California Victim Compensation Board
Analysis of Geographic Distribution of Trauma Recovery Center Funding
July 16, 2026
Issue
The Board has requested an analysis to consider ways to promote geographic equity in the distribution of Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) funds before the Fiscal Year 2027 TRC Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) is released. During the March 2026 meeting discussion, members expressed interest in learning more about whether places with higher crime rates are being appropriately considered, about regions without TRCs, and the impact on victims in changing the current methodology.
Background
Per state law, TRCs must provide mental health services, assertive outreach, and clinical case management to crime victims using a multidisciplinary team of clinicians that includes a psychiatrist, psychologist and social worker. Applicants from the Northern and Central regions have historically scored lower overall, especially on the NOFA criteria related to providing clinical care. A couple of Northern region organizations have been successful in receiving TRC grants because of their demonstrated clinical experience and ability to serve victims across multiple counties. For example, one TRC serves victims in the Sacramento Region.
In 2022, the Legislature and Governor recognized regional service gaps and provided dedicated funding for existing TRCs to operate pilot programs in Northern and Central California. This one-time funding expired last fiscal year.
In June 2026, the Legislature and Governor provided a one-time $11 million General Fund appropriation in the 2026 Budget Act for currently funded TRCs that did not receive a consecutive grant through the 2026 TRC NOFA competitive award process. Advocates sought this money to maintain currently existing TRCs.
Statutory Language
The only language that references geography or crime rates related to TRCs is found in Government Code Section §13963.1 (f), which states: The trauma recovery center sites shall be selected by the Board through a well-defined selection process that takes into account the rate of crime and geographic distribution to serve the greatest number of victims.
Current Process
CalVCB employs a competitive grant process that is based on the statutory requirements. Applicants are evaluated on their ability to implement the TRC model. Applicants receive up to 10 percent of the available points for demonstrating their organization’s experience and/or ability to serve the greatest number of victims based on geographic location. Responses to this question also include consideration of crime rate in their service area, segments of the population to be served, availability of similar services in the area, and the impact or deficit to the community if not funded. This process results in applicants who can serve the greatest number of victims in high need areas receiving higher scores on this qualification question.
Service Areas
TRCs generally maximize the number of victims served in cities or neighborhoods. In densely populated portions of the state, TRCs rarely have capacity to serve entire counties or even surrounding communities. Many victims in highly populated areas still go without access to services due to a higher number of violent crimes compared to the capacity of the organization.
For example, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Alameda counties contain multiple TRCs. These counties have the highest number of violent crimes and are among the most populous in the state with millions of residents. Given that they experience significant crime, there is more opportunity for TRCs to serve the maximum number of victims. The presence of multiple TRCs in a county has not been proven to be evidence that there are sufficient TRC services available because most TRCs report that they have waitlists even in counties with multiple TRCs.
Key Statistics
The California TRC Strategic Plan developed by the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers (NATRC) in September 2025 estimated a $100.8 million annual state allocation would be needed to expand and sustain TRCs statewide. This estimate assumed 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.
As this table shows, the total number of violent crimes is significantly higher in the Southern California region where CalVCB has historically granted the most TRCs. Detailed statistics by county are included in Appendix A. Historical information on the distribution of TRCs by region can be found in Appendix B.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | |||
| Region | Total Population | Total Violent Crimes | Number of TRCs[1] | Grant Applications Received | Average Violent Crime Rate Per 10,000 Residents | |||
| Northern | 4,549,099 | 21,963 | 1 | 4 | 47 | |||
| Bay Area | 7,910,420 | 38,040 | 8 | 12 | 41 | |||
| Central | 4,953,490 | 26,473 | 0 | 5 | 48 | |||
| Southern | 22,019,254 | 101,653 | 15 | 19 | 41 | |||
Source: The statistics provide aggregate information using the most recently available, comparable, and complete data. Column B is sourced from U.S. Census data for 2024. Columns C and F are sourced from the Department of Justice report Crime in California 2024 and provide data for calendar year 2024. Column D is the total number of TRCs in Fiscal Year 2024-25. Column E is the number of applications received by region for the 2025 NOFA cycle.
