DRAFT

MORNING SESSION 

California Victim Compensation Board 
Open Meeting Minutes 

July 17, 2025, 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, July 17, 2025, at 10:04 a.m. Also, present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for, and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Member Diana Becton, District Attorney, initially joined the meeting via video conference, but appeared in person at 400 R Street, Sacramento, California at 10:20 a.m. 

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

Item 1. Approval of the Minutes of the May 15, 2025, Board Meeting 

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the May 15, 2025, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed. 

Item 2. 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.) 

She further reminded those in attendance that if they wished to offer public comment regarding item 6, there would be a separate call for public comment when the item was heard by the board. 

Michael Persona provided the Board with his public comment via email.  

Mr. Persona wished to speak regarding the new policy implemented by CalVCB in which Birth Certificates are being requested from parents. Given the current political climate, this is causing many innocent victims to become fearful of requesting much needed services and assistance. This policy must be reevaluated, said Mr. Persona. He expressed his appreciation for the Board in accepting alternative forms of proving Legal Guardianship.  

Mr. Persona thanked the Board.  

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement 

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on several matters. 

To start, Ms. Gledhill noted that the state budget was signed on June 27, 2025, and explained that CalVCB received positions within the Legal Division to help with CalVCB’s backlog of appeals. Ms. Gledhill further explained that CalVCB is working quickly to fill these positions and make progress in timely processing appeals. 

Ms. Gledhill added that CalVCB is continuing to monitor the federal climate; however, CalVCB has not yet received this year’s grant distribution request. CalVCB is expecting it soon and continues to work with the Administration on this. The way that the grant process works, explained Ms. Gledhill, is that CalVCB draws down grant funds from two years prior, so there is no imminent budgetary threat to the organization if the grant is delayed.  

Ms. Gledhill switched gears and notified the Board that two state audits of CalVCB activities have started. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved on June 18, 2025, an audit on the state’s victim restitution system at the request of a lawmaker. This audit includes CalVCB, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the Francise Tax Board (FTB) as each has a role in the restitution process. The lawmaker, in the request for the audit, stated the request was made due to concerns over how restitution is collected and distributed, including garnishment practices, transparency, and fiscal efficiency. Ms. Gledhill continued outlining that specific to CalVCB, the objective includes how claim eligibility decisions are made and the status and outlook of the restitution fund. During the hearing, it was clear that there was confusion about the nexus between restitution and compensation. She clarified that victims qualify for compensation regardless of the existence or status of a restitution order.  

Ms. Gledhill noted that the other audit is a routine audit by the State Controller’s Office audit of the Prop 47 grant program, which is the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools funds that funds the Trauma Recovery Centers. This is a regularly scheduled audit which kicks off in August.  

Further, Ms. Gledhill reported that the public hearing for the proposed regulations regarding income and support loss, among other regulations, was held on June 16, 2025, and many members of the public attended virtually. CalVCB is reviewing all the comments to see what, if any, updates need to be made to the draft regulations considering the comments received. 

Ms. Gledhill also let the Board know that progress is being made on the equity and accessibility strategic planning goal to improve language access and remove access barriers for victims. Plain language updates have been made to almost all the forms and outreach materials, which are also being translated into 15 different languages. These updates will be posted to the CalVCB website when available. A key example of the efforts CalVCB has undergone, stated Ms. Gledhill, is the benefit resource guide. CalVCB has lowered this from a grade 15 level to grade 6 and has reduced it from six pages to two. CalVCB believes this will help providers and those who use CalVCB services, as well as victims, to better understand what benefits they qualify to receive.  

Ms. Gledhill described a recent presentation she provided on the topic of plain language at the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Board’s annual conference, which was held in late May in Salt Lake City. This conference is one of the only opportunities where compensation managers can get together and talk about the issues they are facing. Generally, the topic of translating the work that is done into plain language was well received, as everyone faces the same challenges, given the national situation. Ms. Gledhill said it was helpful to hear from other states at this conference and learn what they knew about how the federal government was planning to proceed with the VOCA grant this year. 

Finally, Ms. Gledhill announced that July is CalVCB’ s 60th anniversary month. She reminded everyone that CalVCB is the first compensation program in the country and expressed that she is extremely proud of the work CalVCB is doing and their efforts to help victims in the state. Ms. Gledhill said she is happy to answer any questions.  

Chair Ravel thanked Executive Officer Gledhill and congratulated CalVCB on 60 years.  

Chair Ravel asked if there were any additional comments or questions from the Board. 

Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill if the organization operates on a 2-year funding cycle, if there were changes to the grant, would it be two years before going into effect? 

