DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

March 19, 2026, Board Meeting

The California Victim Compensation Board (Board) convened its meeting in open session upon the call of the Chair, Gabriel Ravel, General Counsel of the Government Operations Agency, acting for, and in the absence of Nick Maduros, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, March 19, 2026, at 10:04 a.m. Also present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for, and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Appearing via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney.

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill, and Acting Chief Counsel, Laura Simpton, attended in person at 400 R Street, Sacramento, California. Board Liaison, Andrea Burrell, was also present and recorded the meeting.

Item 1. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill greeted the members of the Board and attendees of the Board meeting and began her remarks by noting that the recommendation for funding Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs) was on the agenda for the day’s meeting. Ms. Gledhill explained this continues to be a challenging item because CalVCB again received the highest request for funding from the largest number of organizations in the grant program’s history. The increased demand for TRCs far outweighs the funding available to award, which makes the grant very competitive. As previously projected, there is not enough funding to support all current organizations. Ms. Gledhill added that previously funded organizations that did not receive grants last year also applied and submitted competitive applications. Ms. Gledhill acknowledged the impact on communities with existing TRCs that do not receive a consecutive grant and the unfortunate reduction in services for those victims.

Ms. Gledhill shared that the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) published an article regarding the estimated savings from Proposition 47 which are placed into the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. While the LAO recognized that any Proposition 47 savings estimates are subject to significant uncertainty, they did identify an issue with the Administration’s methodology that they believe results in a structural underestimate of the savings. Ms. Gledhill said the LAO recommended that the Administration correct the methodology in the Governor’s May Budget Revision. For this reason, CalVCB is anticipating that the amount of Proposition 47 savings will increase in the May Revise, which has been the case for the last couple of years. Ms. Gledhill added that CalVCB will continue to support additional funding for this grant program given the demonstrated need and looks forward to discussing it in more detail and answering questions later in the agenda.

Ms. Gledhill next updated the Board regarding the issue of attorney fees that was discussed at the January Board meeting and shared that CalVCB resolved the issue regarding attorney fees. CalVCB has established a way to pay attorney fees using only state General Fund dollars and issued all outstanding payments in early February. Ms. Gledhill explained that this allows CalVCB to issue payments to attorneys moving forward, while also complying with new federal grant requirements that disallow attorney payments for undocumented immigrants. Ms. Gledhill said she appreciated the collaboration between the state agencies, the Government Operations Agency, the Department of Finance, and the State Controller’s Office, in recognizing how important this issue was and moving quickly to get it resolved.

Ms. Gledhill shared that in January, the Board authorized CalVCB to begin the rulemaking process on a package of regulations related to mental health reimbursement. The Regulations Notice was published on February 13, 2026. CalVCB sent this notice to more than 5,400 stakeholders including all the mental health providers for which CalVCB had e-mail addresses. The 45-day period for the public to comment on the proposed regulations will end on March 30, 2026. Ms. Gledhill added that the Board has received a request for a public hearing and it will be held on May 7, 2026, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and that information will be posted on the CalVCB website.

Ms. Gledhill reported that at the end of February, the Federal Office for Victims of Crime performed an onsite monitoring review. The purpose of the visit was to ensure that federal Victims of Crime Act grant funding was being used for the authorized purpose and in compliance with the federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. Ms. Gledhill added the federal government also evaluates if performance goals are achieved.

Ms. Gledhill complimented the CalVCB team, stating they did an exceptional job of explaining CalVCB’s processes to the federal monitor and providing the requested documents in a timely manner. Ms. Gledhill continued that they are currently awaiting the results from this review. Ms. Gledhill further mentioned that in closed session, the Board will be discussing the draft report from the California State Auditor’s office on state and local restitution oversight. That report is confidential until it is released, which is currently scheduled for Spring 2026, according to the Auditor’s website.

