California Victim Compensation Board

Trauma Recovery Center July Informational Meeting Follow-Up

November 20, 2025

Background

On July 17, 2025, the California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB) hosted an informational meeting to discuss the Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) grants in light of projected funding cuts and feedback from stakeholders. In response to this meeting, CalVCB took immediate actions to address stakeholder feedback by giving applicants 60 days instead of 45 days to complete their applications and moving the Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) timeline up to end before the holidays. CalVCB also made significant revisions to the NOFA to add additional direction and improve clarity using plain language.

At the September Board Meeting, board members requested additional information about policy changes that could be made in the future if sufficient funding was available. This board item includes additional information and options for future consideration.

Definition of Existing TRCs

Several recommendations summarized below suggest different processes for “existing TRCs.” The term “existing TRC” must be defined so policy changes can be considered for implementation when sufficient funding is available. This definition should be codified in state law.

Possible definitions for existing TRCs could include:

• TRCs that are currently receiving CalVCB grant funding at the time of NOFA submission.
  
  
• TRCs that have previously received CalVCB grant funding within the last two fiscal years.
  
  
• Existing organizations that have not received CalVCB grant funding but can provide evidence that they received training on the TRC model and that certify they are providing TRC services in alignment with state law.
  

Once the term existing TRC is defined, there are other factors to consider:

• In recent years TRC funding has been volatile. If funding decreases below desired levels, the Board may not be able to fund all existing organizations or fund them at the $2.2 million threshold.
  
  
  • If the Board considered an existing TRC as one that is currently receiving funding, then there would be 20 organizations that currently qualify under this definition. Fully funding all 20 organizations at $2.2 million for a two-year grant award would require an annual appropriation of $22 million.
    
    
  • In March 2025, the Board did not approve renewed funding for six previously funded organizations. If the Board also wanted to include these organizations as part of the definition of an existing TRC, an annual appropriation of $28.6 million would be required to achieve full funding.
    
    
• Committing to fund or provide further preference to existing TRCs reduces the Board’s ability to approve new grantees including those who may be in underserved regions like the Central Valley.
  

TRC Performance Metrics

Other policy proposals include using TRC performance metrics as a basis for future funding decisions. Moving in this direction would require existing TRCs to provide reliable goals during the application process that could later be validated using consistently reported performance data. As the information below shows, the current goals provided during the application process and the performance data TRCs currently provide as part of the grant vary greatly, indicating more accurate reporting metrics are needed.

For example, CalVCB collected Fiscal Year 2024-25 data from 24 TRCs that showed:

• 12 out of 24 TRCs did not meet their goal for the number of unique clients served. Two organizations missed their goal by more than 200 clients indicating their goal was unattainable. Four TRCs significantly exceeded their goal by between 148 and 336 clients, indicating their goals were too low.
  
  
• The average number of sessions per client also varies widely, with 2.5 being the lowest and 24.2 being the highest. The UCSF TRC Model recommends 16 sessions per client. Only five of 24 TRCs average sessions per client were between 14 to 18 sessions.
  
  
• The overall amount spent per client, including overhead costs, also varies widely with the lowest cost per client being $870 and the highest being $8,978. Similarly, the cost per mental health session varies from $115 to $2,534.
  
  

CalVCB has been taking steps to improve clarity around data reporting requirements and is not aware of any existing industry standards for TRC performance metrics.

Additionally, CalVCB makes future funding decisions before current grant cycles finish. If past performance metrics are used to inform future grant awards, CalVCB would need to develop a process to estimate how well each grantee is performing using the available data so the Board can make funding decisions in time.

Summary of Policy Options

Several suggestions made by stakeholders during the July meeting are policy decisions that could not all be implemented absent significant funding. These suggestions are summarized on the following pages and will need to be prioritized given current funding constraints. For example, there will not be enough funding available to fund existing TRCs while also expanding into underserved regions of the state.

A September 2025 California TRC Strategic Plan developed by the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers (NATRC) estimated a $100.8 million annual state allocation would be needed to expand and sustain TRCs statewide. This estimate assumes a total of 67 TRCs are needed for there to be either at least one TRC per county or for TRCs to be prioritized in areas with high violence and service gaps. To calculate this estimate NATRC assumed each TRC would need $1.4 million per year in addition to costs for ongoing technical assistance and administrative oversight.