Ms. Gledhill said yes, with the understanding that no one knows exactly what could happen. At the moment, CalVCB is drawing down funding from federal fiscal year 2022/2023. Ms. Gledhill presumes that nothing will change in the process in the next year or so and CalVCB will continue to draw down on the previous grants as it has historically done since the grant was formulated.  

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill for her clarification and asked that there be a plan in place for any changes that should or could occur.  

Ms. Gledhill responded expressing that in the CalVCB statutes, there is a provision that states if CalVCB does not receive federal funding, the maximum payout for victims would go from $70,000 to $35,000; however, this has never had to be implemented. She stated that she is unsure how that adjustment to benefits would be implemented if it came up but it is an option that is available if needed in the future.  

Member Johnson asked if this situation were to occur, would the conversation on the provision in the CalVCB statutes be something the Board would discuss, or would that be something CalVCB staff would discuss? 

Ms. Gledhill responded, reiterating that because that type of situation has not occurred, the question cannot fully be answered. Ms. Gledhill said that, at a minimum, the Board would be informed.  

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill.  

Item 4. Legislative Update 

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

The Legislature begins its Summer Recess tomorrow and will return on August 18, 2025. Ms. Cardenas highlighted the status of a few key bills.  

AB 379 by Assemblymember Schultz would require CalVCB to award grants to community-based organizations that provide direct services in areas with a high concentration of sex trafficking. The bill was passed by the Legislature on Monday and is on the Governor’s desk.  

AB 938 by Assemblymember Bonta would allow an individual who committed a violent crime while a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence to apply to have their sentence vacated. This may result in a decrease in restitution collections as any restitution that was imposed would also be vacated. The bill passed out of the Senate Public Safety Committee and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 18. 

AB 1100 by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins would have made significant changes to victim compensation statutes. The bill was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will not move forward this year.  

Finally, SB 470 by Senator Laird would extend the current provisions governing the use of teleconferencing for public meetings by a state body until January 1, 2030. The bill passed out of the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee and was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee where it will be heard in August.  

Ms. Cardenas finished by stating she would be happy to answer any questions. 

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell called for public comment on this item and no public comment was offered. 

Member Becton joined the Board meeting in person at 10:20 a.m.  

Item 5. Contract Update 

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

Ms. Ramirez stated that the Contract Report was informational only and offered to answer any questions the Board had regarding the items listed in the report. 

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell called for public comment on this item and no public comment was offered. 

Item 6. Humberto Duran 

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Humberto Duran was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier. 

On January 24, 2025, Humberto Duran submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted person. The application is based on Mr. Duran’s 1994 convictions for murder and attempted murder, which were vacated by habeas relief in 2024. In April 2025, the court found Mr. Duran factually innocent of these crimes within the meaning of Penal Code section 1485.55. As mandated by the court order and pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $1,485,120 for 10,608 days imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Duran has been represented by Megan Baca of the California Innocence Advocates. Jarrett Adams appeared via Zoom in Ms. Baca’s absence. The office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Krauss and Seth McCutcheon. 

Mr. Adams appeared via Zoom. Mr. Adams thanked the Board and all parties involved in conceding Mr. Duran’s innocence and processing his claim before the board.  

Mr. Duran joined via cell phone. Mr. Duran thanked the Board for the decision and stated he is grateful for everything. He thanked his attorney and thanked the Board again.  

Mr. Adams re-addressed the board stating that the act of compensating Mr. Duran will go a long way in helping Mr. Duran to recover. Mr. Adams said that the money is already paying for his therapy and will allow him to try to continue to pick up the pieces. 

Mr. McCutheon stated the Attorney General’s Office recommended the Board adopt the Proposed Decision. 

Member Becton moved to approve Item 6. Member Johnson seconded the motion. 

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell called for public comment on this item and no public comment was offered. 

The motion to adopt the Proposed Decision regarding the Penal Code 4900 claim of Humberto Duran was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board. 

Closed Session 

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:25 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 226 of the Victim Compensation Program. 

Open Session 

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 10:42 a.m. 

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 226, apart from Item 12, of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Johnson 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 May Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. 

Next Board Meeting 

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2025. 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

California Victim Compensation Board 
Informational Meeting Minutes 

July 17, 2025, 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 Amy Tong, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Also, present were Member Malia Cohen, Controller, and Member Diana Becton, District Attorney. 

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

Item 1. Welcome and Opening Comments from the Board 

Chair Ravel explained that this special meeting was called because of discussion during the March 2025 Board meeting when the Board approved TRC grant awards for this fiscal year. He said that the members looked forward to learning more about Trauma Recovery Centers, the funding and the grant administration process. He thanked the presenters and the TRCs that joined the meeting in Sacramento and via Zoom, and he said that he looked forward to the discussion. Chair Ravel then asked Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill for any opening remarks. 