Ms. Gledhill continued, reporting that the State Controller’s Office (SCO) had completed its audit of the expenditure and disbursement of Proposition 47 grant funds that support the TRC program. They evaluated CalVCB’s procedures and internal controls for overseeing the grant award process, program monitoring, expenditure review and approvals, the maintenance of accounting records, and more. Ms. Gledhill said they also verified that CalVCB’s administrative costs were allowable and properly supported. Ms. Gledhill shared that SCO had no findings or recommendations.

Ms. Gledhill shared that during the Exit Conference that week, the SCO complimented the steps the CalVCB team had taken since the last audit to improve grant oversight. This report is expected to be published in a couple of months. Ms. Gledhill thanked the CalVCB staff who worked on all these efforts and added that each alone is a large effort and there were multiple audits happening at the same time.

Ms. Gledhill went on to discuss CalVCB’s awareness campaign ads that ended at the end of February. Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB’s vendor is currently conducting a post-campaign survey to measure the results of the awareness campaign, and they are also working on the final reporting. Ms. Gledhill stated that she anticipates providing the Board with an update on the full campaign at the May meeting.

Ms. Gledhill noted that April is always a meaningful and active month for CalVCB as we recognize Sexual Assault Awareness Month and participate in events that support National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, which will take place April 19-25, 2026, this year. Ms. Gledhill explained these observances provide an important opportunity to reaffirm CalVCB’s commitment to supporting survivors and raise awareness about victims’ rights.

Ms. Gledhill announced that CalVCB will once again host the annual Denim Drive in April in support of Denim Day and sexual assault survivors. This year, the donations will go to the Rape Crisis Center at Tri Valley Haven in Livermore. Ms. Gledhill explained that the organization provides vital support to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence. Their comprehensive services include a round-the-clock crisis line, sexual assault response team, and essential support for shelter, food, and clothing. 

Ms. Gledhill announced that on April 16, 2026, CalVCB will also host a virtual webinar for advocates focused on supporting survivors of sexual assault, where she will be joined by partners from VALOR and the California Clinical Forensic Medical Training Center to discuss critical resources, advocacy services, and the comprehensive healthcare support available to survivors.

Ms. Gledhill stated that she will be connecting with leaders from County Victim Witness Assistance Centers to collaborate and share information about CalVCB’s updated resources and materials. Ms. Gledhill reminded everyone that this is always an ongoing effort, but April is a month where CalVCB tries to take extra time to make sure that we are connecting and letting victims of crime know about the resources available to them.

Ms. Gledhill thanked the Board and stated she was open to questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and thanked her for sharing the great news on the attorney fees resolution and getting it worked out relatively quickly. Chair Ravel further congratulated the CalVCB staff on the successful completion of the audits.

Chair Ravel asked the Board if they had any questions or comments on the Executive Officer’s Report.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill for her prompt work on the attorney’s fees issue. Member Johnson acknowledged that it was a sticky situation and appreciated her rising to the occasion to get the work done.

Item 2. Legislative Update

The Legislative Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated the Legislature’s deadline to introduce bills had passed and went on to highlight some of the bills that CalVCB is following.

AB 1716 by Assemblymember Stefani would expand CalVCB reimbursement to include tuition payments. Students who are unable to continue attendance or suffer an academic setback as a result of a crime, could receive up to $10,000 to reimburse tuition costs. This bill passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 10, 2026, and was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1122 by Senator Arreguin and AB 2247 by Assemblymember Elhawary are both spot bills that may amend statutes related to CalVCB. Spot bills must be amended to include substantive language in March in order to continue forward.

AB 2119 by Assemblymember Jackson would require the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to develop and distribute materials educating the public that all genders may be the victim of sexual assault and domestic violence. It would require CDPH to collaborate with CalVCB, the Office of Emergency Services, and victim advocacy groups in developing the materials. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 24, 2026.

Ms. Cardenas concluded by saying she would be happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Cardenas and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board members.

