriff department staff, legal staff, DA offices, etc.) 556 13%
Victim witness assistance center advocates (including trauma recovery centers, etc.) 530 12%
Community-based organizations (such as WEAVE, MADD, faith-based, etc.) 393 9%
Other government (university staff, county services, non-compensation-related agencies) 130 3%
Health (mental health providers, social workers, therapists, emergency services, hospitals, etc.) 2,813 64%
Total 4,422 100%

With input from CalVCB, ISR created a survey to pilot test on a representative sample of stakeholders from each stakeholder group (Feb 20th to 24th, 2017). ISR incorporated feedback from the pilot test into the final survey, and the final survey was administered for four weeks (March 6th through 31st, 2017). The ultimate goal was to gain enough responses to perform statistical tests on the responses. An overall total of 356 randomly sampled valid responses would provide enough data to attain a 95% confidence level in the results.

Pilot

ISR graduate student researchers piloted the survey by telephone interviewing stakeholders during the week of February 20th to 24th, 2017. Table A14 presents the dispositions of 147 telephone calls. Of the 147 calls, 113 were to unique numbers. ISR recorded sixteen valid responses during the week, yielding a response rate of 14 percent. While this is a respectable response rate, given the large number of potential stakeholders, ISR chose to administer the survey electronically during the formal data collection period. Following revisions to the survey instrument based on pilot testing feedback,44 ISR finalized it for email distribution.

Table A14. Pilot survey telephone call dispositions
  Call disposition Number of calls
Calls Wrong number 16
Call transferred 0
Hung up on 3
Hard refusal 7
Tentative interview, call back 22
Call back or left message 85
Line busy 14
Total calls placed  147
Results  Unique numbers called 113
Total completed surveys 16
Pilot test response rate 14%
Data collection

ISR finalized the survey instrument in an online survey program named Qualtrics.45 Qualtrics provides an anonymous URL through which respondents access the survey. ISR wrote an introductory email message inviting the recipient to participate in the study, included the URL, and began emailing a randomly sampled group of stakeholders on March 6, 2017. (Appendix A contains the email invitation and finalized survey instrument.) ISR randomly drew the samples within each stakeholder group, and emailed 50 recipients at a time.46 ISR monitored incoming error messages (out of office notices, unknown email address, etc.), as well as recorded “completes” in Qualtrics. ISR corrected email addresses when possible, and then included the respondents in subsequent email batches. A few recipients called or emailed with questions about the study’s purpose. During the second week of data collection, to boost the response rate, ISR determined that all potential email addresses should receive the invitation, and began to email additional invitations in waves.

Table A15 shows the number and proportions of stakeholder groups in the final data set in each stakeholder group. A typical survey strives to receive similar proportions of responses, for adequate representativeness in the final data set.

Table A15. Final data set responses by stakeholder group (all survey methods)
 Stakeholder group Number of completed surveys Percent of completed surveys
Law enforcement 78 17%
Victim witness assistance center advocates 97 22%
CBOs 71 16%
Other government 13 3%
Health and mental health 114 25%
Unknown 76 17%
Total* 449 100%

*Includes 16 pilot surveys.

It is important to note that ISR could not identify a stakeholder group for 76 responses (17 percent) in the final data set. However, using data from responses with known stakeholder groups (357 responses), ISR analyzed how representative the groups were, compared to the proportions in the emailed invitations. There is a statistically significant difference in the proportion of stakeholder groups in the final data set compared to the email list proportions (Table A16).47 Fully 64 percent of the original emails that ISR sent went to members of the health/mental health provider stakeholder group, a large proportion of the original emails. In the end, completed surveys from the health stakeholder group make up only 32 percent, which allowed for more even representation of the other stakeholder groups in the final data set. In the end, the health stakeholder data will not over-represent findings relevant to that group, and its smaller proportion allows for more input from the other groups. Finally, we do not know how representative the initial email list stakeholder group is of the statewide pool of potential responses, so it may not be critical that we have fewer health stakeholders than expected.

Table A16. Observed and expected proportions of stakeholders (email contacts only)
Stakeholder group Observed N respondents Observed percent of respondents Expected percent (from Table A13) Percent change from expected
Law enforcement 71 20% 13% +58%
Victim witness assistance center advocates 91 25% 12% +113%
CBOs 69 19% 9% +117%
Other government 12 3% 3% +14%
Health 114 32% 64% -50%
Total* 357 100% 100%  

*Excludes the 16 telephone responses and responses with no identifiable stakeholder group.

ISR combined the victim/witness group and the “other government group” with the law enforcement group, and added a group for the entries with no known stakeholder status. Appendix A Table 2 shows the number of respondents within the revised stakeholder groups.

During Qualtrics’ automated data collection, the program records the respondent’s IP address latitude and longitude coordinates (if that information is available). With known geographic information, ISR determined the respondent’s county, and then grouped the counties into eight regions. Twenty-three respondent entries had no latitude/longitude or other geographic information, and some respondents were not in their county of occupation when they submitted their survey. ISR identified the latter during data cleaning by noting incongruous contact information: the IP latitude/longitude did not fit contact information provided by the respondents (they volunteered the contact information). Please see Table A17’s frequency of responses within each region and Figure A3 for a state map of the regions. Appendix A Table 3 provides the frequency of responses by individual county.48

Table A17. Frequency of responses by region
Region ID and region name Number of respondents Percent
1 Northern Rural 30 7%
2 Bay Area 84 20%
3 Greater Sacramento 61 14%
4 Central Coast 12 3%
5 Central Valley 52 12%
6 Central/Southern Sierra 23 5%
7 South Coast 123 29%
8 Inland Empire 41 10%
Total* 426 100%

*This table excludes the 23 respondents did not have valid regional information.

Figure A3. California survey response regions

Table A18 presents the number of respondents by region and (collapsed) stakeholder group. Within the Central Valley and Inland Empire regions, law enforcement/victim witness assistance center advocate (LE/VW) stakeholders responded more frequently (as a proportion of all stakeholders in the region). Health/mental health providers and LE/VW stakeholder groups were relatively equally represented in the Bay Area (38% Health and 43% LE/VW), and in the South Coast region (37% and 41%, respectively). In six of the eight regions, the lowest proportion of respondents were in the CBO stakeholder group. However, note that there were very few responses in some categories (just one CBO respondent in the Central Coast region, only three CBO responses in the Central Valley and Inland Empire regions, etc.); this information should be interpreted with caution, as the low number of responses may not be representative of all CBOs in those regions.

Table A18. Stakeholder group by region
Region Number of stakeholders Percent of stakeholders
LE/VW CBO Health Total* LE/VW CBO Health Total
Northern Rural 12 4 9 25 48% 16% 36% 100%
Bay Area 33 15 29 77 43% 19% 38% 100%
Greater Sacramento 23 13 11 47 49% 28% 23% 100%
Central Coast 3 1 4 8 38% 13% 50% 100%
Central Valley 32 3 7 42 76% 7% 17% 100%
Central/Southern Sierra 11 6 5 22 50% 27% 23% 100%
South Coast 45 24 40 109 41% 22% 37% 100%
Inland Empire 21 3 7 31 68% 10% 23% 100%

*Excludes 88 respondents with no valid region identification or no identifiable stakeholder group.

Respondent position characteristics

Three out of four respondents reported working in their field at least six years (73%, Table A19).

Table A19. Number of years respondent has worked in the field
Time in field Number of respondents Percent
Fewer than 2 years 56 13%
3 to 5 years 65 15%
6 or more years 322 73%
Total* 443 100%

*Appendix A Table 4 provides more detail about length of service.

The vast majority (91% or more) work in organizations that provide direct services and work directly with victims. Almost 50 percent manage or direct other staff (Table A20).

Table A20. Respondent and organization service characteristics
Survey question Response Number of respondents Percent
Organization provides direct services Yes 417 94%
No 27 6%
Total 444 100%
Respondent manages/directs others Yes 207 48%
No 220 52%
Total 427 100%
Organization serves clients who are victims Yes 414 100%
No 1 0%
Total 415 100%
Respondent works directly with victims* Yes 378 91%
No 37 9%
Total 415 100%

*Appendix A Table 5 provides a regional distribution of respondents who work directly with victims.

All but three respondents identified what type of work they perform. As seen in Figure A4, the greatest number indicated they are victim advocates, followed by clinicians. Note that these categories are not mutually exclusive, and many respondents checked more than one type of position. There was only one category that respondents never selected: emergency medical services.

Figure A4. Respondent position descriptions

N=443 responses total (six respondents declined to state their occupation, organization, or position).

Position categories are not mutually exclusive.

Underserved groups

CalVCB used grant money to increase outreach to specific underserved groups (USGs) across the state. The vast majority of respondents (439) reported serving at least one USG (ten respondents did not answer this question). Figure A5 shows that at least 200 respondents listed at least one of the USGs: the least often mentioned USG was tribal communities (roughly 200 responses), and the highest was service to victims of domestic violence (more than 400). Fifty percent of respondents serve ten or more of the USGs (Table A21). There is no statistical difference in the number of USGs served in the different regions in the state (Appendix A Table 6).

Figure A5. Number of respondents who provide services to each of 13 underserved groups

*Immigrants from indigenous communities in Mexico

N=439

Table A21. Number of underserved populations served by respondents
  Number of respondents Percent
None reported 10 2%
One to five USGs served 109 24%
Six to nine 108 24%
Ten to twelve 97 22%
All 13 USGs served 125 28%
Total* 449 100%

*Includes 27 non-direct provider responses. The non-collapsed distribution is in Appendix A Table 7.

Four USGs are highly likely to have victims who need services provided in languages other than English: populations with limited English proficiency, API, immigrants in general, and immigrants from indigenous areas of Mexico. Table A22 shows that 43 percent of respondents serve all four of these populations, while only 12 percent of direct service providers do not serve any of the four language-intense USGs.

Table A22. Number of respondents who serve underserved populations with additional language needs
Number of USGs with additional language needs that respondent serves Number of respondents Percent
None 52 12%
One group 44 10%
Two groups 56 13%
Three groups 87 21%
All four groups 183 43%
Total 422 100%

Findings—Quantitative

Awareness and use of compensation benefits

Respondents answered questions relevant to CalVCB outreach efforts, asking about awareness of compensation programs in general and CalVCB specifically, utilization of program benefits, knowledge of recent program improvements, and if the respondent helped any victims use the newly available translated compensation applications. As presented in Table A23, the vast majority of respondents knew about victim compensation (97% in general and also CalVCB in particular), 95 percent told a victim about the program, but only two-thirds of respondents helped a victim apply for compensation. Roughly half of the respondents were aware of the increased compensation for funeral/burial benefits (56%) and the newly translated applications (45%). Of those aware of the translated applications, 52 percent personally helped a victim with at least one of them. Please note that not all respondents answered every question.

Table A23. Respondent knowledge of program and grant-related outreach efforts
  Response Number of respondents Percent
Generally aware of compensation programs Yes 433 97%
No 12 3%
Total 445 100%
Specifically aware of CalVCB Yes 433 97%
No 13 3%
Total 446 100%
Told victim(s) about program Yes 410 95%
No 23 5%
Total 433 100%
Helped victim(s) apply Yes 293 68%
No 137 32%
Total 430 100%
Know about increased compensation for funeral/burial benefits Yes 242 56%
No 190 44%
Total 432 100%
Know about newly-translated applications Yes 195 45%
No 236 55%
Total 431 100%
Helped victim(s) use one of those applications Yes 101 52%
No 94 48%
Total 195 100%

At least one respondent reporting using each of the 13 translated applications. One hundred and twenty-nine respondents have used the Spanish application, and nine or fewer have used an application in one of the other 12 languages. After Spanish, Chinese was the next most frequently reported language (nine reports). Only one reported using an Armenian application. Figure A6 shows the number of respondents who reported helping a victim use a translated compensation application.

Figure A6. Application languages used by respondents who helped victims apply for compensation
Event and training session attendance findings

CalVCB routinely reaches out to audiences to increase public knowledge about the presence of the program as well as its benefits. CalVCB sponsored, held, presented at or tabled approximately 56 in the previous two years. This survey asked respondents to report awareness of these kinds of events, whether they attended at least one, and how many they attended. Specifically relevant to grant outreach efforts, respondents reported attending at least one event after December 2015 (the date the newly translated applications became available). At the event(s), 73 percent reported hearing about the increased compensation for funeral/burial benefits, and 51 percent reported hearing about the new applications. Please see Table A24.

Of the 277 respondents who heard about an event, 80 reported they did not attend. Most commonly, 54 respondents (50%) noted they were too busy. Other reasons were that the timing or location was a problem, or their organization sent another person.

Table A24. Event attendance and impact
  Response Number of respondents Percent
Heard about an event/conference/presentation Yes 277 63%
No 166 37%
Total 443 100%
Went to at least one Yes 195 71%
No 80 29%
Total 275 100%
Number of events attended One 75 39%
2 to 5 99 52%
More than 5 17 9%
Total 191 100%
Attended at least one event after 12/2015 Yes 106 55%
No 85 45%
Total 191 100%
At event, heard about increase in funeral/burial compensation benefits Yes 136 73%
No 50 27%
Total 186 100%
At event, heard about newly-translated applications Yes 95 51%
No 91 49%
Total 186 100%

The majority of attendees reported positive feedback on the events. Almost nine out of ten attendees (169 of 195 attendees, 87%) reported they strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that the event(s) provided useful information, 76 percent (148 respondents) strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that the information was useful in interacting with victims, and 71 percent agreed that the information increased their confidence in referring victims to CalVCB (Figure A7).

Figure A7. Event opinions

N=195

Respondents answered these same questions about training opportunities provided by CalVCB.49 As presented in Table A25, fully 50 percent of respondents attended at least one training session, most had attended between two and five sessions (55%), and webinars were most frequently attended (83%). Sixty-eight percent attended a training after December 2015, and presumably would have learned about the program improvements implemented at that time (increased compensation and additional application languages). Seventy-two percent reported hearing about the increased compensation for funeral/burial benefits, and 53 percent reported hearing about the new applications.

For the 218 who did not attend any training, the most common reasons were that they were too busy (30%), were unaware of any training (16%), had no funding (10%), or their organization sent another person (9%).

Table A25. Training attendance and impact
  Response Number of respondents Percent
Attended training(s) Yes 216 50%
No 218 50%
Total 434 100%
Number of trainings attended One 73 34%
2 to 5 118 55%
More than 5 25 12%
Total 216 100%
Training format In-person 83 38%
Webinar 179 83%
YouTube 18 8%
Other 9 4%
Total 216 100%
Attended at least one training after 12/2015 Yes 147 68%
No 68 32%
Total 215 100%
At training, heard about increase in compensation benefits Yes 148 72%
No 58 28%
Total 206 100%
At training, heard about newly-translated applications Yes 110 53%
No 96 47%
Total 206 100%

The majority of attendees reported positive feedback on the training(s). Of 216 attendees, 83 percent (180 respondents) reported they strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that the event(s) provided useful information, 82 percent (177 respondents) agreed that the information was useful in interacting with victims, and 73 percent (157 respondents) agreed that the information they learned increased their confidence in referring victims to CalVCB (Figure A8).

Figure A8. Training opinions

N=216

Outreach materials (toolkit)

CalVCB designed and distributed fact sheets and other publications (collectively known as the toolkit) statewide, beginning in May 2016. Less than half of the respondents were aware that they or their organization received a toolkit. However, of those who were aware, 90 percent told a colleague about the toolkit, and 36 percent requested another toolkit. To date, 87 percent had received the extra toolkit (Table A26). Additionally, 175 of the 216 unaware of the toolkit provided their mailing address so that CalVCB can add them to their mailing list.