Ms. Gledhill thanked the Board members for attending and especially thanked staff for putting the meeting together. She said that it was a first for the organization to put together an informational meeting. She appreciated all the hard work that went into it. She also wanted to thank all of the presenters who came to appear in person and also on Zoom. 

Ms. Gledhill stated that the Trauma Recovery Center grants continue to be a challenge as funds requested continue to disproportionately increase compared to the funding available. Additionally, many organizations are interested in becoming Trauma Recovery Centers because of the great work that they do for victims across the State. Her hope was that the Board could learn from stakeholders and experts in TRC operations and learn about the funding situation and the grant administration process. She looked forward to additional discussion with the Board on how to move forward before posting the notice for the next funding cycle this winter.  

Member Becton then welcomed everyone to the hearing and expressed her deep appreciation for their presence, their insights, and for their unwavering commitment to supporting victims and survivors of crime. She said that California has long understood that real justice for victims of crime requires more than just legal remedy. It also demands meaningful, trauma-informed care to help survivors heal, to rebuild and to thrive. And so, the Trauma Recovery Centers, or our TRCs, are at the heart of that vision because they offer comprehensive services and provide to victims and survivors and their families who might not otherwise have those resources available and who might struggle alone. They are providing a bridge to them between the justice system and the path to restoration and hope. 

Member Becton said that it was an opportunity to hear directly from the people and the organizations who are on the front lines of this work. She wanted to acknowledge the important concerns that many TRCs have raised. 

She stated that we are facing some real fiscal challenges coming up. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, which was established using the savings from Proposition 47 is projected to decrease, due to the passage of Proposition 36, and in addition to that, the funding provided by the Budget Act of 2022 should begin to expire this year. Given those realities, she was especially grateful for the chance to better understand every aspect of the grant process, including the scoring criteria, the methodology used and the steps that we can take to ensure that our process is open and fair and transparent. She hoped the conversation would move us closer to that goal.  

Member Becton thanked everyone for being there, for their dedication to the victims and survivors, and for their candid input and commitment to strengthening this partnership. She thanked CalVCB staff, who worked hard to provide a space for this important conversation and for the work that they do every day to assist victims and survivors. She was looking very much forward to the constructive dialogue. 

Member Cohen then stated that that, as the State Controller, this body is one of 70 different boards and commissions that she sits on. Usually, she is represented by her deputy, Evan Johnson, who was in the audience. She provided her background. She is from San Francisco, spent eight years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and served four years at the California Board of Equalization. Now she is in her third year of her first term as the State Controller and was going to be listening to not only the fiduciary arguments. She understood that we are in a budget crisis. How the money flows and moves throughout the State of California, and also sadly understand how the impacts of Federal policies are impacting our great state and our local economies. One of the things that she was going to be critically listening to was the distribution of resources, who gets what and how much. She was hopeful for those not in the chamber and those that were online, that they also speak up and share their thoughts, comments, and experiences and insights, because hard times don’t last forever.  

Member Cohen said that she has been thinking of different strategies on how we begin to beef up the funding, one of which is really developing a very strong champion, either members in the Legislature or in the Governor’s Office, to write TRCs into the budget, particularly when the State has more cash. There are some more proactive things that could be happening. She was going to be listening and learning a little bit more about this particular program. She was very interested in the TRC program, not because it was founded in San Francisco. She was impressed that it does come from her hometown and disheartened to learn that they are under-resourced, but that yet the demand is there and persists. 

Item 2. The Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) Model 

The first presentation was from Dr. Alicia Boccellari, who is a University of California, San Francisco professor and the founder of the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers (NATRC). Her co-presenter was Stacy Wiggall, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and the director of the training and technical assistance program at the NATRC. 

Dr. Boccellari identified herself as the founder of the UCSF Trauma Recovery Center model and the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and for being a partner to the Trauma Recovery Center model. It is because of this partnership and the support of the state legislature that survivors of violent crime from underserved communities now have increased access to much needed services. This model of care that was created and nurtured in California is now being replicated across the country in 55 locations across 15 States.  

Dr. Boccellari spoke about how this whole journey began. She is a clinical psychologist and has been affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital and UCSF for a very long time. San Francisco General is a level one trauma center, which means all the severe injuries, particularly victims of violent crime, end up at San Francisco General. A long time ago the head of surgery, Dr. Bill Schecter, made a comment to her in passing. He said that they can sew them up, but they can’t make them well.  He was referring to the medical and surgical interventions that kept victims of violent crime alive.  