Item 3. Public Comment

The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. Burrell reminded everyone that consistent with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, items not on the agenda may not be discussed at this time but may be put on a future agenda (Gov. Code § 11125.7).

No public comment was offered.

Item 4. Approval of the Minutes of the January 15, 2026, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved for approval of the Minutes for the January 15, 2026, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 5. Contract Update

The Contract Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Shawn Ramirez.

Ms. Ramirez stated that there was one item for approval, an inter-agency agreement with the Government Operations Agency in the amount of $300,000 for a three-year term that ends June 30, 2029.

Ms. Ramirez explained this is to provide ongoing administrative support, including representation, facilitation, and consultation. The other items on the contract report are informational.

Ms. Ramirez requested the Board’s approval.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez and made a note for the record that given his employment with the Government Operations Agency, he was recusing himself from any discussion or voting under Government Code Section 1091.5.

Member Johnson moved to approve Item 5. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a majority vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 6. Proposal to Approve Fiscal Year 2026-27 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards

The Proposal to Approve Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated she was requesting approval of CalVCB staff’s recommendation for funding Trauma Recovery Center grants.

Ms. Cardenas explained CalVCB is charged with administering the Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) grant process. TRC grants are awarded on a two-year cycle based on scores from the competitive grant process and the amount of funding available.

Ms. Cardenas acknowledged the commitment from the Board, TRC stakeholders, and her team since the presentation last year, in discussing and identifying opportunities to improve processes and transparency in the TRC grant process. Ms. Cardenas explained that the TRC grant program still faces a challenging fiscal situation; however, the steps that have been taken have resulted in positive changes to the grant administration process.

Ms. Cardenas explained for this grant cycle, CalVCB first clarified the Notice of Funds Available, or NOFA, based on feedback from stakeholders. They also ensured it followed plain language principles. CalVCB published the NOFA in October 2025, so it would be due before the holidays and extended the period for application submission by 15 days. 

Ms. Cardenas stated the CalVCB staff hosted a webinar in October 2025 to walk organizations through the NOFA process. In November, staff responded to questions from applicants and posted answers on CalVCB’s website to ensure fairness in the process.

During this scoring process, two differences from past cycles were identified. First, some currently and previously funded TRCs requested lower funding amounts than in previous years with four of the top six scorers requesting less than the previously used $2.2 million benchmark. Second, they saw scores improve for most organizations that had previously submitted applications. Ms. Cardenas said she believes that the discussions from the past year have contributed to these changes.

Ms. Cardenas stated that CalVCB saw a continuation of prior years’ trends in that much more money was requested than is available to grant. There is difficulty maintaining the grant administration for this important work due to the disproportionate increase in applications against insufficient funding to accommodate the requests. Forty-two organizations applied for TRC funding this year, the highest number ever.

Ms. Cardenas added this is the largest gap between available funding and requests in the history of TRC grant program. The only guaranteed funding for the TRC program is $2 million that comes from the Restitution Fund. Additional funding comes from the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, which is projected to decrease due to the passage of Proposition 36. One-time general funds from the Budget Act of 2022 that supported the growth of the TRC network in California, ended last fiscal year.

Ms. Cardenas stated the proposal being presented is based on available funding according to the Governor’s January budget. CalVCB anticipates receiving final funding numbers with the May Revised budget. The application scoring process is consistent with previously Board-approved practices. Staff take the minimum qualifications as outlined in statute, and grantees who meet the minimum qualifications are objectively scored.

Ms. Cardenas explained narrative criteria equal 60 of the 100 points available on the application. They include each organization’s experience and ability to implement components of the TRC model including conducting assertive outreach, serving a wide range of victims, and offering evidence-based mental health services utilizing a multidisciplinary team of clinicians. The final question evaluates their ability to serve the greatest number of victims in a geographic location.

