California Victim Compensation Board
Proposal to Approve Fiscal Year 2025-26 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards
March 20, 2025
Background
Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs) are organizations that help victims of violent crime by providing trauma-informed services that include assertive outreach to underserved populations, comprehensive evidence-based mental health services, and coordinated care tailored to each victim’s needs. TRCs serve victims of all types of violent crime, including those with complex needs, with a multidisciplinary team to promote resiliency and recovery. TRCs also provide training to local law enforcement and other community partners on the identification and effects of violent crime.
Government Code section 13963.1 enacted July 1, 2013, directs the California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB) to administer a program to evaluate applications for and award grants to TRCs in California to provide services to victims of crime. The statutory requirements provide a clinical model for the TRCs and who they must serve. The law directs CalVCB to award the grants through a well-defined grant application process. A grantee is not guaranteed continued funding but may apply for a consecutive grant. Presently, CalVCB has grant agreements with 24 TRCs across California.
In this cycle, grantees will provide services consistent with the Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) released December 4, 2024. The grant awards provide funding for a two-year cycle effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027.
Estimated Funding
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Estimated TRC Funding:
| Amount | Source |
| $2,000,000 | Restitution Fund |
| $2,223,826 | Budget Act of 2022 (General Fund) allocation for the fiscal year 2025-26 grant cycle. |
| $13,891,058 | SNSF will provide an estimated $8,795,000 less five percent of the allocated funds that may be utilized for CalVCB administrative costs per statute. CalVCB has also included prior year savings largely incurred because of the infusion of General Fund money into the TRC program. If the SNSF appropriation in the final Governor’s Budget is more or less than originally estimated, the proposed award amounts must be adjusted accordingly. |
| $18,114,884 | Total Estimated TRC Funding |
Each year, there is a finite amount of funding available to grant TRCs and there is no statutory or other limit to the amount of funding that may be requested by applicants. In more recent years, the funds requested for grants have disproportionately increased compared to the funding available. This year applicants requested over $67 million in total funding. CalVCB has no obligation to grant a specific amount to each grant applicant. TRCs may also receive funding from other sources.
Once a recommendation is made by staff and adopted by the Board, grantees are advised of what amount has been approved. Given that approved amounts may be less than requested, applicants have the option to either accept or decline the grant. Once an agreement is made, grant agreements are executed between the grantee and CalVCB. These contractual agreements oblige the grantee to deliver the outcomes set forth in the agreement for managing all grant funds appropriately.
Scoring
In keeping with statute, which requires CalVCB to award TRC grants through a well-defined application process, grant applications were carefully evaluated and scored. A determination was made as to whether applicants met the minimum qualifications, as detailed in the statutory requirements.
- The scoring process is transparent as it explicitly states in the NOFA how answers to narrative questions are scored and how the points are awarded in each category of the application. These considerations were assessed using a point system that provided values consistent with the following level of responses to narrative questions:
- Not Qualified (zero points, disqualified) Responses do not provide demonstrated ability to meet requirements.
- Less Qualified (1-2 points) Responses provide little to no direct experience or understanding of how qualifications have or will be met.
- Qualified (3-6 points) Responses provide direct experience and complete knowledge of how qualifications have or will be met with comprehensive examples.
- Highly Qualified (7-10 points) Responses meet the ‘Qualified’ standard and provide direct experience and comprehensive examples of qualification and ability to begin providing services within 30 days of receiving award.
Applicants with responses that were ranked as “Not Qualified” were given zero points for the question and disqualified from the entire process, as each question represented a statutory requirement. The criteria and point values are listed in the NOFA. The maximum point value for an application was 100 points. A copy of the NOFA is attached for reference.
Scoring the applications allows for an assessment of the ability to perform statutorily required functions. While the lower-scoring applications demonstrated that the applicants could meet the minimum statutory requirements for operating a TRC, they lacked the details, examples and clarity provided by higher-scoring applications.
The scores ranged from 35 to 84 points.
CalVCB Analysis and Recommendation
Analysis
For fiscal year 2025-26, a total of 40 timely applications were received in response to the NOFA. The total funds requested by all applicants were over $67 million. This is the highest number of applications submitted and largest amount of funding requested that CalVCB has ever received.
Nine applicants were disqualified for receiving a zero score on at least one statutorily required component or submitting incomplete applications. Although 31 applicants demonstrated they could meet minimum qualifications with varying degrees of proficiency, 20 of the applicants attained lower scores between 35-66 points out of 100.
Six of the 20 low scoring applicants are existing TRCs. Funding each of the 31 applicants with ‘qualifying’ responses would result in significantly less funding per TRC and does not support the competitive nature of the process. It would also, based on the amount of money requested per TRC, result in some less qualified candidates being funded more than applicants with higher scores.
Additionally, without a limit to the amount of funding that can be requested, this proposal maintains the established practice of applying a maximum award of $2.2 million so that more TRCs can be funded. Without such criteria, based on scores and amounts requested in this cycle, only six organizations could be fully funded and the remaining organizations would receive no funding.
Out of the 11 recommended applicants, 9 are current TRCs and 2 are new TRC grantees.
Recommendation
The top 11 applicants are recommended for funding based on an assessment of their score. The final grant amount is calculated using a tiered percentage system based on the final application score received by the applicant.
| Application Score | Funding Tier | Funding Formula |
| 79-84* points | 1 | 100% of request or a maximum of $2.2 M |
| 73-78 points | 2 | 90% of request or of a maximum of $2.2 M |
| 67-72 points | 3 | 79% of request or of a maximum of $2.2 M |
Given the amount of funds available and the number of applicants, CalVCB recommends maintaining the approach previously approved by the Board and funding at a maximum of $2.2 million per award for the two-year grant period. This approach is consistent with grants awarded by the Board last year and continues to provide the best opportunity to fund the largest number of TRCs.
Because of the number of applicants this cycle, and the number of applicants receiving higher scores, the funding tiers from previous years have been adjusted. Tier 4 includes 10 applicants who scored between 61 and 66 points and requested more than $15 million collectively. Funding applicants in Tier 4 or below would result in significantly less funding for each applicant impairing their ability to successfully operate. Accordingly, it is recommended that Tiers 1 through 3 be funded.
The funding formula, as applied, results in the funding allocations detailed on the next page.
| Applicant | County | New or Existing | Original Funds Requested | Funding Tier | Award Amount |
| County of Santa Clara, District Attorney’s Office | Santa Clara | Existing | $2,103,090 | 1 | $2,103,090 |
| Olive View-UCLA Education Research Institute | Los Angeles | Existing | $2,477,441 | 1 | $2,200,000 |
| Napa Solano SANE-SART | Napa | Existing | $4,034,916 | 1 | $2,200,000 |
| Family Dynamics Resource Center | Shasta | New | $1,812,133 | 2 | $1,630,739 |
| Harbor-UCLA Medical Center | Los Angeles | Existing | $3,032,472 | 2 | $1,979,780 |
| The University Corporation | Los Angeles | Existing | $2,000,000 | 3 | $1,570,000 |
| Ruby’s Place | Alameda | Existing | $1,111,474 | 3 | $872,507 |
| Survivors of Torture, International | San Diego | New | $1,327,098 | 3 | $1,041,772 |
| Palomar Health Foundation | San Diego | Existing | $5,245,934 | 3 | $1,727,000 |
| Family Justice Center | Contra Costa | Existing | $1,772,651 | 3 | $1,391,531 |
| Partnerships for Trauma Recovery | Alameda | Existing | $1,780,896 | 3 | $1,398,004 |
| $18,114,423 |