Dr. Boccellari continued that when they did a follow up on these patients, they found that their lives had been shattered, and many were dealing with both the physical and very importantly the psychological aftermath of violent crime. Many were having difficulty returning to work, they were spiraling into financial hardship, homelessness, and having family problems, and they were overcome with nightmares, flashbacks, and other symptoms of PTSD.  Many of these victims, in fact, the majority of them were from underserved low-income communities. It is now known that poverty and violence go hand in hand. Typically, these victims were given a referral to a local mental health agency, and it would be hoped that they would be able to engage in services. 

Dr. Boccellari continued that, back in 1997, they began a pilot to look at how they might be able to help. They thought they had a great idea, but in fact, they made many mistakes along the way. At first, they began approaching these victims at bedside, when they were still in the hospital. They offered them mental health services and said they would be happy to see them on their discharge from the hospital, but much to their surprise, the victims refused. 

There were two issues at play. There is such a stigma to this day around receiving mental health services. When approached, the victims would send them away. Secondly, one of the symptoms of PTSD is avoidance, and this includes avoidance of talking about what happened. 

Dr. Boccellari continued that they met with survivors. They did focus groups and asked them: What is it that you need? How can we help? And they responded that they needed help with practical assistance, getting safe housing, financial entitlements, childcare assistance and help in filing police reports and talking to the police and the district attorney’s office. They also needed help in accessing victim restitution funds. With that feedback, the TRC model began to take shape.  

Dr. Boccellari continued that the TRC model recognizes that the most harmed are the least helped. They aim to remove barriers to care and to transform services for survivors of violent crime. She spoke about barriers along the way during that pilot, acknowledging that it is old data and that some things have changed. In the early days they filed 190 victim applications and only 21 of those applications were approved. The majority were denied because victims were unwilling to file police reports, and they were also denied because the applications were considered to be incomplete. They recognized that many victims did not have timely access to the services that they needed.  

Dr. Boccellari explained that the pilot study continued, and the model evolved to include assertive outreach, case management and evidence-based mental health services. Based on their preliminary findings, the state legislature in 2001 funded UCSF to become a demonstration project for the state, directing them to complete a randomized treatment trial. Comparing the TRC model to usual care, this treatment trial demonstrated that the TRC model is clinically and cost effective. In recognition of the effectiveness of this model, California moved to replicate this model across the state.  

Stacey Wiggall spoke next,acknowledging the Board and appreciating the opportunity to provide a brief overview of the model. The Trauma Recovery Center was developed back in 2001 in San Francisco in partnership with CalVCB. It was designed to be a one-stop center that would provide comprehensive support to survivors of violence throughout their recovery process. TRCs are set up to provide confidential support in a trusted and community-centered environment. 

Ms. Wiggall continued that the TRC model was developed to effectively serve survivors who were falling through the cracks of traditional victim services and were also not well served by traditional mental health services and their emphasis on talk therapy alone for the treatment of PTSD and trauma. Rather, the model was developed to focus on engaging and serving survivors in marginalized communities and underserved areas to serve survivors of a recent victimization. Typically, that’s within the last three years of the trauma. Becoming a part of those essential safety net services in a community can really prevent the negative impacts and downward spiral that can accompany being a victim of violent crime. The initial focus is on safety and stabilization. TRCs serve a specified community, whether that’s a city or a county or a Zip code, and that is so they always have the capacity to provide in-person services to survivors they’re working with, although many also offer telehealth services which have increased accessibility. They also work with survivors who aren’t already in other mental health services or duplicative services 

Ms. Wiggall continued that what sets this model apart is the non-siloed approach. There’s no wrong door. If you’ve been a victim of any of these types of violence, or have lost a loved one to homicide, you can get help or services at the TRC. This is in recognition that most people who come to the TRC have experienced five or six different types of violence before ever seeking help or services.  

Ms. Wiggall continued that TRCs focus on assertive outreach to individuals. In addition to whatever community outreach and community engagement events they might also be holding, TRC staff have the ability to work outside the four walls of the center. They can see someone at their hospital bedside, at their home or elsewhere in the community that feels safe to them. That really helps with building trust and rapport that’s both essential for engagement and services and an essential component of healing from trauma. They also work very collaboratively with survivors and want to know what’s important to them.  

Ms. Wiggall continued that the mental health impacts of trauma, no matter who you are, can be absolutely devastating and very destabilizing. TRC mental health services are comprehensive accordingly, and really able to serve individuals who are facing complex challenges, including the ability to offer crisis intervention as needed and crisis debriefing.  They also provide trauma-focused and trauma-informed psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and information about trauma and its impacts and about coping. They have a strengths-based approach to the work. A survivor that they are working with has tools, has resources, has strategies, and they want to know what’s been working for that person, and how they can shore that up and add additional tools to their toolbox. A critical part is also access to medication, evaluation, and management psychiatric medication, because for some people that is a critical part of being able to engage in these services and avoid the long waits in community mental health and access to psychiatry. Many TRCs also do family work and group work. 