Forty of the 100 points are for administrative components including budget materials, a client flowchart, and a time task plan. These scores are used to develop the recommendation for the Board. Of the forty-two applicants, there are 33 organizations that met minimum qualifications, with scores ranging from 35 to 87 points out of 100.  Nine applicants were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum qualifications outlined in state law. While 33 applicants demonstrated they could meet minimum qualifications, some with very low scores, CalVCB only recommends awarding funding to the top six applicants based on the amount of funding available.

This recommendation does result in largely funding existing and former TRCs located in population dense areas of Southern California. Ms. Cardenas showed a map reflecting those organizations and the TRCs funded last fiscal year, and added that CalVCB continues to meet their objective of providing TRC services across the state with TRCs in the Bay Area, Northern, Central, and Southern California regions.

Ms. Cardenas recognized the continued limited representation in Central California with one organization in Gilroy, but pointed out that the Central Valley organizations that applied, received lower scores. The highest scoring Central Valley organization from Kern County received the 12th highest score with others scoring even lower. Many current or previously funded TRCs would receive funding before these organizations per the scoring process established in the NOFA.

CalVCB currently estimates total funding to equal $10.5 million. Qualified applicants requested $62 million. Four of the top six scoring applicants requested less than the $2.2 million previously used as a benchmark for minimum funding. Because of this, CalVCB is not recommending the Board use the tiered funding approach that was applied in previous years.

Ms. Cardenas stated the recommendation was not reached without much consideration. The CalVCB team ran a multitude of alternate scenarios, each of which resulted in reducing the awards so significantly that CalVCB staff was concerned that TRCs would likely not be fiscally operational. Funding one additional organization requires discounting the awards for the top six scoring organizations with two receiving less than $1 million to operate over the two-year grant period.

CalVCB does recommend that the Board apply the $2.2 million cap to the two organizations that did request more than this amount with an additional adjustment. When running the funding scenarios, a little over $84,000 remained. Since this funding is not sufficient to support another TRC, the recommendation is to split it between the two organizations that requested more than $2.2 million. The cap is still needed, otherwise only the top four organizations would be fully funded.

Therefore, after thoughtful consideration, staff recommend funding the six highest scoring TRCs. This recommendation includes funding four currently funded TRCs and two previously funded TRCs. This recommendation prioritizes giving organizations enough money to successfully operate based on what they requested and the $2.2 million benchmark. As discussed during the informational hearing early this year, TRC organizations need sufficient funding to be functional.

Ms. Cardenas stated that CalVCB did not arrive at the final recommendation lightly and understands that communities with existing TRCs that are not recommended for continued funding will be impacted but added that she believes that this recommendation is the best way to balance the viability and success of TRCs who received higher scores.

Ms. Cardenas respectfully requested the Board’s approval of the Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards as recommended and further authorization for staff to increase or decrease the awards as necessary to reflect the funds available following release of the Governor’s revised budget in May in alignment with the methodology presented in the Board Item.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and the CalVCB staff for their hard work, acknowledging that it was a huge effort, given the tough decisions and trade-offs that had to be made. Chair Ravel then asked if there was any discussion regarding the TRC Proposal from the Board.

Member Johnson acknowledged the difficulty of the situation with limited funds coupled with a huge need and thanked the CalVCB staff for their recommendations that were presented. Member Johnson stated that he had questions about how the geography and the crime rate were represented in the decision-making process, with concerns that the demands of the statute that enables CalVCB, were being met.

Ms. Cardenas explained that geography is worth 10 points and was one of the six narrative questions that the organizations are asked to respond to. This narrative question asks each organization to provide information on the crime rate in their area, the availability of current services, what would they add, what would the deficit be if they were not funded, and what other support services are available in their region, possibly including TRCs. Ms. Cardenas stated that in the scoring system, if an organization can demonstrate that need, they will receive higher points in that category, out of 10 possible points. Then that score is combined with the scoring of the other five qualification questions, which are related to the model and the organization’s ability to implement the model, which becomes part of the ranking with the final score.