Table A26. Toolkit findings
  Response Number of respondents Percent
Know if toolkit received Yes 192 43%
No 252 57%
Total 444 100%
Told colleague about toolkit Yes 167 90%
No 19 10%
Total 186 100%
Asked for additional toolkits Yes 67 36%
No 117 64%
Total 184 100%
Received additional toolkits Yes 58 87%
No 9 13%
Total 67 100%

CBOs and health provider stakeholders reported receiving a toolkit less frequently than the other stakeholder groups. Table A27 shows the breakdown of who received a toolkit within each stakeholder group. The differences between stakeholder groups are statistically significant.

Table A27. Number and percent of stakeholder groups that received a toolkit
Stakeholder group Yes No/Not Sure Total Percent Yes Percent No Total
Unknown 46 26 72 64% 36% 100%
LE/VW 110 77 187 59% 41% 100%
CBO 19 52 71 27% 73% 100%
Health 17 97 114 15% 85% 100%
Total* 192 252 444 43% 57% 100%

*Chi square p=.000.

When asked about the toolkit (Figure A9), respondent opinions were generally positive: 78 percent strongly or somewhat strongly agreed the material appeared to be useful resources for their clients (150 of 192 respondents), 66 percent agreed that the materials increased their knowledge about CalVCB (127 of 192 respondents), and 66 percent felt more confident referring their clients to CalVCB as a result of receiving the materials (126 of 192 respondents).

Figure A9. Toolkit opinions

N=192

Program awareness, application use, and grant item awareness scales

ISR created a seven-item “awareness” scale to determine the overall level of CalVCB outreach efforts (not specific to grant-relevant items), including knowledge of the program, whether they told a victim about the program, if they helped a victim apply (regardless of application language), attendance at events or trainings, etc. More specific to victim program utilization, ISR developed a four-item scale (the “application” scale) to measure the degree of application usage, including whether they assisted a victim with a translated application. Finally, ISR developed a six-item scale calculated to more specifically determine the penetration of outreach efforts (the “grant item” scale): knowledge of increased compensation, presence of translated applications, use of those applications, whether they received a toolkit, and attendance at events and trainings. Appendix A Table 8 lists the individual questions used to create these scales.

The average number of items reported on the awareness scale was 4.19 (out of seven possible), the average on the application scale was 2.47 out of four items, and the average on the grant item scale was 2.62 out of six items (Appendix A Table 9). ISR analyzed the average number of items on these three scales for several different groups of respondents, to determine the presence of significant differences by stakeholder type, by region, and by attendance at an event or training after December 2015.50 When analyzed by stakeholder group, Table A28 shows there are statistically significant differences in average scale scores between the groups: the law enforcement/victim witness group consistently scored the highest, and the health group consistently scored the lowest. There is no statistical difference between the different regions in the state, on any scale.51 On all three scales, there is a statistically significant difference between respondents who did or did not attend at least one event or training after December 2015.

Table A28. Scales by stakeholder and region
  Awareness Scale
(7 items)
Application Scale
(4 items)
Grant Item Scale
(6 items)
N Ave p* N Ave p* N Ave p*
Stakeholder Group Unknown 76 4.86 .000 69 2.65 .000 76 3.29 .000
LE/VW 188 5.02   171 2.93   188 3.58  
CBO 71 3.37   63 2.16   71 1.76  
Health 114 2.90   105 1.80   114 1.12  
Total/Average 449 4.19   408 2.47   449 2.62  
Region Unknown or out of state 23 4.35 .376 17 2.94 .526 23 3.00 .406
Northern Rural 30 3.87   27 2.22   30 2.17  
Bay Area 84 4.02   79 2.46   84 2.45  
Greater Sacramento 61 4.25   51 2.33   61 2.72  
Central Coast 12 3.50   11 2.18   12 1.75  
Central Valley 52 4.62   50 2.50   52 3.02  
Central/Southern Sierra 23 4.57   23 2.39   23 2.74  
South Coast 123 4.04   112 2.54   123 2.52  
Inland Empire 41 4.54   38 2.58   41 2.90  
Total/Average 449 4.19   408 2.47   449 2.62  
Event/training after Dec 2015** Yes 187 5.54 .000** 178 2.90 .000** 187 4.01 .000**
No 262 3.23   230 2.14   262 1.63  
Total/Average 449 4.19   408 2.47   449 2.62  

*ANOVA test of differences in average scale scores by group and region.

** T-test for significantly different average scale scores.

To determine if there is a correlation between how many USGs a respondent serves and average scores on the three scales, ISR examined bivariate correlations. There is a statistically significant (moderate) correlation between the number of USGs respondents serve and each of the three scales: as the number of USGs served increases, so does average scores on the three scales tend to increase (Table A29). Similarly, respondents who serve a greater number of the four USGs that have additional language needs tend to have higher average scores on all three scales. Please see Appendix A Table 10 for the bivariate correlation statistics. This suggests that CalVCB’s outreach and training efforts have been effective in reaching the stakeholder groups most likely to serve the identified USGs, and that they should continue in these efforts.

row
Table A29. Scales by the number of underserved groups that respondents served, and by the number of underserved groups that have additional language needs
  Awareness Scale
(7 items)
Application Scale
(4 items)
Grant Item Scale
(6 items)
N Average p* N Average p* N Average p*
Number of USGs serve by respondent None 10 2.80 .000 3 1.33 .000 10 1.70 .000
1 to 5 USGs 109 3.28   95 1.97   109 1.53  
6 to 9 108 3.70   98 2.20   108 2.08  
10 to 12 97 4.75   92 2.77   97 3.23  
All 13 USGs 125 5.10   120 2.89   125 3.63  
Total/Average 449 4.19   408 2.47   449 2.62  
Number of the four USGs with additional language needs** that respondent serves None 52 3.02 .000 48 1.79 .000 52 1.33 .000
1 USG 44 3.61   41 1.95   44 1.91  
2 USGs 56 3.88   56 2.32   56 2.18  
3 USGs 87 4.34   85 2.56   87 2.78  
All 4 USGs 183 4.84   178 2.78   183 3.36  
Total/Average 422 4.26   408 2.47   422 2.68  

*Bivariate correlations were significant p=.000. See Appendix A Table 10 for correlation values.

**Populations with limited English proficiency, API descent, immigrants in general, and immigrants from indigenous areas of Mexico.

Findings—Qualitative

There were several hundred text entries. The following is a brief overview of major themes. ISR completed a more thorough qualitative analysis than that presented below.

Event/conferences/presentations

Event attendees provided feedback on how events might be improved, and suggested topics for future events. Commonly attended events included UCD and UCLA conferences. Other events focused on domestic violence, elder abuse, and billing.52 Suggested improvements included: have more speakers with hands on experience with filing procedures, better-prepared speakers, more in-person events, greater detail, and for CalVCB to provide more materials to bring back to the office. Respondents specifically asked for more events, presentations, and conferences about human trafficking, domestic violence, relocation information, and how to fill out forms.

Training sessions

Many respondents mentioned they attended Advocacy 101 training sessions, Mental Health Provider Informational Forums about developing treatment plans, billing challenges, how to fill out forms, updated requirements, and simple overviews of the program.

Respondents wished that more in-person training were available, CalVCB offered more sessions geared toward the application process, and that in general, CalVCB offer more training sessions.

Future topics included; learning about what CalVCB is looking for from applicants, how to track applications, how to handle wage loss and relocation issues, and more training about human trafficking.

Toolkits (informational material)

Respondents mainly noted that they quickly ran out of materials.

Final comments

Overall, many respondents stated they were grateful for CalVCB’s services. Many wished that CalVCB could make the application process more streamlined, they found it challenging, and often filled with delays.

Respondents typically appreciated the outreach efforts and encouraged CalVCB to continue.

Impacts on Applications and Compensation for Underserved Groups

ISR used application and payment data to measure the impact of the project on underserved groups: the variables available limit the analysis.53 Of the thirteen underserved groups identified, there were variables available only for the following groups: elderly, disabled, frontier/rural counties, human trafficking, API, and Native American.

Elderly

Elderly applicants are aged 65 or older, and comprise two percent of all applications with age information for the six-year period.54

Elderly applicants

ISR analyzed the proportion of elderly applicants who filed for each calendar year from 2011 through 2016. There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of elderly applicants in the last three years (2.1 to 2.3%), compared to the first three years (1.5% to 1.7%). The proportion of elderly applicants was highest in 2016; however, this higher proportion was not a statistically significant change from 2014 and 2015.

Table A30. Number and proportion of elderly applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  Age 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Less than 65 39,498 38,822 38,183 36,872 36,949 37,144 227,468
65+ years old 609 663 673 776 786 889 4,396
Total 401,07 39,485 38,856 37,648 37,735 38,033 231,864
Percent Less than 65 98.5% 98.3% 98.3% 97.9% 97.9% 97.7% 98.1%
65+ years old 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 1.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percent of elderly applicants denied

The proportion of elderly applicants that were denied eligibility decreased steadily between 2011 (10.2%) through 2015 (5.1%), and then slightly increased in 2016 (5.6%). The lower proportion of elderly applicants denied in 2015 and 2016 was a statistically significant difference only in comparison to 2011 and 2012.

Table A31. Number and proportion of elderly applicants by eligibility status
  Status 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 539 583 590 689 730 747 3,878
Denied 61 63 53 57 39 44 317
Total 600 646 643 746 769 791 4,195
Percent Allowed 89.8% 90.2% 91.8% 92.4% 94.9% 94.4% 92.4%
Denied 10.2% 9.8% 8.2% 7.6% 5.1% 5.6% 7.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for elderly claimants

There was a clear U-shaped trend in average bill payments, with 2011 and 2016 having the highest average bill payments. 2016 was statistically higher than 2013, 2014, and 2015. Similarly, for the average total compensation, there was a U-shaped trend, with the highest average total compensation in 2011 and 2016. The higher average total compensation in 2016 was not statistically significant in comparison to the other years; however, the higher average total compensation in 2011 was statistically significant in comparison to 2012 through 2015.

Table A32. Payments for elderly claimants per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Average bill payment $207 $172 $152 $127 $151 $186 $158
Average total compensation $2,462 $1,771 $1,745 $1,724 $1,785 $2,092 $1,877

Disabled

For the majority of applicants, disabled status was unknown. For the six year period, one percent of applicants had known disabled status, 25 percent had an identified not disabled status, ten percent were unspecified, and 64 percent had unknown status. From 2011 through 2016, there was an average of 465 applicants with a known disabled status for each calendar year.

Disabled applicants

ISR determined the proportion of disabled applicants who filed for each year from 2011 through 2016: there was no clear trend in the proportion of disabled applicants over the six-year period. While the proportion of disabled applicants was higher in 2016 (5%), the higher proportion in 2016 was not statistically significant in comparison to prior years.

Table A33. Number and proportion of disabled applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  Status 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Not disabled 11,356 10,437 9,648 9,315 9,297 8,254 58,307
Disabled 569 453 477 427 445 432 2,803
Total 11,925 10,890 10,125 9,742 9,742 8,686 61,110
Percent Not disabled 95.2% 95.8% 95.3% 95.6% 95.4% 95.0% 95.4%
Disabled 4.8% 4.2% 4.7% 4.4% 4.6% 5.0% 4.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

In 2016, almost 12 percent of disabled applicants were elderly,55 which was a statistically significant higher proportion in comparison to prior years. In prior years, the proportion of disabled applicants who were elderly fluctuated, from a low of four percent in 2012, up to seven percent in 2014.

Table A34. Number and proportion of disabled claimants by age
  Age 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Less than 65 535 435 450 396 417 381 2,614
65+ years old 34 18 27 31 28 51 189
Total 569 453 477 427 445 432 2,803
Percent Less than 65 94.0% 96.0% 94.3% 92.7% 93.7% 88.2% 93.3%
65+ years old 6.0% 4.0% 5.7% 7.3% 6.3% 11.8% 6.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percent of disabled applicants denied

All disabled applicants who filed for each calendar year from 2011 through 2016 were eligible.

Payments for disabled claimants

The average bill payment in 2016 was statistically higher than all prior years, with the exception of 2011. The average total compensation per disabled claimant in 2016 was higher than all prior years. This difference is statistically significant in comparison to all prior years. The average total compensation per disabled claimant in 2016 ($1,990) increased by 35 percent over the lowest prior average, $1,470 in 2012.

Table A35. Payments for disabled claimants per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Average bill payment $164 $127 $133 $144 $153 $164 $145
Average total compensation $1,653 $1,470 $1,570 $1,627 $1,650 $1,990 $1,654

Frontier/Rural Counties

Frontier counties have fewer than ten people per square mile: Alpine, Glenn, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra, and Trinity are all frontier counties. Rural counties have a substantial rural population (30% or more rural): Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Lake, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Nevada, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Tuolumne are all rural counties. County information was missing for only one percent of applicants.

Frontier/rural applications

There was a consistent downward trend in the number of applications from frontier counties over the six-year period, from a high of 348 in 2011, down to 162 in 2016. As a proportion of total applications, there were fewer applications from frontier counties in 2016, and the difference is statistically significant in comparison to each of the prior years, except for 2015.

There was also a downward trend in the number of applications from rural counties over the six year period, from a high of 1,400 in 2011, down to 1,175 in 2016, although the downward trend flattened out starting in 2014 (1,216), continuing through 2015 and 2016. As a proportion of total applications, there were fewer applications from rural counties in 2016, and the difference is statistically significant in comparison to 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Table A36. Number and proportion of applications from frontier, rural, and non-frontier or rural counties
  County Type 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number* Not rural or frontier county 37,807 36,966 37,004 35,994 36,228 37,032 221,031
Frontier county** 348 233 230 279 174 162 1,426
Rural county*** 1,400 1,408 1,326 1,216 1,180 1,175 7,705
Total 39,555 38,607 38,560 37,489 37,582 38,369 230,162
Percent Not rural or frontier county 95.6% 95.7% 96.0% 96.0% 96.4% 96.5% 96.0%
Frontier county2 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6%
Rural county3 3.5% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

*Regardless of eligibility status

**Frontier county: fewer than 10 people per square mile

***Rural county: substantial rural population (30% or more rural)

Percent of frontier/rural applications denied

The proportion of applications denied from frontier counties fluctuated over the six-year period, with no clear trend, and no statistically significant difference for 2016 in comparison to prior years.

Table A37. Number and proportion of frontier county applications by eligibility status
  Status 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Eligible 299 209 210 249 157 142 1,266
Denied 39 20 8 20 15 12 114
Total 338 229 218 269 172 154 1,380
Percent Eligible 88% 91% 96% 93% 91% 92% 92%
Denied 12% 9% 4% 7% 9% 8% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

In contrast, there is a downward trend in the proportion of applications denied from rural counties. The proportion of applications denied from rural counties is lowest in 2016, and the difference is statistically significant in comparison to all prior years.

Table A38. Number and proportion of rural county applications by eligibility status
  Status 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Eligible 1,251 1,226 1,140 1,082 1,080 1,006 6,785
Denied 137 163 122 91 81 64 658
Total 1,388 1,389 1,262 1,173 1,161 1,070 7,443
Percent Eligible 90% 88% 90% 92% 93% 94% 91%
Denied 10% 12% 10% 8% 7% 6% 9%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Payments for frontier/rural claimants

There was no clear trend and no statistically significant difference between 2016 and all prior years, for either the average individual payment for bills submitted by claimants from frontier counties, or the average total compensation per claimant from frontier counties.

For rural counties, the average bill payment was statistically different only in comparison to 2014, and there was no statistically significant difference between years for bills submitted by claimants from rural counties, or the average total compensation per claimant from rural counties.

Table A39. Payments for frontier and rural counties per year bill was received
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Frontier Average bill payment $160 $112 $110 $150 $100 $118 $123
Average total compensation $1,182 $907 $1,507 $1,301 $1,058 $1,109 $1,187
Rural Average bill payment $140 $120 $112 $111 $129 $125 $120
Average total compensation $1,440 $1,254 $1,225 $1,228 $1,388 $1,413 $1,307

Human Trafficking

One of the provisions of Assembly Bill 1140 (See Part B) changed the eligibility requirements for victims of Human Trafficking (HT). An applicant will not be found to have been uncooperative with law enforcement for delayed reporting of the crime, if the crime is reported.