Ms. Wiggall presented a graphic on the client flow at the TRC, illustrating that there are generally multiple entry points throughout the community for referral into the TRC. When someone is referred, they receive a comprehensive biopsychosocial intake assessment that identifies both their mental health and case management needs. That allows the TRC team to develop this individualized, survivor-centered plan of care. While someone is in services at the TRC, they’re able to leverage the community partnerships that the TRC has built. The TRC becomes the single point of contact for care, coordination, and for helping to access and navigate all of the different resources that someone might need to connect to or be connected to already, or the different systems that someone might be navigating. These community partnerships are also essential at the time when someone is well enough to be discharged from the TRC but might have some additional needs. They can be accessed at that point from community partners as well. 

Ms. Wiggall continued that the services are provided by a multidisciplinary, culturally diverse staff, which takes time and resources to recruit and hire. The core staffing is mental health clinicians many times. That includes master’s level mental health clinicians, whether they’re social workers, MFTs, LPCCs, at least one psychologist, and access to a psychiatrist. Many TRCs also have case managers and outreach workers. Other types of peer support may have someone helping them manage their data. They may also offer a clinical training program to be able to hire into the TRC and also expand the field of trauma work. They also have the language capacity to meet clients and populations that they’re serving 

Ms. Wiggall continued that what they see over and over again when a TRC opens in a community is that TRCs really do bridge the gaps in victim services. Often the traditional victim services office at the district attorney is one of the biggest referral partners for a local TRC, but other partners include hospitals, primary care, clinics, law enforcement, often domestic violence shelters, rape, crisis centers, and schools. There are many entry points throughout the community. TRCs are also inclusive of people who don’t go through the criminal justice system and don’t file a police report, or at least initially, don’t file police report.  TRCs remove a significant barrier to care and services for many people. They also have been demonstrated to serve people of color and people experiencing homelessness at higher rates and to increase access to victim compensation to help people with the application process. This means that more people get access to those benefits who are young or who have less education. 

Ms. Wiggall continued explaining that this is an evidence-based model. This is why their training and technical assistance supports fidelity to this model and the 11 core elements of it so that TRCs across their network can achieve similarly positive outcomes. That includes significant increases in the rates of engagement in services and significant decreases in mental health symptoms, particularly PTSD and depression. That really translates into a better quality of life for survivors, because when you’re no longer suffering from PTSD or depression, you’re able to return to work sooner, you’re able to maintain your housing, and you’re able to show up for your children and your family and your loved ones in the ways that you want to.  

Ms. Wiggall presented a graphic showing that these impacts hold across different TRCs that have been studied. She showed examples from Long Beach TRC and SFO TRC that show similarly high rates of PTSD and depression, much higher than on average for people accessing community mental health services coming into the TRC. They similarly show very significant decreases in those symptoms after an episode of treatment at the TRC. 

Ms. Wiggall presented a map showing that the TRC model has been adopted by California and also in 14 other states, and this national network enables survivors of violence in 55 communities across the country to get access to this comprehensive care and support that the TRC model offers. It also really enriches their community of practice and what they have to offer through the NATRC.  

Ms. Wiggall stated that there is more information available about that and all that they have to offer, as well as a manual, on their website: thenatrc.org. 

She spoke about training and technical assistance, because that has been an important part of their partnership with CalVCB over the last three years. For new TRCs they are able to meet with new grantees very soon after the award and talk about the multidisciplinary staffing model and share hiring and recruitment strategies. They have sample tools, such as job descriptions that help them get up and running sooner and be able to meet that requirement of opening their doors to serve clients within 30 days.  

Ms. Wiggall explained that they offer seven-weeks of TRC implementation workshops in a peer learning cohort so that programs get oriented to the 11 core elements of this model with other TRCs, there might be in different places in the state, or they might be in different parts of the country. That allows for multi-directional learning in their community of practice. They have a lot of resources to share. They also support new TRCs developing their six essential protocols for operating a center, so that they’re well-positioned to succeed and to have fidelity to this evidence-based model. TRCs also get to participate in ongoing, facilitated peer learning, cohort meetings and all TRCs that they work with get access to training and technical assistance through their NATRC center for learning, which is their online learning management system that offers self-paced training. They also have resources and continuing education units available on the center for learning. 

Ms. Wiggall explained that the NATRC facilitates statewide and national community meetings, allowing TRCs to come together, share best practices, share challenges, brainstorm with each other, and learn from each other as well about innovations in the work. They also offer free training, at least quarterly in evidence-based therapies for the treatment of trauma. Another focus area is using culturally responsive approaches and interventions, Due to the challenges of this work, managing vicarious trauma and strategies for sustaining provider wellness and longevity in trauma recovery work is another focus. The team also provides targeted support for the TRCs for supervision and training for data collection and for leadership at TRCs. At any TRC, their vision is a world where every survivor of violence gets the help they need to heal. They do appreciate the partnership of CalVCB in manifesting that vision in California.  