Member Johnson stated the information was helpful and recognized that question 6 on the NOFA addressed geography and crime rate. Member Johnson then asked how the distribution across the state is addressed when it comes to crime rates and victims of violent crime across the totality of California. Ms. Cardenas said that it is represented in the scores, so if an organization has a higher score in that qualification category, then they are more likely to be ranked toward the top, assuming they are also able to provide the other services outlined in those qualifications.

Ms. Cardenas reminded the Board that at the November 2025 Board meeting, there was a summary of the recommendations that were made during the July Informational meeting, and one was around changing some of these ideas, which from CalVCB’s perspective, is a policy decision. Ms. Cardenas added that she is only describing what the current process is, and any changes to the evaluation of the process would be a different discussion.

Member Johnson asked if the questions on the application accurately capture the need on a year-to-year basis and whether there was a way to compare from one year to another. Member Johnson asked whether for the two TRCs in Los Angeles County, two TRCs in San Diego County, one TRC in Riverside County, and one in San Francisco, them being granted this year will be reflected in next year’s consideration. Ms. Cardenas explained that first, they will need to see who reapplies, and there is a good chance that the 11 organizations that CalVCB funded this year will reapply for consecutive grants next year. Ms. Cardenas acknowledged in the past couple of years CalVCB has been in a difficult position as there is a greater need than CalVCB has funds available to meet. Consequently, this is why CalVCB has been more precise by making it clearer about the specific areas and counties that the organizations are serving.

Ms. Cardenas continued that there is not currently a process where if there are already two organizations funded in Los Angeles County, then any more in Los Angeles County would not be considered. Ms. Cardenas stated that if there is a desire to change the way they approach the grant, then those policy decisions would need to be addressed and voted on at the Board’s direction.

Member Johnson expressed concern over applicants from less-represented regions that historically do not score as well. He added that the Board has a statutory requirement to consider geography and crime rate, to address the greatest number of victims, and he did not feel like geographically, the places that have higher crime rates are being equally considered. Member Johnson added that the counties of San Francisco, San Joaquin, Humboldt, Stanislaus, Fresno, and Kern are the counties in the state with the highest crime rate per capita. But, besides San Francisco, these counties historically have not been chosen, so he was concerned that CalVCB is not reaching enough victims as they potentially could or should. He added his concern was if they approve of the items this year, the current procedure does not allow for inter-year consideration of counties that received funding in prior years and he hoped that going forward, the Board can try to better incorporate that in its’ decision to fund others outside of the mainstream counties.

Member Johnson then paused for questions or comments from the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson for his comments, and stated his point was well taken. He further stated that if that is a direction the Board collectively wants to go in the future, then they can direct staff to do so in future application cycles.

Member Becton spoke and acknowledged the hard work of the staff and stated that she was appreciative of all the significant efforts from CalVCB staff, the Board, the public, and the TRCs who came forward to give suggestions on the process on how to create greater fairness in the distribution of such limited funds.

Member Becton noted another year with a challenge of scarcity, where $10.5 million was given to CalVCB to work with, versus the unprecedented amount of roughly $70 million that was requested among these proposals. Member Becton was concerned about the implications of lack of access to funding, stating that only six centers were funded out of 40 applicants, and consequently, people’s lives are being affected.

Member Becton also discussed issues of equity due to geographic concentrations, giving the example that Southern California represents a large part of California’s population, but they also have access to more services. The Central Valley, conversely, has far fewer services available, so she urged the Board to also take victim impact into consideration, not just crime rates. For example, those who will lose access, as well as the number of victims that could be affected if TRCs in that area lose funding.

Member Becton acknowledged that she thought the staff did a great job in trying to make sure everything was fair, and she hopes moving forward, the Board can also address the potential equities in the future.

Member Becton then addressed the report showing $84,321 was remaining after funds were distributed, and since $84,000 is not a significant amount, the staff decided to split it between the two organizations that had requested more than the $2.2 million. Member Becton offered a suggestion that CalVCB wait to distribute those funds until the Governor’s May Revised Budget is released, to see if that amount combined with the remaining $84,000 could provide enough funds to potentially fund an additional TRC, especially in those areas that are losing access.