Although the average crime rate per region is fairly similar among the four regions, the Northern and Central regions have the highest average crime rates. These numbers are due to the lower population in these two regions. Given the statute’s direction for TRCs to serve the greatest number of victims, we recommend that crime rates continue to be considered, but more weight be given to the total number of victims served.
Requested Alternatives
As requested, below are potential alternatives regarding geographic distribution for the Board’s consideration.
Alternative 1: Incentivize Applicants to Create Geographically Disbursed Satellite Services by Awarding Additional NOFA Points
CalVCB would adjust the scoring rubric for all applicable qualification questions to award additional points to organizations that commit to delivering services to regions where services don’t exist at a point in time. Services could be delivered through satellite offices, mobile services, community-based partnerships, or telehealth models consistent with the UCSF TRC model and statutory requirements.
| Potential Benefits | Potential Consequences |
| Preserves a single statewide competitive funding process. Currently funded TRCs will be incentivized to expand services to underrepresented areas. Encourages innovative approaches to expanding access to services. Increased access to services more quickly through the expansion of existing provider networks. | No guarantee that satellites will be proposed in specific areas. Recommended maximum award amounts of $2.2 million for a 2-year grant may need to be reassessed. Telehealth and satellite models may improve access but may not fully address barriers faced by populations requiring intensive outreach and case management. TRCs would either need to find ways to continually expand, or this would be a one-time incentive. If TRCs do not receive the amount of funding they request, service expansions are unlikely to be implemented. |
Requirements for the Board to move forward:
- Approve the implementation of an adjusted scoring rubric to award additional points in applicable qualification questions to applicants that commit to delivering satellite services to regions where services don’t exist at a point in time. Include direction on how many points should be awarded as part of this incentive and how to define underrepresented regions.
- Before the March 2027 Board meeting, require an evaluation of recommended maximum funding as the current amount would likely be insufficient for TRC’s to operate satellite offices.
Alternative 2: Award Additional Points for Establishing a TRC in Counties or Regions Without One
CalVCB would maintain a statewide competitive grant process, but questions related to geography would be given additional weight. The Board could bifurcate the geography qualification question to award additional points to applicants that propose establishing a TRC in a county or region where one doesn’t exist.
| Potential Benefits | Potential Consequences |
| Provides a competitive advantage to organizations in counties or regions without TRCs while preserving a single statewide competitive funding process. | TRCs that receive additional geography points may not be competitive enough in the remaining criteria to successfully obtain a grant. Inability to serve greatest number of victims in higher population, high crime areas of the state. Currently funded TRCs receiving lower scores and not being recommended for a consecutive grant. Movement of TRCs to accommodate identified gaps will create new gaps by shifting resources, leading to a cycle of opening and closing TRCs. |
Requirements for the Board to move forward:
- Approve the implementation of a scoring process that gives more points to applicants from counties or regions where TRC services don’t exist at a point in time, including direction on how many points should be given and how to determine which counties/regions are eligible for additional points.
- Direct whether a maximum number of applications should be awarded extra points to minimize disruption of existing services in other areas of the state. For example, if five applications are received from an underrepresented county/region, do all five receive higher scores, or only the highest-scoring one or two applications?
- Direct how to evaluate grant applications where services are proposed to be offered in more than one county/region.