Chair Ravel thanked Dr. Boccellari and Ms. Wiggall for their presentations, and also for the incredibly important work that they are doing for some of the neediest people in our society.  

The second presentation was from Kari Cordero, Executive Director of the Napa-Solano SANE-SART TRC, presenting with Melissa Nickson, Victim Services Director of the Napa-Solano SANE-SART TRC. 

Kari Cordero introduced herself and explained that SANE-SART stands for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners Sexual Assault Response Team. She is also a psychiatric nurse practitioner and a sexual assault nurse examiner. 

Melissa Nickson introduced herself and explained that she has been with Napa Solano SANE-SART since 2018. She is currently a master’s social worker going for an LCSW. The TRC has inspired her. She added that Dr. Julia Rosholt, the TRC Clinical Director, was also in the audience.  

Ms. Cordero explained that Napa Solano SANE-SART is a victim services organization or nonprofit agency that has been around since the 1980s, providing forensic examinations for sexual assault victims, domestic violence forensic exams, and child forensic interviews. They also have a human trafficking advocacy program. In 2018, they saw a need for an increase in mental health services, for victims of violence. That’s when the Solano TRC was established in Solano County. Solano County is a smaller Bay Area county with very low philanthropy and increased marginalization. What they have seen from their experience is a direct referral from services. They may see a child or an adolescent or an adult for a sexual assault exam and can do an immediate referral for mental health therapy which has really been so impactful for people. Getting them into services as soon as possible after the crime really helps mitigate symptoms.  

Ms. Cordero added that, in 2022, they were one of the TRCs that was not awarded after an application and they were given the opportunity to reapply. They were then awarded a lesser amount. In 2023 they applied for one of the expansion grants for Northern California, and at that time decided to increase service in Napa and Sonoma counties being next to them. This meant that even with the decreased funding in Solano County they were able to maintain their core functions with that expansion grant. In Solano County they see about 200 to 250 clients a year.  

Ms. Cordero discussed what they have learned, especially with the expansion grant, where they look at Napa and Sonoma counties and their crime rates, and particularly having access to their sexual assault rates. They went into that grant thinking they were not going to have high numbers and were absolutely proven wrong. What they realized in Solano County is that it is far more marginalized, and the basic needs are greater in Solano County than they are in Napa and Sonoma. If you can’t pay your PG&E, your rent, or have groceries on the table for you and your family, accessing mental health is at the bottom of that list. They were especially grateful that they were able to use the Flexible Emergency Cash Assistance Program (FECAP) money. 

Ms. Nickson added that the FECAPmoney was a godsend, because they used every dollar of it. The clients that come to them are coming on quite possibly the worst day of their life, and their partner may go to jail who’s their provider for their home, and they have no money to pay their bills. The FECAPwas able to save so many situational issues that their clients faced, which would maybe make them homeless. They were able to pay rent and help them with food, with clothing, with transportation, at the same time as being able to access mental health therapy and get their children. They have a child therapist on staff as well, which is tremendous, because when they are serving the families, oftentimes the children are affected as well by the violence that they’ve experienced in the home. FECAP has literally been a godsend at their agency. They don’t know what they would have done without the FECAP, because, especially in Solano County, they do see a lot more poverty. The basic needs are the first thing that you have to meet these clients with. 

Ms. Cordero agreed that FECAP was a godsend with the decreased funding they received from their Solano TRC, so they were able to keep those core services. They just finished it in June and opted to be housed in family justice centers (the Monarch Justice Center in Napa County as well as the Family Justice Center of Sonoma County) and really work with victim service providers: the district attorneys, victim-witness programs, rape crisis, DV shelters. The hub being the Family Justice Center was huge for them, and that is where almost all of the referrals came from. 

Ms. Cordero presented a slide showing crime rates. With two additional counties they expected to see more people, but they are more rural counties. 

They showed up with the referrals and people accessing services and getting the therapy that they needed. She thought they would have much lower numbers, but they saw a huge increase or need for bilingual therapists, particularly Spanish, which they were able to meet. With the expansion grant, they were able to hire or contract with a lot of local LCSWs and MFTs to provide those therapy services. 