Ms. Cardenas agreed that was something the Board could consider. She gave historical context that in fiscal year 2025-26, CalVCB saw about a 3% increase in the Proposition 47 savings, which was approximately $320,000. The year prior was $700,000, so she stated she was unsure they would still have enough to fund another organization given the historical decline but offered that she could provide an update at the May Board meeting on the funding amount.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and commented that he heard revenues were projected to be better than previously thought, and while it is probably too soon to say, he thought it would be a good idea to revisit the issue in May. Chair Ravel requested confirmation that there was a consensus to consider other ways to ensure geographic equity in the distribution of TRC funds in the future. He requested that, before the Fall when the next round of TRC NOFAs come out, staff prepare and bring a proposal before the Board on possible ways to address geographic equity, which the Board can then consider and discuss.

Chair Ravel then extended his sincere appreciation to the CalVCB staff for the work they did and said that while no one is happy about the lack of funding in a situation where there is not nearly enough money to go around and meet the significant need, he recognized that it is very critical work the TRCs do in their communities, and it has a significant impact on people’s lives. It is not something the Board controls, so they must work with the money available, and he feels the distribution the staff is proposing is equitable.

Member Johnson then asked for clarification on the current two-year funding cycle which included a facility in Gilroy and another in the northern part of the state, which Ms. Cardenas confirmed was in Redding, and which will be active until the next fiscal year. There are also satellite locations in the area.

Member Johnson asked about the status of the pilot TRCs that were satellite TRCs, and Ms. Cardenas stated that funding for these additional TRCs ended at the end of the last fiscal year. She explained that how the pilot program was structured, was to say that existing organizations should apply and then they could expand into under-served regions. One of the organizations in Northern California received a regular grant last year and was able to maintain both of their satellite offices, but the organization that was providing pilot services in Central California, did not receive renewed funding last year but according to their grant application, were not requesting funding to maintain the satellite locations. Ms. Cardenas added that most of the Central Valley locations were primarily telehealth services and only had limited on-site activity.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Cardenas and reiterated his concerns about facilities that are closing or will close due to lack of funding, including Redding, Gilroy, and the satellite facilities that were part of the pilot program. He added that it underscores his concern that next year’s projections for funding will likely be the same, so it is hard to imagine there will be a different outcome in the future. Member Johnson reminded everyone that CalVCB’s mission is to take crime rate and geographic distribution into consideration so they can serve the greatest number of victims, so he would like to see recommendations from the staff for possible adjustments in the program so the Board can meet their duties.

Ms. Cardenas agreed that recommendations could be brought to the Board and also reminded that some recommendations were referenced in the November meeting, including the concept of regional NOFAs.

Ms. Gledhill then called for a motion to approve the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards as recommended, but to reserve on the allocation of the remaining $84,321 until the Governor’s revised budget is released in May, and the Board can decide how best to distribute that and any potential additional funds that come from the revised budget.

Member Becton moved to approve staff’s Proposal to Approve Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards and to reserve on the net $84,321 until the May revise occurs. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell, then called for any public comment before the matter was brought to a vote.

Amy Turk, CEO of the Downtown Women’s Center in Los Angeles, appeared in-person. Ms. Turk said on behalf of her team of case managers and mental health professionals, they are grateful to be recommended for continued funding for their TRC. Ms. Turk noted that since 2015, they have partnered with Peace Over Violence, which is the founder of Denim Day, and thanked CalVCB for honoring Denim Day in April.

Ms. Turk stated that over the past 10 years, it has been demonstrated that this model works; the assertive outreach, the culturally responsive services, and the no-cost care is critical for their community and without it people would be left with nowhere to go in many cases. TRCs remove barriers. Ms. Turk said she is also concerned that there is not enough funding to reach all the TRCs across the state, and that the needs far outweigh the capacity. Ms. Turk stated that they, along with the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, will continue their advocacy in partnership with CalVCB and their fantastic staff to increase the pot of money and to keep this fantastic model going.