Alternative 3: Implement Regional NOFAs
CalVCB would develop a separate NOFA for identified regions. This alternative is the most likely to guarantee physical TRC services in the Central region, if organizations apply. Although organizations from the Central region have applied in recent cycles, they have not scored high enough to be competitive for a grant award as detailed in Appendix C.
| Potential Benefits | Potential Consequences |
| Maximizes opportunity for TRCs in Northern and the Central regions. Applicants would be competing against other service providers within their regions, which may be more similarly situated. | Inability to serve greatest number of victims in higher population, high crime areas of the state. Challenges determining equitable or appropriate regional distribution of funding. (See Appendix D) Applicants who are more competitive in another region not being recommended for funding. Currently funded TRCs not being recommended for a consecutive grant. Lower funding levels for TRCs. Future funding instability not supporting grants in all regions at a minimally viable level.[2] |
Requirements for the Board to move forward:
- Approve the implementation of Regional NOFAs.
- Approve defined regions and provide direction on how to allocate funding among regions.
- Approve a process for how to distribute grant awards if no applicants apply in a region.
- Direct whether a minimum point threshold should be established to ensure organizations with very low scores do not receive a grant.
- Direct how to evaluate grant applications where services are proposed to be offered in more than one region.
Conclusion
CalVCB’s current competitive grant scoring process aligns with statute and evaluates applicants’ ability to serve the greatest number of victims while considering geographic location and crime rates. Staff recommend that the current competitive process, modeled after the statutory requirements, be maintained. It is also recommended that any changes to the distribution of funds should be pursued via the legislative process which would result in a final direction that establishes clear authority, was considered by policy makers and stakeholders, and evaluated the need for additional and stable funding.
Appendix A
The data below demonstrates key statistics by county. We highlighted cells in blue to demonstrate which counties have the highest statistic within each region.
| A | B | C | D | E | F |
| County | Total Population | Total Violent Crimes | Total Number of Unique TRCs Between Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2025-26 | Total TRC Grant Applications for calendar years 2024, 2025, and 2026 | Crime Rate Per 10,000 Residents* |
| NORTHERN | |||||
| ALPINE | 1,099 | 12 | 109 | ||
| AMADOR | 42,026 | 128 | 30 | ||
| BUTTE | 208,334 | 1,325 | 64 | ||
| COLUSA | 22,074 | 84 | 38 | ||
| DEL NORTE | 27,009 | 123 | 46 | ||
| EL DORADO | 192,823 | 508 | 1 | 26 | |
| GLENN | 28,304 | 124 | 44 | ||
| HUMBOLDT | 132,380 | 621 | 47 | ||
| LAKE | 67,764 | 488 | 72 | ||
| LASSEN | 28,340 | 126 | 44 | ||
| MENDOCINO | 89,175 | 332 | 37 | ||
| MODOC | 8,491 | 59 | 69 | ||
| NEVADA | 102,195 | 364 | 36 | ||
| PLACER | 433,822 | 949 | 22 | ||
| PLUMAS | 18,834 | 6 | 3 | ||
| SACRAMENTO | 1,611,231 | 8,255 | 1 | 6 | 51 |
| SAN JOAQUIN | 816,108 | 5,430 | 1 ** | 2 | 67 |
| SHASTA | 181,121 | 965 | 1 | 1 | 53 |
| SIERRA | 3,113 | 15 | 48 | ||
| SISKIYOU | 42,498 | 201 | 47 | ||
| SUTTER | 98,545 | 399 | 40 | ||
| TEHAMA | 65,451 | 382 | 58 | ||
| TRINITY | 15,642 | 84 | 54 | ||
| YOLO | 225,251 | 525 | 23 | ||
| YUBA | 87,469 | 458 | 52 | ||
| BAY AREA | |||||
| ALAMEDA | 1,649,060 | 13,075 | 3 | 10 | 79 |
| CONTRA COSTA | 1,172,607 | 4,437 | 1 | 1 | 38 |
| MARIN | 256,400 | 625 | 24 | ||
| NAPA | 132,727 | 418 | 1 ** | 31 | |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 827,526 | 4,978 | 1 | 2 | 60 |
| SAN MATEO | 742,893 | 1,927 | 1 | 26 | |
| SANTA CLARA | 1,926,325 | 8,139 | 1 | 1 | 42 |