Ms. Cordero presented a slide of highlights. With Solano County having such low philanthropy rates, with concern and worry from what is going to happen with federal funding, or even local and state funding, they are absolutely grateful for the continued funding. She also felt that direct referral for clients, whether it’s domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and getting these families into therapy is absolutely pivotal, and them being able to show up to their office, and then, knowing they can come to the same office, for therapy is really helpful, so they can meet with their advocate if they need both playing different roles in the family’s healing journey. She added that CalVCB staff has been absolutely incredible. Their grant liaisons have always been really kind and helpful if they have a question. 

Ms. Cordero presented a slide with recommendations. She felt that established TRCs should have some type of leg up when they are reapplying, for funding because it is a disservice to the community to have a TRC and then not fund a TRC in the future. They are now a hub for so many people, and it takes multiple years for the community to learn who you are. Having been around for seven years, people still don’t know who they are. She said that she didn’t know what that looks like in terms of grant applications with the NOFA, but she thought there should be some type of bonus or extra points for a TRC that is doing what they said they were going to do with their funding 

Ms. Cordero presented a slide with their limitations. They were in a new award and did receive the maximum benefit, 2.2 million dollars. However, the goal was to have that for one county, and they were now using that across three because of the expansion again. She did not feel it is fair to the community to start services and then to pull back. They will have some limitations in terms of core therapy positions and less flexibility in contracting with local therapists in the community. 

Ms. Cordero presented a slide of their Napa Solano SANE-SART grand opening at the Monarch Justice Center.  

Ms. Nickson shared a story to show the impact that TRCs have in their community. They have a neighboring city in Solano County, Vallejo. There’s a high rise of human trafficking poverty and gun violence. There was a teenager that died from gun violence, and they were literally able to wrap around services within a day with their relationships with their reputation in the community. They were able to talk to a victim-witness advocate, to immediately get them contacted with CalVCB, so that funeral costs can possibly be taken care of if they meet the requirements, and immediately provide crisis management with the family. It showed her what an impact that TRCs have in their community, and how extremely important they are from domestic violence all the way across to something like this. 

Chair Ravel thanked the speakers for presenting and for the extremely important work they do. They’re finding people in some of the worst situations and giving them what they need to be as complete as possible going forward. Their points are well taken about what we can consider for the future. They have heard from a number of people about giving extra consideration to established TRCs and that is something that that they are looking at. He thanked the speakers for recognizing the work of the staff at CalVCB, and how helpful they’ve been. That’s certainly the level of service that he expects from all their staff. 

Member Cohen asked the speakers whether she heard correctly that Napa Solano SANE-SART received funding one year and then was denied the next year in funding. Ms. Cordero confirmed that they were denied based on a point system. Ms. Gledhill added that it was a ranked scoring system, but the Board makes the final determination.  

Member Cohen asked about their reapplication. Ms. Cordero confirmed that they reapplied and there was an appeal process. There were three TRCs that were not funded again. They were given the opportunity to apply again, and then they were awarded at a lesser amount. 

Ms. Gledhill added that there was a year where the Board did not accept the staff recommendation, and they came back a few months later with a new set of recommendations that included TRCs that already existed. They all received fewer dollars because they were spreading the money out over more Trauma Recovery Centers. 

Member Cohen inquired further about the TRC’s funding and services.  Ms. Cordero confirmed that their budget is $2.2 million for two years, so $1.1 million per year. They were receiving additional funding through a child youth behavioral health initiative grant that just ended June 30th which was able to supplement some of their child therapy. State funds make up 75 percent of their budget and the other 25 percent is made up of fundraising, federal dollars and philanthropy. She wished that there was more fee for service, because they do contract with local law enforcement for their forensic examinations. They do not turn anybody away, but at times they have had a wait list. When there is a wait list, they have a case manager that will check back in on folks to make sure they are doing okay and provide them updates along the way. The average length of time that a person would be under their treatment mirrors the UCSF model of 16 sessions, so 4 months with extensions based on how they’re doing clinically. Napa Solano SANE-SART has been around since 2018.  

Item 3. Funding Structure and Outlook 

Justyn Howard, Deputy Secretary of Fiscal Policy and Administration at the Government Operations Agency, presented next. He was touched hearing all the great work that’s going on in the Trauma Recovery Centers. He said it’s quite impressive, despite the tough funding outlook that he was about to describe.  

Mr. Howard explained that the Trauma Recovery Center program within CalVCB receives funding from three different areas. First, from the Restitution Fund, there is a statute that says it is the intent of the legislature to provide $2 million annually to CalVCB for the Trauma Recovery Center program. He noted that it is intent language, and it doesn’t have to be $2 million. In theory it could be more, though the Restitution Fund itself is in a very bad situation ever since public safety realignment back in 2011. The Restitution Fund is essentially insolvent, meaning it’s overprescribed in terms of the programs that it is funding and the Department of Finance routinely provides a General Fund backfill to help fill the gap for the Restitution Fund. 