Additionally, many of the suggestions from the July informational meeting appear to be based on mandates from Penal Code Section 13837 pertaining to the Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) grant administered by Cal OES. The Penal Code clearly establishes policy preferences, service standards, and grant administration processes for sexual assault/rape crisis centers.

CalVCB noted that the SASP grant requirements codified in state law include:

• Preference given to existing grantees and a separate process for new organizations to apply
  
  
• How performance assessments will be considered as part of the grant process
  
  
• The process that will be used if there are funding reductions
  
  
• Requirements that organizations demonstrate the ability to receive other funds
  
  
• Creation of an advisory committee that makes grant administration decisions
  
  
• Requirement that grants are awarded for three years
  
  

For this reason, if the Board chooses to adopt a model similar to SASP, it would be appropriate for the changes to be considered by the Legislature and codified into state law.

Analysis of Suggestions Made at the July Informational Meeting

Stakeholder Suggestion	Reason Provided for Proposed Change by Stakeholders	Considerations / Potential Unintended Consequences
-Give funding priority to well-performing existing TRCs.	-New grant applicants may score higher than existing TRCs based on proposals rather than actual performance. -The competitive grant process wastes resources by closing successful TRCs for grant application technicalities and has resulted in uneven TRC network expansion. -Closing well-performing TRCs harms underserved communities by abruptly discontinuing services. -Survivors have less access to much-needed services.	-Unfair to new applicants. -Diminishes the ability to fund organizations in underserved areas of the state. -Funding projections are not sufficient to support funding existing TRCs unless there is a transition to a micro-grant model. -Would require developing a process for lowering grant amounts or offboarding organizations when funds decrease.   -Reliable goal setting and performance metrics would be needed to assess if an existing TRC was performing well.
-Give funding priority to underserved regions in the state potentially through geographically based NOFAs.	-Targeted NOFAs will create a higher likelihood of funding TRCs in undeserved regions like the Central Valley.	-May not yield applicants which would create the need for multiple NOFA postings. -Will likely result in more competitive organizations in non-prioritized regions of the state not receiving funding.
-Require TRCs to disclose total available funding, submit a funding plan for how they plan to get additional funding, and/or show proof of matching funds.	-Will incentivize TRCs to diversify funding sources so they aren’t solely reliant on CalVCB grant funding.	-Some existing TRCs may not be able to meet these requirements because they do not have other funding sources.
-Amend the current application scoring rubric by removing the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate the ability to provide services within 30 days in every narrative response.	-This scoring criteria is only relevant for new grant applicants and has led to closing well-performing TRCs based on a technicality.	-Will disadvantage existing TRCs who are more likely to be able to demonstrate their ability to start providing services in 30 days. -CalVCB clarified this requirement in the October 2025 NOFA.
-Establish a TRC Advisory Committee that informs the grant award process and meets on a quarterly basis.	-Best practice for grant award management is to include subject matter experts in the grant management process. -Subject matter experts include representatives from multiple California TRCs, State Pilot UCSF model experts, and survivors of crime.	-To reduce the risk of conflicts of interest, which is reviewed by the State Controller’s Office as part of periodic audits, members of the Advisory Committee should not be affiliated with organizations that apply for TRC grants. -Will require a large investment of time from external reviewers, without compensation unless additional funding is allocated. -Policy related suggestions for changing the grant award process would still need to be appropriately codified or approved.
-Move to a three-year grant cycle.	-2-year cycle creates barriers for staffing/hiring in the second year due to funding uncertainty. -Additional administrative burden for TRCs and CalVCB.	-Will create an immediate disadvantage for existing organizations because funding will be spread thinner. Specifically, instead of allocating a recommended $2.2 million per organization for a two-year grant, the Board would need to allocate $3.3 million per organization for a three-year grant. Based on next year’s projections of receiving $4.9 million this would result in the Board only being able to fully fund one organization with less than half of that amount available to partially fund a second organization. -Will likely result in TRCs not receiving reimbursement for expenses incurred at the end of the grant due to state law regarding encumbering funds.