| SANTA CRUZ | 262,406 | 939 | 36 | ||
| SOLANO | 455,101 | 2,152 | 1 | 2 | 47 |
| SONOMA | 485,375 | 1,350 | 1 ** | 3 | 28 |
| CENTRAL | |||||
| CALAVERAS | 46,505 | 189 | 41 | ||
| FRESNO | 1,024,125 | 6,505 | 9 | 64 | |
| KERN | 922,529 | 6,274 | 1 ** | 2 | 68 |
| KINGS | 154,913 | 734 | 47 | ||
| MADERA | 165,432 | 741 | 45 | ||
| MARIPOSA | 17,048 | 94 | 55 | ||
| MERCED | 296,774 | 1,572 | 53 | ||
| MONTEREY | 436,251 | 1,879 | 43 | ||
| SAN BENITO | 69,159 | 214 | 1 | 31 | |
| SAN LUIS OBISPO | 281,843 | 1,129 | 40 | ||
| SANTA BARBARA | 444,500 | 1,924 | 43 | ||
| STANISLAUS | 556,972 | 2,599 | 1 | 47 | |
| TULARE | 483,546 | 2,344 | 48 | ||
| TUOLUMNE | 53,893 | 275 | 51 | ||
| SOUTHERN | |||||
| IMPERIAL | 181,724 | 421 | 23 | ||
| INYO | 18,485 | 130 | 70 | ||
| LOS ANGELES | 9,757,179 | 58,141 | 9 | 33 | 60 |
| MONO | 12,991 | 52 | 40 | ||
| ORANGE | 3,170,435 | 9,757 | 1 | 7 | 31 |
| RIVERSIDE | 2,529,933 | 7,387 | 1 | 2 | 29 |
| SAN BERNARDINO | 2,214,281 | 11,094 | 1 | 4 | 50 |
| SAN DIEGO | 3,298,799 | 12,190 | 4 | 7 | 37 |
| VENTURA | 835,427 | 2,481 | 2 | 30 | |
Source: The statistics provide aggregate information using the most recently available, comparable, and complete data. Column B is sourced from U.S. Census data for 2024. Columns C and F are sourced from the Department of Justice report Crime in California 2024 and provide data for calendar year 2024. Column D and E are sourced from CalVCB’s TRC records.
*Crime rates are calculated per 10,000 residents. In counties with smaller populations, even a minor change in the number of crimes can result in a significant shift in the reported rate. Data for these counties is included for transparency but may not be directly comparable to more populous counties.
**San Joaquin and Kern counties were served via the regional pilot program by a TRC operating out of Los Angeles County. Napa and Sonoma counties were served via the regional pilot program by the TRC operating out of Solano County, which continued after the Solano County TRC received a consecutive grant to provide expanded services.
Appendix B
The data below demonstrates that the number of TRCs and TRC funding has historically been allocated to higher population regions that have a higher number of violent crimes.
Number of TRCs Approved Each Fiscal Year by Region
| Fiscal Year | Northern | Bay Area | Central | Southern |
| 2016-2017 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| 2017-2018 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| 2018-2019 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 2019-2020 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 2020-2021 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| 2021-2022 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
| 2022-2023 | 0 | 2 | 1* | 5 |
| 2023-2024 | 1* | 6 | 0 | 9 |
| 2024-2025 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| 2025-2026 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Amount of TRC Funding Allocated Each Fiscal Year by Region | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Northern | Bay Area | Central | Southern |
| 2016-2017 | $733,333 | $2,880,949 | $0 | $2,240,462 |
| 2017-2018 | $1,731,716 | $870,583 | $0 | $2,943,174 |
| 2018-2019 | $0 | $3,325,259 | $0 | $4,758,541 |
| 2019-2020 | $2,680,836 | $1,806,877 | $0 | $4,929,887 |
| 2020-2021 | $0 | $5,686,354 | $0 | $6,052,096 |
| 2021-2022 | $0 | $2,891,045 | $0 | $14,166,591 |
| 2022-2023 | $0 | $5,387,913 | $2,500,000* | $12,727,909 |
| 2023-2024 | $2,500,000* | $6,609,882 | $0 | $10,804,294 |
| 2024-2025 | $1,176,577 | $3,344,000 | $0 | $8,006,448 |
| 2025-2026 | $1,667,204 | $8,066,153 | $0 | $8,682,513 |
| TOTAL | $10,489,666 | $40,869,015 | $2,500,000 | $75,311,914 |
*The numbers reflect satellite TRCs that operated due to one-time funding from the Budget Act of 2022. The Central California pilot operated from May 1, 2023, through September 30, 2025. The Northern California pilot operated from September 12, 2023, through June 30, 2025.