Ms. Turk concluded by thanking the Board for their leadership and work on this model.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Turk for making the trip from Southern California and for her service to the community in Los Angeles County.

Michele Ornelas Knight, the director of the UC Davis TRC appeared in person. Ms. Ornelas Knight stated her TRC was not funded in this cycle. Ms. Knight stated that she appreciated the Board’s willingness to hear the public comment.

Ms. Knight said she appeared on behalf of her very dedicated and committed team and on behalf of all the survivors of violent crime that they are currently serving. The core tenant of the TRC model is the removal of barriers to care and for the expansion of equitable services, where it is about accessibility. Ms. Knight added that defunding an established TRC undermines this by eliminating a trusted provider that is currently providing these services to the community and to current victims of crime.

Ms. Knight stated that they follow the Collaborative Care model, namely the Integrated Trauma Services model, that was developed by the state pilot TRC, UCSF. Besides UCSF, they are the only Level I adult and pediatric trauma center in the Northern region. As such, they serve all the surrounding counties, and it provides them with the ability to provide proper bedside engagement in the Emergency Department working with families. Ms. Knight stated they are able and have been asked to currently serve more rural counties such as San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, which do not have access to trauma services or a TRC. They are also currently providing treatment to parents of child homicide victims and stated they are equipped because of their experience in providing equitable, culturally responsive, evidence-based treatment to manage those services for complex trauma and complex grief related to the loss of a child.

Ms. Knight continued that they have also discovered in their work with patients that many of them have histories of sexual abuse that have never been treated due to the lack of equitable care accessible to them. Ms. Knight said those victims go to their center because of the trust they have been able to establish due to the assertive, ongoing, and unrelenting outreach and engagement they provide, and consequently, these victims are open to receiving care for both the violent crime and the sexual abuse. She stated the current two-year funding cycle does not support the establishment and the sustainability for the critical services of TRCs.

Ms. Knight stated that, unfortunately, the UC Davis TRC is being defunded and there will be a service gap in their community and in the surrounding counties.

Ms. Knight continued that there is currently no funding source at their TRC, which she notes is wonderful, but there are no current service providers or organizations that have the funding to provide the bedside engagement and trauma screening in the hospitals. Ms. Knight added that there will be loss in the outreach and assertive case management that the TRC model provides, as well as the coordinated multi-disciplinary team approach for case management and engagement that the TRC provides, which she added is critical and what defines the TRC model.

Ms. Knight concluded by saying she appreciated everyone’s effort and knows this was an incredible effort to balance the significant imbalance of need and funding.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Knight for providing comment and thanked her for her service to the community.

Chair Ravel then called on Stacey Wiggall, the Director of Training and Technical Assistance for the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, who appeared via Zoom. Ms. Wiggall stated the NATRC’s Senior Director, Janelle Melohn, was out of the country or she would have appeared as well.

Ms. Wiggall acknowledged the CalVCB team’s efforts toward incorporating feedback and toward continuous improvement of management of the TRC grant program, as had been presented that day. She acknowledged that the reduction in the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act funds stemming from the passage of Proposition 36, would result in the reduced funding for the TRC grant program currently being experienced in California.

Ms. Wiggall noted that the recommendations that were proposed in today’s meeting were to award funding to four of the nine existing TRCs and not to award grant funding to five of the nine existing TRCs. She further noted the proposal also recommended funding for two of the six TRCs that were defunded in the last grant cycle. Ms. Wiggall shared that the NATRC is currently continuing their efforts to advocate for more TRC funds for the next fiscal year and has received support from multiple California legislators in the Assembly towards this effort. If successful, they will advocate for language to fund additional proposals from existing TRCs in this application cycle rather than waiting until next year to allocate funds.