Applications for victims of human trafficking

There was a nearly fourfold increase in the number of applications from victims of Human Trafficking between 2011 and 2016, with a clear upward trend over the six-year period. The higher proportion of applications filed in the last three years (0.28%-0.40%) is statistically significant in comparison to the first three years (0.09%-0.13%).

Table A40. Number and proportion of human trafficking victim applicants, regardless of eligibility status
  Victim Type 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Not HT 40,075 39,458 38,814 37,546 37,603 37,885 231,381
HT 35 33 49 106 138 152 513
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,037 231,894
Percent Not HT 99.91% 99.92% 99.87% 99.72% 99.63% 99.60% 99.78%
HT 0.09% 0.08% 0.13% 0.28% 0.37% 0.40% 0.22%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Percent of applications denied for victims of human trafficking

The proportion of applications for victims of human trafficking that were denied in 2016 was lower than all prior years, and the difference between the proportion of applications denied in 2016 (2.2%) and in 2013 (14.3%) was statistically significant.

Table A41. Number and proportion of human trafficking victim applicants by eligibility status
  Status 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Eligible 32 32 42 100 128 134 468
Denied 3 1 7 5 7 3 26
Total 35 33 49 105 135 137 494
Percent Eligible 91.4% 97.0% 85.7% 95.2% 94.8% 97.8% 94.7%
Denied 8.6% 3.0% 14.3% 4.8% 5.2% 2.2% 5.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for victims of human trafficking

There was no clear trend and no statistically significant difference in the average individual payment for bills submitted by victims of human trafficking for each year from 2011 through 2016. However, there was a huge increase in the number of bills submitted by these claimants in 2016 (464 bills) compared to prior years (e.g. 12 bills in 2011). Likewise, there was no clear trend and no statistically significant difference in the average total compensation for each victim of human trafficking over the six years.

Table A42. Payments for victims of human trafficking per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Average bill payment $119 $88 $83 $90 $92 $88 $89
Average total compensation $712 $1,198 $1,248 $924 $982 $1,020 $1,002

Asian/Pacific Islander

Ethnicity was not available for all applicants: The category of “API” indicates applicants for whom ethnicity was available. The category of “Not API” includes all other applicants, regardless of whether ethnicity was available.

API applicants

There was no clear trend and no statistically significant difference in the proportion of API applicants over the six-year period.

Table A43. Number and proportion of API applicants, regardless of eligibility status
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Not API* 38,849 38,290 37,581 36,413 36,515 37,282 224,930
API 1,261 1,201 1,282 1,239 1,226 1,246 7,455
 Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,528 232,385
Percent Not API* 96.8% 97.0% 96.7% 96.7% 96.8% 96.8% 96.8%
API 3.1% 3.0% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* The category of “Not API” includes all other applicants, regardless of whether ethnicity was available.

Percent of API applicants denied

There was a clear downward trend in the proportion of API applicants denied over the six-year period. The proportion of API applicants denied in 2016 (5%) was lower than all prior years, and the difference was statistically significant in comparison to all prior years. The lower proportion of API applicants denied in 2015 (8%) was also statistically significant in comparison to the first three years.

Table A44. Number and proportion of API applicants by eligibility status
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 1,077 1,026 1,069 1,065 1,124 1,019 6,380
Denied 175 144 142 133 97 51 742
Total  1,252 1,170 1,211 1,198 1,221 1,070 7,122
Percent Allowed 86% 88% 88% 89% 92% 95% 90%
Denied 14% 12% 12% 11% 8% 5% 10%
Total  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Payments for API claimants

The lowest average individual payment for bills submitted by API claimants occurred in 2012. The average payment amount increased from 2012 to 2016. The highest average, in 2016, is was statistically significantly higher than the averages in 2012, 2013, and 2014. The average total compensation per API claimant has no clearly discernable trend. 2014 has the lowest average total compensation per application ($1,668), and 2016 had the highest ($2,091). This difference is statistically significant. No other years are statistically significantly different from each other.

Table A45. Payments for API claimants per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Average bill payment $159 $131 $158 $148 $162 $180 $155
Average total compensation $1,986 $1,879 $1,753 $1,668 $1,827 $2,091 $1,854

Native American

Ethnicity was not available for all applicants: The category of “Native American” indicates applicants for whom ethnicity was available. The category of “Not Native American” includes all other applicants, regardless of whether ethnicity was available.

Native American applicants

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of Native American applicants in 2016, compared all prior years except 2015.

Table A46. Number and proportion of Native American applicants, regardless of eligibility status
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Not Native American* 39,753 39,143 38,495 37,293 37,463 38,262 230,409
Native American 357 348 368 359 278 266 1976
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,528 232,385
Percent Not Native American* 99.1% 99.1% 99.1% 99.0% 99.3% 99.3% 99.1%
Native American 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* The category of “Not Native American” includes all other applicants, regardless of whether ethnicity was available.

Percent of Native American applicants denied

There was no clear trend in the proportion of Native American applicants denied over the six-year period. The proportion of Native American applicants denied in 2016 (10.0%) was lower than 2011 (17.2%); however, the difference was not statistically significant in comparison to all prior years.

Table A47. Number and proportion of Native American applicants by eligibility status
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Eligible 294 290 293 318 247 217 1,659
Denied 61 50 53 33 29 24 250
Total 355 340 346 351 276 241 1,909
Percent Eligible 82.8% 85.3% 84.7% 90.6% 89.5% 90.0% 86.9%
Denied 17.2% 14.7% 15.3% 9.4% 10.5% 10.0% 13.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for Native American claimants

There was a distinct U-shaped trend, and a statistically significant difference between 2016 and all prior years except 2011, for the average bill payments. 2016 was the highest average bill payment of all six years; on average, payments in 2016 were $74 dollars higher. There was no significant difference in the average total compensation per Native American claimant.

Table A48. Payments for Native American claimants per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Average bill payment $160 $113 $108 $132 $132 $182 $131
Average total compensation $1,356 $1,450 $1,388 $1,458 $1,452 $1,837 $1,494

Part B. Reducing Unmet Needs

Introduction

CalVCB’s Needs Assessment report indicated many victims had unmet financial needs beyond what was covered by CalVCB or other sources such as insurance or settlements. CalVCB’s 2015 Gap Analysis reported that more commonly identified unmet financial needs were as follows:

Assemblyman Bonta sponsored two pieces of legislation during legislative session 2015-2016, Assembly Bills 1140 and 2160, to increase accessibility to the program and meet unmet needs through increases in compensation limits for certain reimbursable costs. Assembly Bill 1140 (AB1140) was enacted into law on January 1, 2016, which increased the funeral and burial benefit limit from $5,000 to $7,500 and for several types of victimization, removed barriers to eligibility and accessing benefits. Assembly Bill 2160 (AB2160) would have increased the limits for residential security, relocation, and crime-scene cleanup expenses, but did not pass. Though CalVCB was not able to increase the maximum benefit limit through AB2160, they addressed the limit through regulation changes and increased the limit to $70,000, effective January 1, 2017.

Assemblyman Gloria sponsored Assembly Bill 1061 (AB1061) during legislative session 2017-2018. The bill would have modernized statutes governing CalVCB by expanding benefits by authorizing the reimbursement of income loss, transportation and childcare expenses resulting from crime-related appointments, and increasing the limits for reimbursement of relocation, residential security, and crime-scene cleanup expenses. AB1061 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File and is dead for 2017.

Higher compensation rates in certain types of costs (2016 rates compared with 2010 rates) might indicate that some unmet needs have lessened. ISR identified compensation claims for the particular costs with the increased ceilings, and tested differences in average payments per submitted bill and for each compensated applications.56

Sexual Assault

AB1140 changed the eligibility requirements for victims of Sexual Assault, as follows:

Applications for victims of sexual assault

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applications for victims of sexual assault in 2016 (7.7%), compared to the first three years (8.2%-8.3%). The proportion of applications for victims of sexual assault was lowest in 2016; however, this lower proportion was not a statistically significant change from 2014 and 2015. Please see Table B1.

Table B1. Percent of applications that were sexual assault-related
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Sexual assault 3,280 3,243 3,238 3,031 2,993 2,928 18,713
Other crime 36,830 36,248 35,625 34,621 34,748 35,109 213,181
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,037 231,894
Percent Sexual assault 8.2% 8.2% 8.3% 8.1% 7.9% 7.7% 8.1%
Other crime 91.8% 91.8% 91.7% 91.9% 92.1% 92.3% 91.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percent of applications denied for victims of sexual assault

While as a proportion of all applications sexual assault applications decreased, Table B2 shows that those applications were denied eligibility less often, from 16 to 17 percent in 2011-2012, down to nine percent in 2016. The proportion of applications denied in 2016 was lower than all prior years, and the difference between the proportion of applications denied in 2016 was statistically significant in comparison to all years except 2015.

Table B2. Number and percent of eligible applications for sexual assault
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 2,731 2,633 2,572 2,513 2,635 2,309 15,393
Denied 513 542 447 382 313 219 2416
 Total 3,244 3,175 3,019 2,895 2,948 2,528 17,809
Percent Allowed 84.2% 82.9% 85.2% 86.8% 89.4% 91.3% 84.2%
Denied 15.8% 17.1% 14.8% 13.2% 10.6% 8.7% 15.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for victims of sexual assault

The average bill payment for victims of sexual assault in 2016 was higher than all prior years, and the difference was statistically significant in comparison to all prior years. In contrast, for average total compensation per sexual assault claimant, there were no statistically significant differences between years, although there is an upward trend in the last three years, after a high in 2012 (Table B3).

Table B3. Payments for victims of sexual assault per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Average bill payment $79 $78 $79 $77 $79 $81 $79
Average total compensation $1,055 $1,124 $1,036 $1,075 $1,068 $1,114 $1,080

Domestic Violence

AB1140 augmented the eligibility requirements for victims of domestic violence, as follows:

Applications for victims of domestic violence

The percent of domestic violence-related crime applications varied between 28 and 31 percent of applications from 2011 to 2016. It was highest in 2016 (30.8%), which is a statistically significant difference in comparison to the first three years only. The last three years are all higher than both 2011 (29.0%) and 2013 (28.4%), and this difference is also statistically significant. Please see Table B4.

Table B4. Number and percent of domestic violence-related crimes
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number Not DV crime 28,481 27,727 27,829 26,279 26,180 26,337
Is DV crime 11,629 11,764 11,034 11,373 11,561 11,700
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,037
Percent   Not DV crime 71.0% 70.2% 71.6% 69.8% 69.4% 69.2%
Is DV crime 29.0% 29.8% 28.4% 30.2% 30.6% 30.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percent of applications denied for victims of domestic violence

The proportion of applications for victims of domestic violence that were denied decreased steadily between 2012 (8.6%) through 2016 (4.2%). The lower proportion of applications denied for each the last three years was a statistically significant difference in comparison to the first three years. The lower proportion of applications denied in 2016 was also a statistically significant difference in comparison to 2014 (Table B5).

Table B5. Number and percent of eligibility status for initial domestic violence application
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 10,647 10,527 9,654 10,372 10,771 9,962 61,933
Denied 851 985 819 610 559 433 4,257
 Total 11,498 11,512 10,473 10,982 11,330 10,395 66,190
Percent Allowed 92.6% 91.4% 92.2% 94.4% 95.1% 95.8% 93.6%
Denied 7.4% 8.6% 7.8% 5.6% 4.9% 4.2% 6.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Overall, there was no clear trend in the average bill payment for domestic violence claimants for the six-year period. The average bill payment was higher in 2016 by comparison to 2015, and that difference was statistically significant. However, the average bill payment in 2016 was lower by comparison to 2011, and that difference was also statistically significant. Table B6 displays compensation details for domestic violence-related crimes as a whole, and by crime type.

There was no clear trend in the average bill payment for domestic violence-related assault claimants for the six-year period. The average bill payment was higher in 2016 in comparison to 2015, and that difference was statistically significant. However, the average bill payment in 2016 was lower in comparison to 2011, and that difference was also statistically significant.

There was no clear trend in the average bill payment for domestic violence-related child abuse claimants for the six-year period. The average bill payment was lower in 2016 in comparison to all prior years, and that difference was statistically significant.

There was a lot of variance between years in the average bill payment for domestic violence-related homicide claimants. The average bill payment was higher in 2016 in comparison to 2013 and 2014, and that difference was statistically significant.

The average bill payment for domestic violence-related kidnapping claimants was very consistent from 2014 through 2016. However, the average bill payment made in 2016 was not statistically significant in comparison to prior years.

There was a lot of variance between years in the average bill payment for domestic violence-related sexual assault claimants. The average bill payment was higher in 2016 in comparison to all prior years, and that difference was statistically significant.

There was no clear trend in the average bill payment for domestic violence-related stalking claimants for the six-year period. However, the average bill payment in 2016 was lower in comparison to 2011 and 2013, and that difference was also statistically significant.

Table B6. Average bill payment for domestic violence (overall) and for domestic violence-related crimes per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
DV (overall) $79 $75 $76 $76 $75 $76 $76
DV-related Assault $79 $75 $76 $76 $74 $76 $75
DV-related Child abuse $75 $75 $76 $74 $74 $71 $74
DV-related Homicide $184 $173 $118 $124 $156 $161 $146
DV-related Kidnapping $105 $104 $83 $93 $92 $93 $94
DV-related Sexual Assault $71 $73 $81 $79 $77 $84 $79
DV-related Stalking $91 $78 $84 $69 $72 $68 $74
Payments for victims of domestic violence (overall)—average total compensation

There was no clear trend over the six-year period in average total compensation per claimant for victims of domestic violence (overall), and the average total compensation per claimant in 2016—for victims of domestic violence (overall)—was not statistically significant in comparison to prior years. Table B7 shows the average total compensation by application, for overall and separate domestic violence-related crimes.

Average total compensation per domestic violence-related assault claimant in 2016 was not statistically significant in comparison to prior years.

There was no clear trend in the average total compensation per domestic violence-related child abuse claimant. However, the average total compensation in 2016 was lower than 2014 and 2015, and that difference was statistically significant.

Average total compensation per domestic violence-related homicide claimant was higher in 2016 than all prior years, except 2011, and that difference was statistically significant.

There was no clear trend in the average total compensation per domestic violence-related kidnapping claimant, and no statistically significant difference between years.

There was no clear trend in the average total compensation per domestic violence-related sexual assault claimant, and no statistically significant difference between years.

There was no clear trend in the average total compensation per domestic violence-related stalking claimant, and no statistically significant difference between years.

Table B7. Average total compensation for domestic violence (overall) and for domestic violence-related crimes per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
DV (overall) $1,356 $1,384 $1,355 $1,399 $1,402 $1,393 $1,384
DV-related Assault $1,196 $1,191 $1,193 $1,229 $1,236 $1,224 $1,214
DV-related Child abuse $1,129 $1,193 $1,041 $1,275 $1,297 $1,072 $1,181
DV-related Homicide $3,643 $2,768 $2,208 $2,532 $2,783 $3,719 $2,902
DV-related Kidnapping $1,271 $1,187 $1,171 $1,109 $1,418 $1,326 $1,238
DV-related Sexual Assault $1,030 $1,141 $1,023 $1,244 $1,237 $1,176 $1,159
DV-related Stalking $1,208 $1,164 $1,063 $955 $1,242 $887 $1,093

Minor Victims of Domestic Violence

AB1140 changed the eligibility requirements for minor derivative victims of domestic violence; CalVCB shall not deny the application of a minor derivative victim of domestic violence based on the denial of a direct victim’s application. CalVCB now considers minor derivative victims of domestic violence as direct victims, so the analysis below combines both direct and derivative minor victims of domestic violence.