Appendix C
The data below demonstrates that generally, Central region applicants had low scores compared to other applicants.
| Grant Year | Applicant #* | Area Served | Applicant Score | Lowest Score Funded |
| 2024 | 1 | Fresno City & County | 38 | 55 |
| 2024 | 2 | City of Fresno | 30 | 55 |
| 2024 | 3 | City of Fresno | Disqualified | 55 |
| 2024 | 4 | San Joaquin Valley | Disqualified | 55 |
| 2025 | 1 | Fresno City & County | 63 | 67 |
| 2025 | 2 | City of Fresno | 58 | 67 |
| 2025 | 5 | Stanislaus County | Disqualified | 67 |
| 2025 | 6 | City of Fresno (focus on Punjabi-Sikh community) | 66 | 67 |
| 2025 | 7 | City of Bakersfield | 64 | 67 |
| 2026 | 1 | Fresno City & County | 47 | 76 |
| 2026 | 6 | City of Fresno (focus on Punjabi-Sikh community) | 64 | 76 |
| 2026 | 7 | City of Bakersfield | 70 | 76 |
| 2026 | 8 | San Benito County | Disqualified | 76 |
*Applicants with the same number applied in multiple years.
Appendix D
A key decision the Board will need to make related to Alternative 3 is how to distribute funding.
Funding could be provided equally or proportionally based on the total violent crimes as shown in the example below. This example uses the total Fiscal Year 2026-27 funding of $11,250,000 for demonstrative purposes.
| Methodology | Amount | Estimated Number of TRCs | Amount Per TRC for a Two-Year Grant |
| Equal Distribution | |||
| 4 Regions | $2,812,500 | 1-2 per region | $1,406,250 |
| Distribution Proportionally by Violent Crime Totals | |||
| Northern (12%) | $1,313,374 | 1 | $1,350,000 |
| Bay Area (20%) | $2,274,769 | 1 | $2,250,000 |
| Central (14%) | $1,583,069 | 1 | $1,575,000 |
| Southern (54%) | $6,078,788 | 3 | $2,025,000 |
There are equity concerns with either funding approach. Equal distribution of funding by regions will likely result in the Board not meeting the statutory requirement of serving the greatest number of victims because there will be fewer TRCs in the highly populated, high-crime areas of the state. The proportional distribution leads to funding inequities. Specifically, a proportional distribution is more likely to result in the Northern and Central California regions not having enough funding to support minimum viability.
[1] The Northern and Central California pilot program TRCs are not included in this table because their grant notices and contracts were executed on different timeframes. The Central California pilot operated from May 1, 2023, through September 30, 2025 in San Joaquin and Kern counties. The Northern California pilot operated in Napa in Sonoma Counties from September 12, 2023, through June 30, 2025.
[2] Minimum viability is defined as the cost to meet the minimum staffing requirements outlined in state law which include the salary and benefits for a psychiatrist, psychologist, and social worker, as well operational costs. This number is much lower than the maximum award of $2.2 million that CalVCB has previously recommended. During the July 2025 TRC Informational Hearing there was consensus among CalVCB and TRC stakeholders that the minimum viability standard is too low for TRCs to successfully operate.