Ms. Wiggall acknowledged the statements from the Director of the UC Davis Health TRC, in that they know how communities are impacted by the loss of the TRCs and that survivors of violence lose the essential support and services they need every time a TRC must close its’ doors. She added that especially in these times while so many programs are under-resourced by federal funding losses, the TRC safety net is more critical than ever.

Ms. Wiggall stated they will definitely keep in communication with the CalVCB and the TRCs about funding advocacy efforts and pointed out the optimism about increases that may come from the May budget revise.

Ms. Wiggall said she is very hopeful that a solution will be found and that will also result in keeping existing TRCs’ doors open with the mindfulness of geography and the needs for higher violent crime rates being taken into consideration as well. She concluded by thanking the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Wiggall for her comments and her advocacy.

Chair Ravel then called on Valerie Velez, who is the Director of Special Projects for Reach the Valley, which is a funded TRC. Ms. Velez said the funding means that they will be able to continue with much-needed support. Ms. Velez appeared via Zoom and stated she wanted to make a couple of hopefully relevant comments and corroborate what the Downtown Los Angeles Women’s Center was able to communicate in terms of the effectiveness of the services in much-needed areas. Ms. Velez shared that they are the only TRC being funded in Riverside County but noted that even though they are in Southern California, they actually serve a huge geographical area of 700 square miles, which includes many rural communities that would not have access to any kind of care otherwise.

Ms. Velez stated that when looking at a map, Riverside County is a huge county and it might look like it is mixed in with the rest of Southern California but she pointed out that a great deal of the county’s need is in eastern Riverside County, that would otherwise not have access to services. She stated it is a historically poor and under-served area with a large minority population and a high violent crime rate, so she expressed her gratitude to CalVCB for its’ continued support so they are able to help folks that would not have access to any kind of quality services.

Ms. Velez stated they would like to be part of expanding the funding base and to be a part of the conversations about how the funding might be more equitably distributed from the Board’s perspective.

Ms. Velez concluded by thanking the Board and mentioning she was appearing on behalf of the Executive Director, Gayle Hepner, to share the comments.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Velez for appearing and for the services that her organization provides in that critical area.

Seeing no questions or further public comment, Chair Ravel called for a vote to approve item 6. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 7. Robert Anderson (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

Acting Chief Counsel Laura Simpton, presented on the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Robert Anderson. Ms. Simpton stated that Mr. Anderson submitted a claim on October 6, 2023, to the CalVCB as an erroneously convicted person. That application was based on his 2009 convictions for murder and attempted murder as an accomplice, which were vacated due to a change in the law defining accomplice liability pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.6. The claim seeks $775,460 for 5,539 days in prison.

The Attorney General objected to the claim arguing the evidence fails to prove Mr. Anderson’s innocence by a preponderance. As detailed in the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision, the claim is recommended for denial because Mr. Anderson has failed to meet his burden under subdivision (a) of Penal Code Section 4900 to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit the charged crimes as they were defined at the time of their commission. Throughout the administrative proceedings, Mr. Anderson represented himself, and the office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Cameron Goodman.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Simpton and asked if Mr. Anderson was present in the room or online. Seeing Mr. Anderson was not in attendance he then asked if Deputy Attorney General Cameron Goodman was present in the room or online and Mr. Goodman stated he was present in the room. Chair Ravel then invited Mr. Goodman to address the Board.

Mr. Goodman stated that he would keep his statement brief and asked that the Board adopt the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision in full.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Board. Seeing no questions or public comment, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve item 7.

Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Robert Anderson. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. No public comment was offered. By a majority vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Executive Officer and Acting Chief Counsel at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (a) to discuss California State Audit 2025-117 Draft Report – Victim Restitution – State and Local Oversight and pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 120 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:15 a.m.

Member Johnson moved to approve items 1 through 120 of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Becton seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the proposed decisions were adopted.

Adjournment

Member Becton moved to adjourn the March Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 28, 2026.