Applications for minor victims of domestic violence

Table B8 displays the proportion of applications for minor victims of domestic violence has remained fairly consistent over the six year period, with the exception of 2013, which was lower than all other years, and this lower proportion of applications in 2013 was statistically significant in comparison to all other years, except for 2011.

Table B8. Percent of applications that were from minor domestic violence victims
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Minor DV 5,271 5,302 4,871 5,192 5,142 5,148 30,926
Other victims 34,839 34,189 33,992 32,460 32,599 32,889 200,968
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,037 231,894
Percent   Minor DV 13.1% 13.4% 12.5% 13.8% 13.6% 13.5%  13.3%
Other victims 86.9% 86.6% 87.5% 86.2% 86.4% 86.5%  86.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percent of applications denied for minor victims of domestic violence

The proportion of applications denied for minor victims of domestic violence was lower in the last three years in comparison to the first three years. The lower proportion of applications denied for 2016 was statistically significant in comparison to the first three years, but not in comparison to 2014 and 2015 (Table B9).

Table B9. Eligibility determination for minor victims of domestic violence
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 4,992 4,953 4,493 4,881 4,914 4,543 28,776
Denied 243 276 217 160 139 121 1,156
 Total 5,235 5,229 4,710 5,041 5,053 4,664 29,932
Percent Allowed 95.4% 94.7% 95.4% 96.8% 97.2% 97.4% 95.4%
Denied 4.6% 5.3% 4.6% 3.2% 2.8% 2.6% 4.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for minor victims of domestic violence

There was no clear trend in the average bill payment for claimants (minor victims of domestic violence) for the six-year period. However, the average bill payment in 2016 was higher in comparison to 2012 and 2015, and that difference was statistically significant. There was a slight upward trend in the average total compensation per claimant from 2011 through 2015, then down a bit in 2016. Average total compensation was higher in 2016 in comparison to 2011 through 2013; the difference was statistically significant only in comparison with 2011 (Table B10).

Table B10. Payments for minor victims of domestic violence per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Average bill payment $75 $74 $75 $76 $73 $74 $74
Average total compensation $994 $1,095 $1,066 $1,130 $1,164 $1,119 $1,108

Minor Victims of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse (Statutory Rape)

AB1140 repealed restrictive eligibility clauses for minor victims of unlawful sexual intercourse, also known as statutory rape. Victims of these crimes were previously limited to receiving compensation for mental health treatment with a limit of $5,000, and derivative victims, such as parents or siblings were not eligible for the program at all based on the crime. Now these minor victims are classified the same as minor victims of any other type of violent crime, with access to all benefit types and derivative victims now qualify for benefits.

Applications for minor victims of statutory rape

The proportion of applications for minor victims of statutory rape has fluctuated slightly over the six-year period, hovering just over four percent. The proportion of applications for minor victims of statutory rape in 2016 was lower than 2011 (Table B11).

Table B11. Number and percent of applications from minor victims of statutory rape
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Other victims 38,324 37,913 37,321 36,066 36,120 36,470 222,214
Minor rape 1,786 1,578 1,542 1,586 1,621 1,567 9,680
 Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,037 231,894
Percent Other victims 95.5% 96.0% 96.0% 95.8% 95.7% 95.9% 95.8%
Minor rape 4.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.1% 4.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percent of applications denied for minor victims of statutory rape

There was an overall downward trend in the percent of applications denied for minor victims of statutory rape, although the difference between years was not statistically significant (Table B12).

Table B12. Eligibility determination for minor victims of statutory rape
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number   Allowed 149 122 112 105 151 83 722
Denied 26 17 13 21 15 4 96
 Total 175 139 125 126 166 87 818
Percent Allowed 85.1% 87.8% 89.6% 83.3% 91.0% 95.4% 85.1%
Denied 14.9% 12.2% 10.4% 16.7% 9.0% 4.6% 14.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for minor victims of statutory rape

There was an upward trend in the average bill payment per claimant (minor victims of statutory rape) from 2011 through 2015, then down a bit in 2016, and the difference was statistically significant between 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There was no clear trend in the average total compensation per claimant (minor victims of statutory rape), and no statistically significant difference between years (Table B13).

Table B13. Payments for minor victims of statutory rape per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Average bill payment $72 $70 $76 $77 $77 $74 $74
Average total compensation $792 $666 $699 $823 $729 $822 $741

Child Pornography

AB1140 changed the eligibility requirements for minor victims of child pornography:

Applications for minor victims of child pornography

There were very few applications (130 cases) from minor victims of child pornography over the six-year period, and with such small numbers, the results are not reliable. There were insufficient cases to determine statistical significance. Despite the limited number of cases, there is a small upward trend over the six year period, from 2011 through 2016, then a slight downtick in 2016 (Table B14).

Table B14. Number and percent of applications from direct victims of child pornography
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Not minor child porn victim 40,098 394,71 38,844 37,629 37,712 38,010 231,764
Minor child porn victim 12 20 19 23 29 27 130
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 3,7652 37,741 38,037 231,894
Percent Not minor child porn victim 99.97% 99.95% 99.95% 99.94% 99.92% 99.93% 99.94%
Minor child porn victim .03% .05% .05% .06% .08% .07% .06%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Percent of applications denied for minor victims of child pornography

There was a downward trend in the percent of applications denied for minor victims of child pornography from 17 percent in 2011 down to three percent in 2015, then a slight increase up to eight percent in 2016, although there were insufficient cases to determine statistical significance. (Table B15).

Table B15. Eligibility determination for minor victims of child pornography
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 10 17 15 22 28 22 114
Denied 2 3 2 1 1 2 11
 Total 12 20 17 23 29 24 125
Percent Allowed 83.3% 85.0% 88.2% 95.7% 96.6% 91.7% 91.2%
Denied 16.7% 15.0% 11.8% 4.3% 3.4% 8.3% 8.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Payments for minor victims of child pornography

The average bill payment for claimants (minor victims of child pornography) was higher in 2016, in comparison to all prior years, except 2013, and this difference was statistically significant. There was no clear trend in the average total compensation per claimant (minor victims of child pornography), and no statistically significant difference between years (Table B16).

Table B16. Payments for minor victims of child pornography per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Average bill payment $57 $63 $86 $70 $63 $79 $72
Average total compensation $1,557 $727 $576 $826 $665 $608 $744

Funeral/Burial—Residential Security—Crime Scene Cleanup

Funeral/burial compensation:
Residential security compensation:
Crime-scene cleanup compensation:
Funeral/burial benefit payments

The average bill payment for funeral/burial benefits in 2016 was higher than all prior years, and the difference was statistically significant in comparison to all prior years. Average bill payments for funeral/burial benefits in 2016 increased by $406 over 2011.

Residential security benefit payments

There was a downward trend in the average bill payment for residential security benefit, starting in 2012 and continuing through 2016. Although the average bill payment in 2016 was lower than all prior years, this lower payment in 2016 was only statistically significant in comparison to 2012. However, more than a third of all residential security benefit payments in these six years were from bills received in 2016.

Crime-scene cleanup benefit payments

There was no way to definitively identify crime-scene cleanup cases that occurred in a vehicle; therefore, the analysis includes crime-scene cleanup cases for any crime that could have occurred in a vehicle (e.g. assault, robbery, homicide, and sexual assault).

There was no consistent trend in average bill payment over the six year period for crime-scene cleanup benefits (for assault, robbery, homicide, and sexual assault), and no statistically significant difference between years (Table B17).

Table B17. Average bill payment for funeral/burial, residential security, and crime scene cleanup per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Funeral/Burial $3,700 $3,304 $3,329 $3,336 $3,496 $4,106 $3,567
Residential Security $418 $435 $410 $402 $389 $345 $384
Crime-Scene Cleanup $926 $891 $910 $853 $825 $968 $900

Child Abduction

AB1140 changed the eligibility requirements for child abduction:

Child abduction applications/applications denied

As displayed in Table B18, there were very few child abduction applications (a total of 79 cases) over the six-year period, and with such small numbers, the results are not reliable. There were insufficient cases to determine statistical significance.

Table B18. Eligibility determination for child abduction victims
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 3 16 8 14 14 11 66
Denied 6 1 3 1 1 1 13
 Total 9 17 11 15 15 12 79
Percent Allowed 33.3% 94.1% 72.7% 93.3% 93.3% 91.7% 83.5%
Denied 66.7% 5.9% 27.3% 6.7% 6.7% 8.3% 16.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mitigating factors: Age/Physical Condition/Psychological State

AB1140 added mitigating factors for the Board to consider when determining if the victim’s involvement in the crime will result in a denial. These factors include age, physical condition, and psychological state of the victim.

There was no way to determine physical condition or psychological state in the data; therefore, the analysis is restricted to age, by decade.

Applications denied by age

The proportion of applications denied was lower in 2016 for all age groups (by decade), under age 71, in comparison to all prior years, and the difference in the proportion of applications denied was statistically significant in comparison to all prior years. For all age groups under age 71, there was a consistent trend downward, starting in 2012 and continuing through 2016.

The proportion of applications denied in 2016, for the age group 71-80, was lower than 2011 through 2014. However, the difference in the proportion of applications denied in 2016 was not statistically significant in comparison to all prior years.

The proportion of applications denied in 2016, for the age group 81 or higher, was lower than 2011 through 2013 (Table B19). However, the difference in the proportion of applications denied in 2016 was not statistically significant in comparison to all prior years.

Table B19. Eligible applications, by age
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
less than 10 7,633 7,493 7,241 7,538 7,592 6,793 44,290
11 to 20 8,790 7,987 7,278 7,636 7,680 6,695 46,066
21 to 30 7,026 6,655 6,364 6,007 6,317 5,975 38,344
31 to 40 4,981 5,066 5,070 5,072 5,540 5,400 31,129
41 to 50 3,440 3,275 3,264 3,193 3,374 3,314 19,860
51 to 60 1,840 1,851 2,032 1,952 2,098 1,967 11,740
61 to 70 657 616 681 667 768 852 4,241
71 to 80 202 185 217 279 262 230 1,375
81 or higher 83 94 73 85 108 106 549
Total 34,652 33,222 32,220 32,429 33,739 31,332 197,594
Table B20. Number of cases denied, by age
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
less than 10 761 894 706 627 582 380 3,950
11 to 20 1,042 987 741 705 592 406 4,473
21 to 30 1,352 1,360 1,019 866 761 504 5,862
31 to 40 802 843 747 731 584 450 4,157
41 to 50 593 642 524 415 411 262 2,847
51 to 60 309 336 310 254 252 183 1,644
61 to 70 88 93 64 73 63 43 424
71 to 80 18 14 20 22 12 15 101
81 or higher 7 8 6 2 2 8 33
Total 4,972 5,177 4,137 3,695 3,259 2,251 23,491
Table B21. Percent of denied applications
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
less than 10 10% 12% 10% 8% 8% 6% 9%
11 to 20 12% 12% 10% 9% 8% 6% 10%
21 to 30 19% 20% 16% 14% 12% 8% 15%
31 to 40 16% 17% 15% 14% 11% 8% 13%
41 to 50 17% 20% 16% 13% 12% 8% 14%
51 to 60 17% 18% 15% 13% 12% 9% 14%
61 to 70 13% 15% 9% 11% 8% 5% 10%
71 to 80 9% 8% 9% 8% 5% 7% 7%
81 or higher 8% 9% 8% 2% 2% 8% 6%
Total 14% 16% 13% 11% 10% 7% 12%

Part C. Six Years Later: Updating the 2010 Baseline Data Report Findings with Data from Calendar Years 2011 to 2016

Part C reporting begins with a brief direct comparison of the 2010 BDR findings with 2016 compensation data. For crime victims in 2010, the 2010 report describes three years of victim applications and compensation with crime rates reported by the California Department of Justice, and incorporated other measures from the Uniform Crime Report, the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS), census reports, and program compensation data.57 This evaluation compiles the same statistics with 2016 data, revised the methodology, and tested trends in the data for statistically significant differences. ISR controlled for outside factors such as programmatic changes in compensation and eligibility regulations, in crime rates (particularly by crime, age, etc.), and changes in other relevant population demographics.

ISR developed true comparison groups by considering issues including, but not limited to, the timing of implementation activities, the number of years victims can take to file a claim, and when bill are submitted.

Introduction

As part of CalVCB’s program assessment performed under the OVC Grant, CalVCB developed a BD)58 that characterized application and compensation outcomes for claims submitted that were related to crimes that occurred in 2010. The report included applications submitted up to three years following a crime that occurred in 2010.

The following are a few key findings reported in the 2010 BDR and in the 2016 programmatic data, for applications deemed eligible for compensation (82% in 2010, 91% in 2016):

  1. A plurality of claimants identified as Hispanic (50%) in 2010. In 2016, 56 percent of applicants identified as Hispanic
  2. In 2010: homicide survivors and direct assault victims received the largest proportion of compensation (69%). In 2016, that proportion increased seven percentage points, to 76 percent
  3. In 2010 and 2016, claimants typically were female (60 to 62%), were young (more than 75% were aged 40 or younger), and the young claimants received 75 percent of the compensation

The 2010 BDR characterized data using median values (including the number of days to process claims, compensation per type of benefit, etc.), summary values (total compensation by benefit categories, by direct versus derivative claimants, type of crime, etc.). Because claimants can file an application up to three years following the crime and that CalVCB’s various implementation efforts began in 2015, the methodology used to analyze data for applications received from calendar years 2011 through 2016 required a modified methodology. Please see the following methodology description specific to this section of the overall evaluation report for greater detail and justification.

2016 Baseline Data Report Methodology

Victims can file an application for compensation up to three years after a qualifying crime. CalVCB instituted grant-related programmatic changes that affect data from 2015 and 2016: data-driven results relevant to this evaluation will lag several more years, unfortunately.59

The 2010 BDR primarily reported median results for measures such as the number of days to process applications, compensation per benefit category, etc. It also presented three-year total compensation figures for crimes committed in 2010.

For comparison, ISR turned to additional methodology, including:

Data sources

CalVCB provided three programmatic data sources:

ISR combined all three files, linking data from each file with the application ID variable. After cleaning the combined data file, ISR created a final data set with applications filed within one year from the crime date, for calendar years 2011 through 2016:

Note that some data points were incomplete for various items, such as ethnicity or crime county. ISR tried to be as inclusive as possible. For example, if an entry was missing a crime county, the entry was included in analysis of crime type, but if looking at crime county by crime type, that data point would be excluded from that particular analysis.

All application-related findings are based on the application year, and all compensation-related findings are based on the year in which the bill was submitted (the latter used the bill submitted year in order to account for changes in bill payment mandates that occurred January 1, 2015).

Finally, note that all findings are based on applications that were filed within one year of the qualifying crime.

Findings

Table C1 presents an overall picture of the number of eligible applications filed within two years of the crime. Typically, about 45 percent submitting a bill within two years after the crime. Table C2 presents greater detail: 38 percent of eligible applications are typically submitted within six months, another five to six percent file within six to 12 months, and two to three percent file within two years.

Table C1. Eligible applications: Number and percent with compensation, without compensation, and the percent who submitted a bill within two years after the crime
Year Applications with compensation Without compensation* Total Percent of applications submitting a bill within two years
2011 15,496 18,323 33,819 46%
2012 14,904 17,795 32,699 46%
2013 13,830 17,985 31,815 43%
2014 13,552 18,651 32,203 42%
2015 13,127 19,706 32,833 40%
2016 8,126 17,501 25,627 32%
Total 79,035 109,961 188,996 42%

*Excludes eligible applications with bills submitted more than 24 months after the crime

Table C2. Number and percent of eligible applications submitting a bill within six months, one year, and two years following the crime
Year 6 months 6 to 12 months 12 to 24 months Total applications 6 months 6 to 12 months 12 to 24 months Total within 24 months
2011 12,820 1,902 774 33,819 38% 6% 2% 46%
2012 12,437 1,772 695 32,699 38% 5% 2% 46%
2013 11,478 1,543 809 31,815 36% 5% 3% 43%
2014 10,873 1,842 837 32,203 34% 6% 3% 42%
2015* 10,867 1,821 439 32,833 33% 6% 1% 40%
2016* 7,674 452 0 25,627 30% 2% 0% 32%
Total 66,149 9,332 3,554 188,996 35% 5% 2% 42%

*Some applications received in 2015 and 2016 will submit bills in 2017 that would have appeared in the 12 to 24 month time period; CalVCB anticipates additional applications for crimes committed in 2016 will be filed in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Applications by eligibility status

The percent of applications deemed eligible increased between 2011 and 2016. In 2011, CalVCB deemed 87 percent of applicants eligible. Using eligibility percentages from 2011 through 2015, roughly 89 percent should have been eligible in 2016, which is four percentage points lower than the actual percent of applications deemed eligible in 2016. This is a statistically significant higher percentage (Table C3).

Table C3. Eligibility by year, for applications filed within one year of the crime
  Status 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number Allowed 34,653 33,225 32,221 32,430 33,743 31,673 197,945
Denied 4,973 5,177 4,137 3,695 3,260 2,372 23,614
Total 39,626 38,402 36,358 36,125 37,003 34,045 221,559
Percent Allowed 87% 87% 89% 90% 91% 93% 89%
Denied 13% 14% 11% 10% 9% 7% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Compensation for direct and derivative claimants

ISR determined the average amount CalVCB paid claimants per each submitted bill, the total compensation paid per year, and the average total compensation paid per application. Bills that were submitted within two years of the crime where included in the computation, and outliers (amounts higher than two standard deviations above the mean) were excluded.

Because of changes to compensation limits and benefit categories during the previous six years, it is difficult to characterize changes in average payments and average total compensation. Statistically significant differences in averages between years may simply be artifacts of the broader changes to CalVCB’s compensation limits.

Table C4 shows the average bill payment, to direct and derivative claimants. Average bill payment in 2016 decreased $11 from 2011 for direct claimants. For derivative claimants, the average bill payment in 2016 payment was higher than 2011 by $4. Both changes in average bill payments are statistically significant.

Table C4. Average bill payment per application, direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average bill payment: Direct $132 $117 $113 $114 $114 $121
Average bill payment: Derivative $83 $84 $87 $84 $85 $87

For direct victims, the average total compensation per application dropped $120 from 2011 to 2016, and this difference is statistically significant. Average total compensation for direct victims in 2016 was higher than 2012-2015, and this difference was also statistically significant. The average total compensation for derivative victims increased $129 from 2011 to 2016, and this difference is statistically significant (Table C5).

Table C5. Average total compensation for direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average total compensation per application, Direct $2,018 $1,733 $1,656 $1,661 $1,666 $1,898
Average total compensation per application, Derivative $917 $991 $993 $1,015 $1,042 $1,046
Compensation by crime type

Total compensation figures (summed, not averaged), by crime type, vary enough between years (see Table C6) that it is more informative to examine the percent of total compensation per year that CalVCB paid by crime type (See Table C7). As in 2010, CalVCB pays more compensation to homicide and assault victims than any other crime type. In 2010, 69 percent of compensation went to these two crime types. The percent of compensation paid to homicide and assault victims increased to 77 percent in 2011, and consistently trended downward to 72 percent in 2015, before increasing back up to 76 percent in 2016.

Table C6. Total compensation paid by crime type, direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
Crime 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Arson $6,381 $24,458 $8,414 $14,228 $9,316 $22,772 $85,569
Assault $12,522,032 $29,819,481 $25,269,238 $23,096,916 $18,492,088 $16,422,242 $125,621,996
Child abuse $1,809,259 $4,118,813 $3,894,627 $4,086,131 $3,821,614 $2,962,077 $20,692,522
DWI/DUI $550,567 $1,228,977 $1,231,142 $1,178,007 $932,829 $523,353 $5,644,876
Homicide $6,767,357 $8,985,919 $7,933,455 $8,019,897 $8,377,100 $11,207,343 $51,291,071
Kidnapping $151,339 $382,430 $335,357 $338,417 $404,374 $345,783 $1,957,700
Veh. Mansl./Robbery $993,438 $2,280,735 $1,465,752 $1,647,411 $1,150,386 $1,163,711 $8,701,432
Robbery $1,384,159 $3,140,741 $2,999,302 $2,610,882 $2,134,687 $1,869,083 $14,138,854
Sexual assault $679,577 $1,715,635 $1,690,031 $1,657,953 $1,844,430 $1,622,449 $9,210,073
Stalking $64,246 $92,080 $99,171 $78,583 $128,453 $76,493 $539,025
Terrorism* $2,000 $0 $9,840 $0 $529 $0 $12,369
Overall $24,930,354 $51,789,270 $44,936,329 $42,728,424 $37,295,806 $36,215,304 $237,895,487

*Terrorism arson/explosive device

Although they comprise a much smaller proportion of total compensation paid by year (see Table C7), there are a few crime types that all exhibited the same pattern, the proportion of total compensation trended consistently upward between 2011 and 2015, before declining slightly in 2016 (2016 was still higher than 2011):

The proportion of total compensation paid by year for DWI/DUI exhibits a similar upward trend between 2011 and 2014, before declining in 2015 through 2016 (Table C7).

Table C7. Percent of total compensation paid per crime type as a percent of all compensation, per year bill was received
Crime 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Arson 0.03% 0.05% 0.02% 0.03% 0.02% 0.06% 0.04%
Assault 50.23% 57.58% 56.23% 54.06% 49.58% 45.35% 52.81%
Child abuse 7.26% 7.95% 8.67% 9.56% 10.25% 8.18% 8.70%
DWI/DUI 2.21% 2.37% 2.74% 2.76% 2.50% 1.45% 2.37%
Homicide 27.15% 17.35% 17.65% 18.77% 22.46% 30.95% 21.56%
Kidnapping 0.61% 0.74% 0.75% 0.79% 1.08% 0.95% 0.82%
Veh. Mansl/ Robbery 3.98% 4.40% 3.26% 3.86% 3.08% 3.21% 3.66%
Robbery 5.55% 6.06% 6.67% 6.11% 5.72% 5.16% 5.94%
Sexual assault 2.73% 3.31% 3.76% 3.88% 4.95% 4.48% 3.87%
Stalking 0.26% 0.18% 0.22% 0.18% 0.34% 0.21% 0.23%
Terrorism* 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
Overall 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Total for homicide/assault: 77.37% 74.93% 73.89% 72.82% 72.04% 76.29%  

*Terrorism arson/explosive device

Compensation by insurance status

For applicants with no insurance, average total compensation in 2016 was higher than all prior years, except 2011 (2016 was $125 less than 2011), and the difference between 2016 and all prior years was statistically significant. For applicants with insurance, average total compensation in 2016 is $72 higher than 2011, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Table C8. Average total compensation by application by known insurance status per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average total compensation by no insurance $2,287 $1,888 $1,763 $1,730 $1,742 $2,162
Average total compensation with insurance $1,462 $1,394 $1,368 $1,418 $1,456 $1,534
Average percent of claimants receiving compensation by crime type

Another way to look at the proportion of claimants who receive compensation is to examine if CalVCB compensates victims of different crimes more often; in other words, do victims of one crime more likely to receive compensation than victims of a different type of crime? Table C9 presents the average percent of claimants that received at least one payment per crime type, ranked in descending order by average percent, over the six-year timeframe. The percent varies from a low of 27 percent for DUI/DWI crimes, to a high of 54 percent for homicide survivors.

Table C9. Average percent of eligible claimants getting compensation per crime type per year
Crime 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average percent
Homicide 55.8% 54.2% 50.8% 49.4% 48.4% 65.7% 54%
Arson 80% 54% 50% 45% 18% 62% 52%
Robbery 52.8% 52.4% 51.8% 44.1% 42.4% 51.0% 49%
Assault 49% 48% 46% 44% 41% 49% 46%
Veh. Mansl./ Robbery 45.7% 43.5% 36.5% 38.3% 34.9% 43.9% 40%
Stalking 43.8% 40.9% 39.4% 30.1% 36.4% 39.5% 38%
Child abuse 42.7% 38.2% 38.2% 37.1% 31.0% 32.5% 37%
Sexual assault 41.1% 40.8% 34.7% 37.2% 33.4% 37.3% 37%
Kidnapping 35.8% 36.6% 29.9% 33.3% 30.1% 34.9% 33%
DWI/DUI 29.8% 26.7% 28.6% 27.6% 22.7% 26.1% 27%
Terrorism* 50.0% 0.0% 11.1% n/a 33.3% 0.0% n/a

*Terrorism arson/explosive device; we excluded the average for terrorism due to the lack of sufficient data.

Applications by representative type

The proportion of applications by representative type has remained fairly consistent across the six-year period (Table C10). Roughly four-fifths (79%) of applicants were represented by JP/VWC staff, while nearly a fifth (18%) of applicants had no representation. Attorneys represented two percent of applicants, one percent of applicants had an ineligible representative, and less than one percent of applicants had a family member as representative.

Table C10. Number and percent of applications by representation
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number JP/VWC 30,867 31,623 30,656 30,120 29,267 30,037 182,570
Attorney 1,276 658 623 742 699 671 4,669
Family 7 7 8 4 4 101 131
No representation 7,683 6,711 6,985 6,520 7,587 7,040 42,526
Ineligible 277 492 591 266 184 188 1,998
Total 40,110 39,491 38,863 37,652 37,741 38,037 231,894
Percent JP/VWC 77% 80% 79% 80% 78% 79% 79%
Attorney 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Family 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
No representation 19% 17% 18% 17% 20% 19% 18%
Ineligible 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Applications by race/ethnicity

Table C11 presents the number and percent of applications by self-identified race/ethnicity categories. Overall, the percent of Hispanic applicants consistently trended upward between 2011 and 2016: the percent of Hispanic applicants increased from 51.5 percent in 2011 to 56.0 percent in 2016, a statistically significant change. The 2010 BDR reported that 50 percent of claimants identified as Hispanic, which fits into the overall trend upward. There was a corresponding decrease in representation of white and Native American claimants (26.9% to 22.3% and 1.1% to .8%, respectively), trending downward consistently across the years. These changes are statistically significantly different. The proportion of API applicants remained steady (around four percent) between 2011 and 2016, and there were no statistically significant differences between years. The was no consistent trend in the proportion of African American applicants over the six years. The proportion of African American applicants in 2016 (17.0%) was higher than in 2011 (16.5%); however, the difference between 2016 and 2011 was not statistically significant.

Table C11. Number and percent of applications by race/ethnicity
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number White 8,553 7,950 7,694 7,394 7,257 7,116 45,964
African-American 5,231 5,149 5,671 5,308 5,016 5,447 31,822
Hispanic 16,379 16,152 16,691 16,925 17,581 17,879 101,607
Native American 357 348 368 359 278 266 1,976
API 1,261 1,201 1,282 1,239 1,226 1,246 7,455
Known ethnicity total 31,781 30,800 31,706 31,225 31,358 31,954 188,824
Percent White 26.9% 25.8% 24.3% 23.7% 23.1% 22.3% -
African-American 16.5% 16.7% 17.9% 17.0% 16.0% 17.0% -
Hispanic 51.5% 52.4% 52.6% 54.2% 56.1% 56.0% -
Native American 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% .9% .8% -
API 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% -

Table C12 displays the race/ethnicity of direct and derivative victim claimants alongside the race/ethnicity of the CA population:

Table C12. California resident ethnicity and direct and derivative claimant ethnicity
  California residents* CalVCB claimants**
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
White 41% 40% 40% 39% 39% 38% 27% 26% 24% 24% 23% 22%
African American 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 17% 17% 18% 17% 16% 17%
Hispanic 37% 38% 38% 38% 38% 39% 52% 52% 53% 54% 56% 56%
Native American 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%
API 13% 13% 14% 14% 14% 15% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

*Percent of all CA residents

**Percent of CalVCB claimants with known ethnicity

Eligible applications by age

Table C13 displays the proportion of applications from direct claimants by age group. The proportion of application from direct claimants aged 17 or younger remained fairly consistent over the six-year period, and the proportion in 2016 is the same as 2011 (37%). The proportion for direct claimants between the ages of 18 and 40 dropped from 43 percent in 2011 to 41 percent in 2016, a small, but statistically significant difference. There was a corresponding consistent upward trend in applications from direct claimants aged 41 or older over the six-year period. The proportion for older direct claimants has increased from 20 percent in 2011 to 22 percent in 2016.

Table C13. Number and percent of eligible, direct claimants grouped by age
Age 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
0 to 17 years old 10,019 9,427 8,981 9,542 9,671 9,114 56,754
18 to 40 11,469 11,025 10,513 10,133 10,780 10,045 63,965
41 or older 5,260 5,113 5,231 5,141 5,551 5,327 31,623
Total 26,748 25,565 24,725 24,816 26,002 24,486 152,342
0 to 17 years old 37% 37% 36% 38% 37% 37% 37%
18 to 40 43% 43% 43% 41% 41% 41% 42%
41 or older 20% 20% 21% 21% 21% 22% 21%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average total compensation by age

The average total compensation per application was highest for claimants between the ages of 18 and 40: these claimants received over half of all compensation paid per year. For both claimants aged 18 to 40 and 41 and older, 2011 and 2016 averages are not statistically significantly different from each other; however, for both groups, average total compensation in 2016 is higher than 2012-2015, and the difference is statistically significant. In contrast, the average total compensation for claimants aged 17 and younger in 2016 is lower than in 2011, and the difference is statistically significant (Table C14).

Table C14. Average total compensation per eligible application by age category
  Age 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average total compensation 0 to 17 years old $1,410 $1,317 $1,226 $1,289 $1,276 $1,289
18 to 40 $2,275 $1,929 $1,863 $1,864 $1,896 $2,257
41 or older $2,194 $1,889 $1,843 $1,829 $1,809 $2,076
Total $2,018 $1,733 $1,656 $1,661 $1,666 $1,898
Summed payments per year 0 to 17 years old $3,271,174 $6,835,616 $6,508,858 $7,127,568 $7,066,841 $6,180,863
18 to 40 $9,595,356 $15,597,031 $14,454,030 $13,437,988 $13,587,475 $14,693,494
41 or older $4,101,868 $7,021,213 $6,733,384 $6,426,216 $6,454,699 $6,901,853
Total $16,968,398 $29,453,860 $27,696,271 $26,991,772 $27,109,015 $27,776,210
Percent of summed payments 0 to 17 years old 19% 23% 24% 26% 26% 22%
18 to 40 57% 53% 52% 50% 50% 53%
41 or older 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 25%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Referral source for applications

CalVCB made a change in the way that they captured the referral source for applications in 2015. As Table C15 below displays, in 2015, 95 percent of applications were missing referral source, rendering the referral source data for 2015 unreliable. In contrast, the referral source was available for over half (54%) of the applications in 2016.

Based on the 2016 data:

Table C15. Number and percent of referral sources provided for years 2015 and 2016
  Number Percent
Source 2015 2016 2015 2016
Adult Protective Services 2 23 0.1% 0.1%
Billboard or Poster 0 5 0.0% 0.0%
Card or Booklet 3 30 0.2% 0.1%
CPS (Child Protective Services) 171 1,616 9.2% 7.7%
District Attorney 188 2,460 10.1% 11.8%
Highway Patrol 0 26 0.0% 0.1%
Media (TV, Newspaper or Radio) 5 60 0.3% 0.3%
Medical Provider 70 636 3.8% 3.0%
Mental Health Provider 157 891 8.5% 4.3%
Other 230 2,413 12.4% 11.5%
Police 385 3,885 20.8% 18.6%
Sheriff 49 657 2.6% 3.1%
Unspecified 182 2,356 9.8% 11.3%
Victim Services Program 36 732 1.9% 3.5%
Victim Witness Center 377 5,120 20.3% 24.5%
Total 1,855 20,910 100.0% 100.0%
No referral source provided in data 35,886 17,618    
Insurance per crime

For applicants with no insurance, the average total compensation in 2016 was higher than 2011 for homicide and the difference between 2016 and all prior years was statistically significant. For applicants with no insurance, average total compensation did not display a consistent trend over the six years for most crime types. However, the average total compensation for assault trended downward between 2011 and 2016. For assault, the difference between 2016 and 2011, 2012, and 2013 was statistically significant. For robbery, the overall trend was statistically significant, although no one year was statistically different from any other year. For all crimes combined, the difference between 2016 and all prior years was statistically significant (Table C16).

For applicants with insurance, the average total compensation in 2016 was higher than 2011 for homicide, and for all crimes combined. For homicide, and for all crimes combined, and the difference between 2016 and all other years, except for 2011, was statistically significant. For applicants with insurance, most crime types did not display a consistent trend over the six years. However, the average total compensation for homicide was U-shaped, trending downward between 2011 and 2013, then trending upward from 2013 through 2016 (Table C16).

Table C16. Average total compensation by insurance status by crime per year bill was received
    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
No insurance Arson $1,190 $1,294 $415 $1,032 $75 $1,091 $1,039
Assault $1,883 $1,830 $1,742 $1,548 $1,420 $1,412 $1,642
Child abuse $1,092 $1,165 $1,012 $1,107 $1,106 $1,014 $1,087
DWI/DUI $3,578 $2,653 $2,671 $3,460 $2,743 $2,551 $2,919
Homicide $4,175 $3,409 $3,220 $3,178 $3,437 $4,835 $3,680
Kidnapping $1,092 $1,301 $1,097 $1,057 $1,268 $1,315 $1,185
Vehicular Mansl/robbery $4,758 $4,245 $3,845 $3,807 $2,792 $3,754 $3,836
Robbery $1,523 $1,453 $1,363 $1,307 $1,234 $1,256 $1,348
Sexual assault $1,178 $1,167 $1,084 $1,101 $1,135 $1,060 $1,118
Stalking $1,073 $1,080 $1,180 $1,181 $1,177 $1,117 $1,139
Terrorism* $2,000       $529   $1,265
Total $2,365 $1,966 $1,848 $1,767 $1,761 $2,184 $1,945
With insurance Arson $1,406 $563 $1,056 $1,443 $1,155 $1,137 $1,138
Assault $1,287 $1,317 $1,315 $1,354 $1,379 $1,369 $1,343
Child abuse $1,105 $1,088 $1,078 $1,116 $1,115 $1,040 $1,090
DWI/DUI $4,063 $3,391 $2,963 $3,166 $3,246 $3,175 $3,258
Homicide $2,937 $2,324 $2,235 $2,399 $2,603 $3,305 $2,624
Kidnapping $1,113 $1,317 $1,236 $1,133 $1,259 $1,310 $1,240
Vehicular Mansl/robbery $2,408 $2,151 $2,384 $2,183 $2,325 $2,725 $2,346
Robbery $1,414 $1,243 $1,371 $1,310 $1,381 $1,325 $1,333
Sexual assault $981 $1,091 $1,011 $1,057 $1,038 $1,134 $1,059
Stalking $1,414 $1,144 $1,088 $951 $1,193 $834 $1,092
Terrorism*     $9,840       $9,840
Total $1,438 $1,351 $1,326 $1,373 $1,406 $1,489 $1,393

*Terrorism arson/explosive device

Insurance by benefit

For applicants with no insurance, the average bill payment in 2016 was higher than 2011 for funeral/burial and medical benefits, and the difference was statistically significant between 2016 and all prior years for funeral/burial benefits, and all prior years except 2014 for medical benefits. For applicants with no insurance, most benefits did not display a consistent trend over the six years. However, the average bill payment for relocation benefits trended downward between 2011 and 2016, with the exception of 2014, and the difference between 2016 and all prior years, except 2015, was statistically significant. The average bill payment in 2016 for rehabilitation benefits was lower than 2011, and the difference was statistically significant. Overall, the average bill payment trended downward between 2011 and 2015, with a slight uptick in 2016, and the lower average bill payment in 2016 was statistically significant in comparison to all prior years, except 2014 (Table C17).

For applicants with insurance, the average bill payment in 2016 was higher than 2011 for dental, funeral/burial, medical, mental health, and overall benefits, and the differences were statistically significant. For applicants with insurance, most benefits did not display a consistent trend over the six years. However, the average bill payment for dental and medical benefits trended upward between 2011 and 2016. In addition, the average bill payment for relocation benefits trended downward between 2011 and 2016, and the average bill payment in 2016 was statistically significant in comparison to 2011-2013. For applicants with insurance, the trend for the average bill payment for benefits overall was U-shaped, trending downward between 2011 and 2013, then trending upward from 2013 through 2016 (Table C17).

Table C17. Average bill payment by benefit by known insurance status per year bill was received
  Benefit 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
No insurance Dental $422 $391 $439 $459 $399 $449
Funeral/Burial $3,765 $3,409 $3,507 $3,442 $3,524 $4,284
Income/Support Loss $1,110 $1,299 $1,644 $1,557 $1,880 $1,408
Medical $153 $155 $152 $173 $168 $188
Mental Health $71.02 $72.02 $73.24 $71.40 $69.74 $70.78
Rehabilitation $691 $513 $520 $641 $426 $464
Relocation $1,375 $1,347 $1,297 $1,325 $1,267 $1,190
Overall $137 $117 $113 $110 $102 $108
With insurance Dental $329 $424 $451 $458 $534 $543
Funeral/Burial $3,454 $2,957 $2,855 $3,029 $3,430 $3,725
Income/Support Loss $1,401 $1,608 $1,941 $1,999 $2,000 $1,729
Medical $140 $161 $163 $175 $201 $253
Mental Health $75.72 $74.20 $75.56 $75.81 $76.02 $76.24
Rehabilitation $403 $511 $445 $394 $416 $368
Relocation $1,284 $1,221 $1,186 $1,151 $1,133 $1,081
Overall $115 $106 $104 $107 $111 $118
Average number of days between a qualifying crime and submitting an application for compensation

Table C18 displays the average time to file for direct, derivative, and direct/derivative (combined). There was a consistent upward trend in the average time to file, starting in 2012, continuing through 2016, for both direct claimants, and direct/derivative (combined) claimants. There was no trend in average time to file for derivative claimants. The average time to file in 2016 was longer than 2011, for both direct claimants and direct/derivative (combined) claimants.

Table C18. Average number of days to file following a crime, by direct and derivative claimants
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Direct 94.9 93.5 95.2 96.9 97 97.2
Derivative 95.6 97.2 96.2 92.9 91.6 93.4
Combined 95.1 94.3 95.4 96.0 95.7 96.4
Time to process and to pay bills side by side

There was a consistent downward trend in CalVCB’s time to process an application (average days to determine eligibility per application), between 2011 and 2016. The average processing time in 2016 is less than half of the average processing time in 2011. Even if we exclude the extremely high average processing time for 2011 (83.3 days), the average processing time in 2016 (34.4 days) is 21.1 days shorter than 2012 (55.5 days).

Likewise, there was a fairly consistent downward trend in CalVCB’s time to pay a bill (average days to issue compensation per bill), between 2011 and 2016, with a slight uptick in 2015. The average time to pay a bill in 2016 (25.9 days) is 32 days shorter than 2011 (29.1 days).

Table C19. Average days for CalVCB to determine eligibility per application and average days to issue compensation per bill
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Average days to determine eligibility 83.3 55.5 55.5 45.1 36.4 34.4 52.3
Average days to process a bill 29.1 28.0 27.4 26.9 27.8 25.9 27.5
Time to file by representative

Given the extremely small numbers for all representative types (see Table C10), except JP/VWC and no representation, it is not surprising that there were no trends observed in the average days to file by representative type (Table C20).

Table C20. Average days to file from date of crime, by representative type
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall 
JP/VWC 89.3 89.5 90.6 88.9 88.0 90.3 89.4
Attorney 123.5 137.8 142.1 166.4 144.6 150.7 141.9
Family 60.0 40.7 116.1 57.5 95.3 86.0 83.4
No representation 113.5 113.4 113.0 120.8 120.9 117.8 116.6
Ineligible 99.3 88.7 88.6 94.5 98.2 88.3 91.8
Total 95.1 94.3 95.4 96.0 95.7 96.4 95.5

Claimant Characteristics

Distribution of NCVS victims and direct victims claimants by age

Appendix C Figure F displays the distributions of NCVS victims and direct victim claimants by age for each year, starting with the 2010 BDR data, and continuing through 2016. The overall shapes of these distributions are remarkably similar for all years, with the heaviest proportion concentrations in the 25-34 and 35-49 age groups, although the proportion varies slightly from year to year. In 2014, in contrast to all of the other years, the proportion of NCVS victims in the 25-34 and 35-49 age groups exceeds the proportion of direct victim claimants in those age groups. The proportion of NCVS victims and direct victim claimants in the 50-64 age group appears to be trending upward over the years.

Number and percent of direct victims by gender

Eligible applications from female victims comprise almost 60 percent of all applications each year. There appears to be a slight upward trend in this percent, from 57 percent in 2011 to 62 percent in 2016. That 62 percent in 2016 is statistically higher than all previous years. In the 2010 BDR, 60 percent of direct victims were female (Table C21).

Table C21. Number and percent of direct victims by gender
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Female 10,925 13,855 14,107 14,542 15,309 15,095
Male 8,194 10,125 10,596 10,249 10,657 9,369
Total 19,119 23,980 24,703 24,791 25,966 24,464
Female 57% 58% 57% 59% 59% 62%
Male 43% 42% 43% 41% 41% 38%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Age profile of direct victim claimants

Appendix C Figure G displays the age profile of direct victim claimants for each year, starting with the 2010 BDR data, and continuing through 2016. The overall shapes of these distributions are remarkably similar for all years, with the heaviest concentration in age groups 40 or younger, although the proportion varies slightly from year to year. The only noticeable difference is for the 2010 BDR distribution, which has a more even decline over age groups.

Total compensation paid by age group to direct victims

Appendix C Figure H displays the total compensation paid by age group to direct victims for each year, starting with the 2010 BDR data, and continuing through 2016. The overall shapes of these distributions are remarkably similar for all years, with the largest total compensation concentrated in the 21-30, 31-40, and 41-50 age groups, although the amount of total compensation paid varies slightly from year to year.

Total claimants most dependent on CalVCB compensation services, by crime county

Appendix C Figure Q displays; the direct disabled victims, derivative minor survivors, direct/derivative senior victims (age 65 or older), total CalVCB special populations (minors, seniors, and disabled), total direct/derivative claimants, and special population percent of total direct/derivative claimants. Over the six-year period, the statewide special population proportion of total direct/derivative claimants remained constant at 11 percent from 2011 through 2015, before dipping down slightly to 10 percent in 2016.

Ethnic composition of the US population, CA population, NCVS victim population, and CalVCB direct victim claimants

The ethnic composition of the US population, CA population, NCVS victim population, and CalVCB direct victim claimants is displayed in Appendix C Figure I, by year, starting with 2011, and continuing through 2016. The data presented for the US population and the NCVS victim population use national level sources of data, while the CA population and the CalVCB direct victim claimants’ data use state level sources of data, and this is particularly relevant when comparing the ethnic composition. The ethnic composition for the NCVS victim population is similar to the ethnic composition of the US population. In contrast, the ethnic composition for the state of California is distinctly different from the US population, and the ethnic composition for the NCVS victim population. Furthermore, while the ethnic composition of the CalVCB direct victim claimants is not exactly parallel to the ethnic composition of the CA population; the ethnic composition for these two populations are much closer than either to the NCVS victim population or the US population.

Time to process by race/ethnicity

CalVCB’s time to process an application (average days to determine eligibility per application) by ethnicity is displayed in Table C22.

Table C22. Average days to determine eligibility by ethnicity
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
White 81.8 52.0 52.7 42.4 33.2 31.7 50.3
African American 94.8 62.5 59.1 49.6 42.8 38.9 58.3
Hispanic 83.4 56.8 57.9 44.8 36.4 34.4 52.1
Native American 81.1 50.8 44.7 39.7 31.6 28.1 47.6
API 88.9 56.7 58.7 52.0 39.4 37.2 56.0

Characteristics of Crimes

Comparison of VWAC and caseloads by crime county, for 2010 and 2016

Appendix C Figure P presents the following by crime county for 2010 and 2016; the census population, reported violent crimes, number of VWAC advocates, estimated caseload per advocate, and number VWAC advocate represented claimants. Between 2010 and 2016, there was a decrease of 0.02 percent in the violent crime rate (reported violent crimes as a percent of total population, statewide). The number of VWAC advocates doubled between 2010 and 2016 (349 to 704), with a corresponding decrease in estimated caseload per advocate by nearly half (469 to 248). The number of VWAC advocate represented claimants nearly decreased by half (37,901 to 19,607), between 2010 and 2016. However, the proportion of claimants represented by VWAC advocates increased seven percentage points between 2010 and 2016, from 72 to 79 percent.

CalVCB direct and derivative claimants by crime category and county

Appendix Table C Figure M presents the following by crime county for each year, from 2011-2016; total direct and derivative CalVCB claimants by crime category (using CalVCB data classifications for 2011), percent of county’s claimants, and percent of statewide crime claimants. From highest to lowest statewide proportion:

Comparison of CalVCB claimant rate to CA crime rate

Appendix C Figure N displays the CalVCB claimant rate per 100,000 population to the CA crime rate per 100,000 population for each crime category by crime county.

Benefits

Percent of total compensation paid per year by category of benefit

The largest proportion of total compensation paid per year by category of benefit was for mental health, which consistently trended upward from 2011 to 2015 (41%-60%), before decreasing slightly in 2016 (57%). The proportion of total compensation paid per year for medical decreased steadily from 2011 through 2016 (29%-17%). In 2011, the proportion of total compensation paid per year for relocation comprised 17 percent, which dropped down to 12 percent in 2012, leveled off at 11 percent for 2013-2014, before slowly increasing up to 13 percent in 2016. Income/support loss hovered around 4-5 percent over the six-year period. The funeral/burial benefit had the highest per proportion in 2011 (6%), and then leveled out to three percent for 2012-2015, before increasing to 5 percent in 2016. Dental has hovered around 2-3 percent over the five-year period, and rehabilitation has been one percent or less for the six-year period (Table C23).

Table C23. Percent of summed total dollars paid per year by category per year per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Dental 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2%
Funeral/Burial 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5%
Income/Support Loss 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5%
Medical 29% 28% 24% 22% 17% 17%
Mental Health 41% 49% 55% 57% 60% 57%
Rehabilitation 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Relocation 17% 12% 11% 11% 12% 13%
Overall 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average bill payment by benefit category, overall

Table C24 displays average bill payment by benefit category

Table C24. Average bill payment by benefit category per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Dental $364 $414 $442 $458 $494 $521
Funeral/Burial $3,700 $3,304 $3,329 $3,336 $3,496 $4,106
Income/Support Loss $1,331 $1,510 $1,828 $1,869 $1,969 $1,657
Medical $148 $156 $158 $176 $198 $237
Mental Health $74 $74 $75 $74 $74 $74
Rehabilitation $509 $512 $464 $447 $418 $382
Relocation $1,323 $1,271 $1,230 $1,210 $1,172 $1,110
Overall $125 $111 $109 $109 $109 $116
Average bill payment by benefit category to direct and derivative claimants

The highest average bill payment for direct claimants was for funeral/burial benefits, this payment was rarely made for derivative claimants: there was a U-shaped trend for direct claimants, trending downward from 2011 (1,077) to 2013 ($1,028), and then trending upward through 2016 (1,091), and the difference between 2016 was statistically significant in comparison to all prior years.

The average bill payment for income/support loss trended higher for derivative claimants than direct claimants:

Average bill payments for relocation benefits for both direct and derivative claimants (Table C25).

For direct claimants, both medical and dental consistently trended upward between 2011 and 2016, and 2016 averages were statistically significant in comparison to 2011. In contrast, dental was non-existent for derivative claimants, and there was no clear trend in the average bill payment for medical benefits to derivative claimants. Average bill payments for mental health were relatively flat for both direct and derivative claimants, although the slightly higher payment for mental health benefits for derivative claimants in 2016 was statistically significant in comparison to 2011.

Table C25. Average bill payment by benefit category to direct and derivative claimants per year bill was received
  Benefit 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Direct Dental $364 $414 $443 $458 $494 $521
Funeral/Burial $3,700 $3,304 $3,328 $3,338 $3,496 $4,106
Income/Support Loss $1,296 $1,369 $1,770 $1,793 $1,816 $1,533
Medical $148 $156 $158 $176 $198 $237
Mental Health $74 $73 $75 $74 $74 $74
Rehabilitation $505 $512 $464 $445 $416 $381
Relocation $1,320 $1,264 $1,230 $1,200 $1,172 $1,110
Overall $132 $117 $113 $114 $114 $121
Derivative Dental $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funeral/Burial $0 $0 $4,822 $178 $0 $0
Income/Support Loss $1,695 $2,308 $2,026 $2,214 $2,506 $2,244
Medical $211 $236 $131 $75 $250 $0
Mental Health $73 $74 $75 $74 $74 $75
Rehabilitation $1,000 $0 $0 $750 $1,000 $675
Relocation $1,453 $1,615 $1,233 $1,617 $1,218 $1,109
Overall $83 $84 $87 $84 $85 $87

Processing

Time to process by crime category

Table C26 displays CalVCB’s time to process an application (average days to determine eligibility per application) by crime category. CalVCB reduced the average time to process an application for all crime categories between 2011 and 2016. For some crime categories, there was a consistent downward trend in average time to process from 2011 through 2016: homicide, sexual assault, and overall. For the rest of the crime categories, the trend was inconsistent over the six-year period.

Table C26. Average number of days to determine eligibility, by crime
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Arson 205.5 51.5 55.5 37.6 36.5 22.7 41.0
Assault 86.0 57.2 59.3 47.6 38.8 37.2 55.2
Child abuse 81.4 55.7 53.0 42.3 33.6 34.5 50.9
DWI/DUI 92.7 59.5 54.4 45.6 34.7 35.6 53.9
Homicide 65.2 43.7 42.0 35.4 27.2 21.5 39.1
Kidnapping 66.0 52.7 47.3 37.7 32.1 32.5 44.1
Veh. Mansl/robbery 99.0 63.6 64.5 53.5 39.6 37.4 60.5
Robbery 92.0 57.2 58.2 52.8 37.9 40.3 56.0
Sexual assault 88.6 58.5 54.5 44.2 41.4 35.9 54.9
Stalking 65.0 41.5 36.4 39.1 35.6 32.0 42.0
Terrorism* 115.3 73.5 85.4   46.8 89.0 81.5
Overall 83.3 55.5 55.5 45.1 36.4 34.4 52.3

*Terrorism arson/explosive device

Average total compensation per application for direct claimants

Direct homicide, kidnapping, vehicular manslaughter claimants received the highest average total compensation in 2016 compared to prior years. For homicide, the difference was statistically significant with all prior years, for kidnapping, it was statistically different from 2014. Other crime types had inconsistent or downward trends: 2016 assault average was significantly lower than 2011, 2012, and 2013, and for child abuse, the average total compensation was significantly lower than 2012, 2014, and 2015. Overall, direct claimant average total compensation in 2016 was significantly lower than 2011, but significantly higher than all intervening years (Table C27).

Table C27. Direct claimants: Average total compensation per application per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Arson $1,276 $1,122 $765 $1,293 $1,035 $1,118
Assault $1,586 $1,576 $1,539 $1,467 $1,453 $1,447
Child abuse $1,225 $1,263 $1,173 $1,251 $1,211 $1,133
DWI/DUI $4,083 $3,476 $3,180 $3,375 $3,179 $3,169
Homicide $4,798 $3,974 $3,915 $3,971 $4,120 $5,397
Kidnapping $1,197 $1,372 $1,244 $1,150 $1,368 $1,517
Veh. Mansl/robbery $3,337 $2,874 $3,162 $2,902 $2,665 $3,357
Robbery $1,565 $1,426 $1,405 $1,394 $1,365 $1,351
Sexual assault $1,145 $1,242 $1,144 $1,194 $1,181 $1,217
Stalking $1,300 $1,138 $1,087 $1,100 $1,203 $896
Terrorism* $2,000   $9,840   $529  
Overall $2,034 $1,759 $1,682 $1,673 $1,680 $1,905

*Terrorism arson/explosive device

Average total compensation per application for derivative claimants

For derivative claimants, 2016 average total compensations were higher than 2011 for assault, homicide, vehicular manslaughter, sexual assault, and overall (all crime types combined). The average for the remaining crime types had inconsistent trends over the years. The only significant difference was between 2016 and 2011 for homicide, and for all crimes combined (Table C28).

Table C28. Derivative claimants: Average total compensation per application per year bill was received
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Arson - - - - - -
Assault $735 $740 $786 $809 $893 $835
Child abuse $875 $883 $857 $858 $895 $826
DWI/DUI $1,312 $987 $1,249 $1,558 $674 $1,106
Homicide $981 $1,158 $1,209 $1,243 $1,194 $1,349
Kidnapping $833 $901 $967 $873 $732 $770
Veh. Mansl/robbery $631 $741 $786 $804 $891 $977
Robbery $903 $773 $761 $641 $723 $831
Sexual assault $777 $779 $745 $748 $736 $831
Stalking $706 $1,463 $918 $329 $387 $833
Terrorism* - - - - - -
Overall $891 $950 $933 $957 $959 $972

*Terrorism arson/explosive device

Summary

CalVCB developed three objectives with corresponding strategies to improve awareness, access, and efficiency of compensation delivered to crime victims.61 In 2016, CalVCB contracted with ISR to perform an outcome evaluation composed of the following three components: 62

Part A: Evaluate the implementation plan’s impacts on the identified underserved groups and stakeholders

Part B: Analyze changes in victim eligibility and compensation payment rates as a result of enacted legislation to reduce unmet needs

Part C: Update CalVCB’s 2010 Calendar Year Baseline Data Report63 using calendar years 2011 to 2016

Part A. Underserved Groups

CalVCB’s research identified the following 13 underserved victim groups: disabled, elderly, LGBTQ, homeless/unstable housing, human trafficking (sex or labor), deaf and hard of hearing, immigrants, immigrants from indigenous areas in Mexico, Native American tribal communities, API, limited English proficiency, residents of rural or frontier counties, and communities impacted with gang violence.

About 75 percent of victims who apply for services receive application assistance from system-based victim advocates.64 Accordingly, many of the Implementation Plan awareness activities focus on outreach to and training of victim service providers, first responders, law enforcement, emergency medical service providers and other stakeholders.65 CalVCB expected to see four key improvements upon implementation: three short term and one long term. Efforts concentrated on a wide range of activities to accomplish the three short-term objectives:

Objective 1: Increase awareness, accessibility, and responsiveness through translating key CalVCB materials into 13 languages

Objective 2: Increase awareness, accessibility, and quality of service through outreach and training with internal and external stakeholders

Objective 3: Increase accessibility and quality of service through innovative technology solutions

In the long term, accomplishing these three objectives would result in the overarching long‐term goal: within underserved populations, more victims of violent crime will apply for compensation for crime‐related costs beginning in calendar year 2016. Higher rates of applications from underserved groups will indicate CalVCB successfully reduced service gaps through accomplishing the three short‐term objectives.

Grant Activities

The majority of the grant activities undertaken by CalVCB will provide long-term, sustainable changes to the program; this includes the following:

One of the most critical components of the grant activities is by necessity an ongoing effort, which will continue to require CalVCB’s attention and investment: outreach to stakeholders through large-scale events, like the two regional conferences, or the co-sponsored conference for law enforcement, as well as all of the stakeholder events wherein CalVCB provided outreach training, attended, or exhibited (nearly 50 events).

Stakeholder Survey

ISR’s stakeholder survey evaluated the effectiveness of the CalVCB’s program improvements during the grant period. Nearly all of the respondents were aware of victim compensation and CalVCB in particular, but roughly half were aware of the recently increased compensation for funeral/burial benefits and the availability of the newly translated applications. This suggests that CalVCB has been effective in communicating their overall purpose, and to some degree in getting the message out regarding changes in their program; however, they will need to continue to get the message out to stakeholders regarding the changes in the program.

Nearly three-fourths of respondents who had attended an outreach event or some type of CalVCB training had heard about the increased compensation for funeral/burial benefits, and half had heard about the newly translated applications. This suggests that CalVCB’s efforts at outreach, and providing technical training to advocates and providers, has had an impact in getting the message out about program improvements, although the effect appears to be stronger for changes in benefits than for the availability of the translated applications. These finding suggest that CalVCB should continue these efforts.

Less than half of the respondents were aware that they or their organization received a toolkit. However, of those who were aware, 90 percent told a colleague about the toolkit, and 36 percent requested another toolkit. Additionally, 175 of the 216 unaware of the toolkit provided their mailing address so that CalVCB can add them to their mailing list. This suggests that CalVCB has had some effectiveness in distributing their toolkit to stakeholders; however, additional mailings and other efforts to communicate the availability of the toolkit materials would be helpful.

Finally, ISR created three scales to measure: program awareness, awareness of grant activities, and application use. There was a statistically significant difference between average scores for the law enforcement/victim witness group compared to the health provider group, with the law enforcement/victim witness group consistently scoring higher on all three scales than the health group. There was also a statistically significant difference in knowledge of program improvements between respondents who did or did not attend at least one event or training. Both of these findings suggest that CalVCB’s outreach and training efforts have been effective, and particularly for advocates and other stakeholders, and that CalVCB should continue to make efforts to provide outreach to health providers.

ISR also examined bivariate correlations to determine if there is a correlation between how many USGs a respondent serves and average scores on the three scales. There is a statistically significant (moderate) correlation between the number of USGs respondents serve and each of the three scales: as the number of USGs served increases, so does average scores on the three scales tend to increase (Table A29). Similarly, respondents who serve a greater number of the four USGs that have additional language needs tend to have higher average scores on all three scales. This suggests that CalVCB’s outreach and training efforts have been effective in reaching the stakeholder groups most likely to serve the identified USGs, and that they should continue in these efforts.

Impacts on Applications and Compensation for Underserved Groups

ISR used CalVCB program application and payment data to measure the impact of the project on underserved groups.66 Of the thirteen USGs, the available program data somewhat limit the USG analysis to the following six groups: elderly, disabled, frontier and rural counties,67 human trafficking, APIs, and Native Americans. ISR compared relative proportions of these groups by each calendar year from 2011 to 2016. Positive changes indicate increasing awareness of application requirements and increases in VW staff responsiveness and quality of services.

Proportion of applicants

There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of applicants in 2016, compared to 2011, for the following groups:

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applicants in 2016, compared to 2011, for the following groups:

These findings suggest that CalVCB has been effective in reaching more elderly, applicants who were both disabled and elderly, and victims of human trafficking; however, they have not been as effective in reaching applicants from frontier/rural counties, and Native American applicants.

Proportion of applicants denied

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applicants denied in 2016, compared to 2011, for the following groups:

These findings, in conjunction with the findings above on the proportion of applicants, suggest that CalVCB has been particularly effective in reaching elderly applicants and victims of human trafficking, as there was an increase in the proportion of applicants from these groups, and a decrease in the proportion of applicants denied. The contradictory findings regarding applicants from rural counties suggest that CalVCB has had some impact with rural counties (fewer applications, but more deemed eligible), and that there may be other factors contributing to the decline in the proportion of applicants. These findings also suggest that CalVCB needs to continue to work on outreach to applicants from frontier counties: this is consistent with gaps in CalVCB 101 for Advocates training; four of the five counties in which no advocates received training were frontier counties. Likewise, these findings suggest that CalVCB needs to continue to work on outreach to Native American tribal communities.

Payments

Many of the groups displayed a U-shaped trend for average bill payments and average total compensation, payments for 2011 and 2016 were often higher than the years between. These U-shaped trends may be driven at least in part by benefit caps implemented at the direction of CalVCB’s board, beginning in 2011, many of which lasted several years.

There was a statistically significant increase in the average bill payment for 2016 in comparison to some of the prior years, except 2011, for the following groups:

There was a statistically significant increase in the average total compensation for disabled claimants in 2016 in comparison to all prior years. The average total compensation per disabled claimant in 2016 ($1,990) increased by 35 percent over the lowest prior average in 2012 ($1,470).

There was a statistically significant increase in the average total compensation for 2016 in comparison to 2014, only, for API claimants. The average total compensation per API claimant in 2016 ($2,091) increased by 25 percent over 2014 ($1,668).

These findings suggest that CalVCB has had some effectiveness in improving compensation for underserved groups: for elderly, disabled, Native Americans, and APIs.

Part B. Reducing Unmet Needs

CalVCB’s Needs Assessment report68 indicated that after exhausting all means of compensation (through various forms of insurance coverage), many victims still had unmet needs.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta sponsored two pieces of legislation during legislative session 2015-2016, Assembly Bills 1140 and 2160, to increase accessibility to the program and meet unmet needs through increases in compensation limits for certain reimbursable costs. Assembly Bill 1140 (AB1140) was enacted into law on January 1, 2016, which increased the funeral and burial benefit limit from $5,000 to $7,500, and for several types of crimes, removed barriers to eligibility and accessing benefits. Assembly Bill 2160 (AB2160) would have increased the limits for residential security, relocation, and crime-scene cleanup expenses, but did not pass. Though regulation changes CalVCB increased the maximum benefit limit to $70,000, effective January 1, 2017.

ISR used CalVCB program application and payment data to measure the impact of the project on groups with unmet needs: higher compensation rates in per certain types of costs might indicate that some unmet needs may have lessened. ISR identified compensation claims for the particular costs with the increased ceilings, and tested differences in average bill payments and for average total compensation.

Proportion of applicants
Proportion of applicants denied

There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of applicants denied between 2016 and 2011 for the following groups:

There was a decrease in the proportion of applicants denied between 2016 and 2011 (although the difference in proportion was not statistically significant, due to insufficient cases) for the following groups:

These findings suggest that the legislative changes from AB1140 have had an impact in removing barriers to eligibility and accessing benefits for several classes of victims, crime types, and mitigating circumstances.

Payments

There was a statistically significant increase in the average bill payment for 2016 in comparison to 2015, for the following groups:

There was a statistically significant increase in the average total compensation for 2016 in comparison to 2015 for homicide survivors for domestic violence -related homicide, only. The average total compensation per claimants for domestic violence -related homicide in 2016 ($3,719) increased by 34 percent over 2015 ($2,783).

These findings may indicate that legislative changes from AB1140 have been effective in increasing compensation for several crime types. However, CalVCB should confirm this positive outcome with at least two more years of application and compensation data.

Payments for benefits

There was a statistically significant increase in the average bill payment for 2016 in comparison to all prior years for funeral/burial benefit payments. The average total compensation per claimants for funeral/burial benefit payments in 2016 ($4,106) increased by 17 percent over 2015 ($3,496).

This finding suggests that the regulatory changes to benefit limits have had an impact on funeral/burial benefit payments.

Part C. Six Years Later: Updating the 2010 Baseline Data Report Findings with Data from Calendar Years 2011 to 2016

As part of CalVCB’s program assessment performed under the OVC Grant, CalVCB developed a BDR69 that characterized application and compensation outcomes for claims submitted related to crimes that occurred in 2010. The report included applications submitted up to three years following a crime that occurred in 2010.

The following are a few key findings reported in the 2010 BDR and in the 2016 programmatic data, for applications deemed eligible for compensation (82% in 2010, 91% in 2016):

Key Methodological Changes

Victims can file an application for compensation up to three years after a qualifying crime. CalVCB instituted grant-related programmatic changes that affect data from 2015 and 2016: data-driven results from crimes occurring in 2016 will lag until after December 2019. Using three years of data for crime occurring in 2010, the 2010 BDR primarily reported median results for measures such as the number of days to process applications, compensation per benefit category, etc. It also presented three year total compensation figures for crimes committed in 2010.

Because so many of CalVCB’s program improvements began in 2015 and 2016, ISR had to include data from 2016 applications (applications filed up to June 30, 2017). To overcome this unavoidable limitation, ISR turned to methodology that allows for comparisons that are not dependent on sample sizes, including:

Findings

There were several key findings from the comparison of data over the six years (2011-2016).

Applications by representative type

The proportion of applications by representative type has remained fairly consistent across the six year period. Roughly four-fifths (79%) of applicants were represented by JP/VWC staff, while nearly a fifth (18%) of applicants had no representation. Attorneys represented two percent of applicants, one percent of applicants had an ineligible representative, and less than one percent of applicants had a family member as a representative.

This finding suggests that the ongoing training provided by CalVCB for JP/VWC staff is a necessary component in providing application assistance to applicants.

Proportion of applicants

There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of Hispanic applicants between 2016 (56.0%) and 2011 (51.5%). This finding may suggest that the availability of the application and primary correspondence in Spanish had an impact on Hispanic applicants whose primary language was Spanish, although we cannot determine if this is true, as there is no data on primary language prior to 2016. What we do know is that there were nearly 8,000 (7,973) applications in Spanish in 2016.

Time to process application

There was a decrease in the average time to process (average days for CalVCB to determine eligibility per application) for 2016 in comparison to 2011, for the following groups:

These findings may indicate increasing quality of services provided by program staff and VWC staff, as well as better responsiveness and understanding of eligibility requirements.

Time to pay bill

There was a decrease in the average time to pay a bill (average days for CalVCB to issue compensation per bill) for 2016 in comparison to 2011, for all applications, indicating increasing quality of service. The average time to pay a bill in 2016 (25.9 days) is 3.2 days shorter than 2011 (29.1 days).

Overall, these findings show that CalVCB has greatly improved their processing time, both in terms of determining eligibility and in processing claims and making payments. These findings indirectly suggest that CalVCB’s efforts to provide technical training to advocates and providers may have helped CalVCB staff improve their processing time; applications completed correctly may be easier to process, and bills submitted correctly may be easier to process for payment.

Compensation

There was an increase in the average bill payment71 for 2016 in comparison to 2011, for the following groups:

There was a decrease in the average bill payment for 2016 in comparison to 2011, for the following groups:

There was a statistically significant increase in the average total compensation72 for 2016 in comparison to 2011, for the following groups:

There was a statistically significant decrease in the average total compensation for 2016 in comparison to 2011, for the following groups:


  1. The California Victim Compensation Program Implementation Plan: Strategies to Reach California’s Underserved Crime Victims. January 2016.

  2. The 2016 Implementation Plan report labeled these components as Objectives 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. ISR renamed them as Part A, B, and C to reduce confusion with other Objectives named in that report, this report, and the contract’s scope of work.

  3. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards. July 2015.

  4. Ibid.

  5. In addition to first responders (law enforcement, emergency services), other stakeholders include victim/witness services, JPs (victim services and district attorney agency combined), CBOs, advocacy groups (Mothers against Drunk Driving, for example), faith‐based organizations, mental health and other medical service providers (non-emergency).

  6. In the full report and Appendix C, the application and compensation findings per year are limited to applications filed within one year of the crime and to bills submitted within two years from the crime. The data set spans January 2011 to December 2016. Values for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are therefore suppressed to some degree due to the reporting requirement timeframe. The current data set, with the specified limitations, does not include bills for crimes in 2015, which will be submitted through 2017, applications for crimes that occurred in 2016 which will be submitted beginning January 2017, and bills for crimes in 2016, which will be submitted in 2017 and 2018. To overcome these shortcomings to the best extent possible and a reasonable level of granularity, the present analysis describes mean values by application or bill received year (rather than medians), compares variance in those means by year, and tests changes in proportions of applications and submitted bills within each year. ISR also acknowledges that compensation findings may not fully account for potential differential bill submission by benefit category by length of time following the crime (e.g., bills for high cost funeral expenses may be submitted more quickly following the crime, compared to less costly bills for ongoing expenses that are often submitted more than one year following the crime, such as for mental health or physical therapy sessions).

  7. Frontier counties have fewer than ten people per square mile.

  8. Rural counties have a substantial rural population (30% or more rural).

  9. Comparisons were limited to applications filed within one year of a qualifying crime, to best determine trends and statistical significance of findings, between six calendar years (2011 to 2016).

  10. The California Victim Compensation Program Needs Assessment Report: California’s Underserved Crime Victims and their Access to Victim Services and Compensation, July 2015

  11. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards, July 2015.

  12. Values greater than two times the standard deviation were considered extreme and were excluded from compensation analysis. Some benefit categories have compensation caps, and all bill values were included.

  13. This is an average of payments per each bill, not an average total amount for one application.

  14. This is the average total compensation paid per application.

  15. The California Victim Compensation Program Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis Reports: California’s Underserved Crime Victims and their Access to Victim Services and Compensation. July 2015.

  16. The California Victim Compensation Program Implementation Plan: Strategies to Reach California’s Underserved Crime Victims. January 2016.

  17. The 2016 Implementation Plan report labeled these three components as Objectives 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. ISR renamed them as Part A, B, and C to reduce confusion with other Objectives named in that report, this report, and the contract’s scope of work.

  18. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards. July 2015.

  19. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards

  20. In addition to first responders (law enforcement, emergency services), other stakeholders include victim/witness services, JP (victim services and district attorney agency combined), CBOs, advocacy groups (Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example), faith‐based organizations, mental health and other medical service providers (non-emergency), and so on.

  21. Keiser, G. 1998. Types of Working Relationships. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Mattessich, P. W., M. Murray‐Close, and B. R. Mooney. 2001. Collaboration: What Makes It Work, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

  22. Carter, M., ed. 2005. The Emergence of Collaboration as the Preferred Approach in Criminal Justice. Alexandria, VA: State Justice Institute and Center for Effective Public Policy.

  23. This is a collaboration evaluation tool, designed to assess 20 factors that influence collaboration success. Mattessich, Murray-Close, and Mooney (2001) designed the tool, and they based it on 281 research studies. (we should follow up on this in the summary chapter)

  24. CalVCB Implementation Plan: Strategies to Reach California’s Underserved Crime Victims, 2016

  25. https://victims.ca.gov/media/pressrelease/2016/pressrelease-02-1-16.aspx

  26. CalVCB has translated documents into additional languages, including Hindi and Swahili, for specific claimants. CalVCB has translated other non-principal correspondence into one of the thirteen widely used languages, as needed, for specific claimants.

  27. CalVCB Collaboration Plan Project Charter, OVC Grant, 2015

  28. CalVCB Collaboration Plan Project Charter, OVC Grant, 2015

  29. Frontier counties have fewer than ten people per square mile.

  30. Rural counties have a substantial rural population (30% or more rural).

  31. Alpine, Glenn, Inyo, Lassen, and Trinity

  32. Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Lake, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne

  33. Prior to the OVC grant, CalVCB held three provider forums, with 45 mental health providers attending.

  34. CalVCB 2016-17 TIW Topic Survey Results.pptx

  35. CalVCB Trauma-Informed Care eLearning Module.pptx

  36. Data includes all respondents for evaluations conducted in 2015 and 2016, except for the November 2015 and December 2015 TI workshops.

  37. https://www.victims.ca.gov/media/pressrelease/2017/pressrelease-2017-08-11.aspx

  38. The material request form is available here: https://victims.ca.gov/docs/forms/victims/MaterialRequestFormVCP.pdf?8-18-17 .

  39. CalVCB has translated this form into 12 widely used languages (in addition to English and Spanish). These forms are available here: https://victims.ca.gov/publications/calvcppublications.aspx.

  40. CalVCB has translated this form into Spanish. This form is available here: https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/fs/VictimRepresentativeFactSheet-Spanish.pdf?1-13-17 .

  41. CalVCB has translated this brochure into 12 widely used languages (in addition to English and Spanish). These brochures are available here: https://victims.ca.gov/publications/calvcppublications.aspx.

  42. CalVCB has translated this form into Spanish. This form is available here: https://victims.ca.gov/docs/brochures/RestVictims_SP.pdf.

  43. CalVCB has translated this poster into Spanish. This poster is available here: https://victims.ca.gov/docs/posters/CalVCBPoster-18x24-Spanish.pdf.

  44. Some questions were reworded for clarity, and we changed the response choices from yes/no/not sure to a Likert scale set of agree/disagree statements.

  45. Qualtrics is a private research entity. It provides a platform to create, administer, and house incoming data from online surveys.

  46. In other projects, ISR learned that many internet service providers block emails sent to large groups of recipients. Because ISR did not receive a large number of “rejected as spam” messages, we subsequently emailed survey invitations to larger groups of recipients (up to 175 recipients per email invitation, sent at half-hour increments).

  47. Chi square goodness of fit test Chi-square = 169.795, df = 4, p = .000

  48. CalVCB’s original contact lists did not easily lend itself to location characterization. Therefore we could not perform a goodness of fit test to determine how representative the final data set’s regional distribution is of all potential respondents.

  49. While the survey asked if the respondent was aware of any events, there was no corollary question about awareness of any training sessions.

  50. ISR analyzed scales by attendance at an event/training after December 2015 even though that particular question is included in the awareness and grant item scales, because a respondent did not need to attend an event/training after that time in order to know about the improvements.

  51. This may be in part due to small sample size for the Central Coast region (only 12 responses)

  52. It seemed that respondents occasionally offered training session feedback for the event questions, unfortunately.

  53. In the full report and Appendix C, the application and compensation findings per year are limited to applications filed within one year of the crime, and to bills submitted within two years from the crime. The data set spans January 2011 to December 2016. Values for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are therefore suppressed to some degree due to the reporting requirement timeframe. The current data set, with the specified limitations, does not include bills for crimes in 2015, which will be submitted through 2017, applications for crimes that occurred in 2016 which will be submitted beginning January 2017, and bills for crimes in 2016, which will be submitted in 2017 and 2018. To overcome these shortcomings to the best extent possible and a reasonable level of granularity, the present analysis describes mean values by application or bill received year (rather than medians), compares variance in those means by year, and tests changes in proportions of applications and submitted bills within each year. ISR also acknowledges that compensation findings may not fully account for potential differential bill submission by benefit category by length of time following the crime (e.g., bills for high cost funeral expenses may be submitted more quickly following the crime, compared to less costly bills for ongoing expenses that are often submitted more than one year following the crime, such as for mental health or physical therapy sessions).

  54. Less than one half of one percent of applications (.02%) had missing age data.

  55. CalVCB did not include this grouping in prior OVC grant reports.

  56. In the full report and Appendix C, the application and compensation findings per year are limited to applications filed within one year of the crime, and to bills submitted within two years from the crime. The data set spans January 2011 to December 2016. Values for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are therefore suppressed to some degree due to the reporting requirement timeframe. The current data set, with the specified limitations, does not include bills for crimes in 2015, which will be submitted through 2017, applications for crimes that occurred in 2016, which will be submitted beginning January 2017, and bills for crimes in 2016, which will be submitted in 2017 and 2018. To overcome these shortcomings to the best extent possible and a reasonable level of granularity, the present analysis describes mean values by application or bill received year (rather than medians), compares variance in those means by year, and tests changes in proportions of applications and submitted bills within each year. ISR also acknowledges that compensation findings may not fully account for potential differential bill submission by benefit category by length of time following the crime (e.g., bills for high cost funeral expenses may be submitted more quickly following the crime, compared to less costly bills for ongoing expenses that are often submitted more than one year following the crime, such as for mental health or physical therapy sessions).

  57. Appendix A contains updated tables for virtually all original tables reported in the 2010 BDR, using the same measures to the greatest extent possible.

  58. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards, July 2015.

  59. In the full report and Appendix C, the application and compensation findings per year are limited to applications filed within one year of the crime, and to bills submitted within two years from the crime. The data set spans January 2011 to December 2016. Values for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are therefore suppressed to some degree due to the reporting requirement timeframe. The current data set, with the specified limitations, does not include bills for crimes in 2015, which will be submitted through 2017, applications for crimes that occurred in 2016 which will be submitted beginning January 2017, and bills for crimes in 2016, which will be submitted in 2017 and 2018. To overcome these shortcomings to the best extent possible and a reasonable level of granularity, the present analysis describes mean values by application or bill received year (rather than medians), compares variance in those means by year, and tests changes in proportions of applications and submitted bills within each year. ISR also acknowledges that compensation findings may not fully account for potential differential bill submission by benefit category by length of time following the crime (e.g., bills for high cost funeral expenses may be submitted more quickly following the crime, compared to less costly bills for ongoing expenses that are often submitted more than one year following the crime, such as for mental health or physical therapy sessions).

  60. Values greater than two times the standard deviation were considered extreme and were excluded from compensation analysis. Some benefit categories have compensation caps, and all bill values were included.

  61. The California Victim Compensation Program Implementation Plan: Strategies to Reach California’s Underserved Crime Victims. January 2016.

  62. The 2016 Implementation Plan report labeled these three components as Objectives 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. ISR renamed them as Part A, B, and C to reduce confusion with other Objectives named in that report, this report, and the contract’s scope of work.

  63. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards. July 2015.

  64. Ibid.

  65. In addition to first responders (law enforcement, emergency services), other stakeholders include victim/witness services, JPs (victim services and district attorney agency combined), CBOs, advocacy groups (Mothers against Drunk Driving, for example), faith‐based organizations, mental health and other medical service providers (non-emergency), and so on.

  66. In the full report and Appendix C, the application and compensation findings per year are limited to applications filed within one year of the crime, and to bills submitted within two years from the crime. The data set spans January 2011 to December 2016. Values for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are therefore suppressed to some degree due to the reporting requirement timeframe. The current data set, with the specified limitations, does not include bills for crimes in 2015, which will be submitted through 2017, applications for crimes that occurred in 2016 which will be submitted beginning January 2017, and bills for crimes in 2016, which will be submitted in 2017 and 2018. To overcome these shortcomings to the best extent possible and a reasonable level of granularity, the present analysis describes mean values by application or bill received year (rather than medians), compares variance in those means by year, and tests changes in proportions of applications and submitted bills within each year. ISR also acknowledges that compensation findings may not fully account for potential differential bill submission by benefit category by length of time following the crime (e.g., bills for high cost funeral expenses may be submitted more quickly following the crime, compared to less costly bills for ongoing expenses that are often submitted more than one year following the crime, such as for mental health or physical therapy sessions).

  67. Frontier counties have fewer than ten people per square mile, and rural counties have a substantial rural population (30% or more rural).

  68. The California Victim Compensation Program Needs Assessment Report: California’s Underserved Crime Victims and their Access to Victim Services and Compensation, July 2015

  69. The California Victim Compensation Program Baseline Data Report: A Comparison of 2010 Crime Rates and Victim Compensation Awards, July 2015.

  70. Values greater than two times the standard deviation were considered extreme and were excluded from compensation analysis. Some benefit categories have compensation caps, and all bill values were included.

  71. This is an average of payments per each bill, not an average total amount for one application.

  72. This is the average total compensation paid per application.