Member Cohen inquired about realignment and funding from the Restitution Fund.  

Mr. Howard confirmed that public safety realignment was an act of the Legislature and was put onto the ballot at the time. It shifted a lot of felony convictions from state incarceration to county incarceration, and it moved funding as well. It was under Jerry Brown’s administration when he first came in coming out of the very tough budget years under Schwarzenegger. They were looking for savings and trying to right-size the budget at the time and thought that the counties would provide better services to inmates if they could stay closer to home. Realignment also made changes to parole and established a new type of local supervision for various probationers and people coming out of state prison.  

Mr. Howard stated that the Restitution Fund could provide more than $2 million, but it would just put cost pressures on the General Fund. It would increase the amount of the General Fund backfill that the Department of Finance (Finance) would have to provide to the fund. 

Mr. Howard added that another funding source that CalVCB has received was a one-time General Fund appropriation for the program. In theory that could happen again, and the Legislature could decide to provide additional funding on a one-time or ongoing basis for the program. 

Mr. Howard stated that the area that is most troubling and the biggest topic of conversation is the impact on Proposition 47. It changed several crimes and resulted in state savings. By changing wobblers and certain crimes to misdemeanors it means fewer people were going to state prison, which resulted in savings to the Department of Corrections. Twice a year, once at the Governor’s budget and again at the May Revision, Finance estimates the amount of savings that is generated from Proposition 47. Of that savings calculation, 10% is slated to go to the TRC program. 

Mr. Howard stated that Proposition 36 overruled some of the changes related to Proposition 47. It essentially created a new type of felony that results in more people going to prison, shifting back to prison some of the crimes that otherwise would have resulted in savings to the state. It has created a significant decline in the projection of those savings, which means, if you’re getting 10% of a smaller share, your budget is declining quite significantly. In fiscal year 25/26, the projected savings, as a result of Prop 47 was $88.3 million. Of that amount, 10 percent would have gone to CalVCB for the grant program, which was $8.8 million. 

Mr. Howard stated that at the time of the Governor’s budget, Finance was projecting that it would decline all the way from $88 million to $30.5 million. That is a significant reduction of 50 million dollars in projected savings for Prop, 47. At $30 million, that’s only 3 million dollars at a 10 percent cut that’s available for the program.  That’s a very tough decline. That’s more than half of the annual amount that CalVCB used to get. As Proposition 36 fully ramps up, it’s going to decline even further. Finance is projecting it to go down to about $27 million in fiscal year 27/28. 

Mr. Howard stated the LAO has noted that there’s some uncertainty to those numbers. They are projections. They don’t know the full impact. They don’t have the full data yet, so there is a chance that it could be revised in an upward fashion, but those are the numbers that we are facing at this point in time. It’s a very tough situation what Proposition 36 has done to the funding availability for this program. Mr. Howard recapped that there is $2 million from the Restitution Fund, potential General Fund appropriations, and 10 percent of Prop 47, which is now a declining revenue source due to the changes of Prop 36. 

Member Cohen inquired whether there are any political discussions about bringing any initiatives to the voters next election cycle that will restore some of this money. Mr. Howard said that he has not been privy to those conversations.  

Member Cohen asked how CalVCB staff advocates for their budget. Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB is part of the Government Operations Agency under the Governor’s Office and has regular conversations with the Department of Finance and Agency about their budget and their needs.  The Restitution Fund no longer covers all victim compensation payments, so CalVCB receives a General Fund backfill in order to make sure that part of the budget remains whole. They also talk about the Trauma Recovery Centers and Prop 47 funding. The passage of Prop 36 has changed what they’re looking for as the future of the Trauma Recovery Centers. As part of the administration, they don’t lobby, but they work in concert with the Administration, the Governor’s Office and the Department of Finance on their needs. 

Member Cohen asked whether the General Fund backfill covers administrative costs. Ms. Gledhill clarified that it covers victim payments. They receive around $30 million in General Fund backfill. That covers not just administrative costs, but payments made to victims as well, because the Restitution Fund is no longer able to cover all of the work that they do in providing compensation to victims. 

Mr. Howard added that CalVCB has become essentially a General Fund department as a result of changes over the years as they are reliant on General Fund revenue, which is very volatile, depending on how the economy is doing. CalVCB is included with all the other departments that are relying on the General Fund when making decisions related to available funding. 

Member Cohen asked about CalVCB advocating for its budget with the Legislature. Ms. Gledhill said that they do meet with lawmakers to tell them about the organization. Any request that CalVCB makes goes first to the Government Operations Agency, then to the Governor’s Office or Department of Finance. CalVCB has tried very hard to get the word out about the work that they do now.  

Member Cohen asked about diversifying the streams of income and whether CalVCB is prohibited from receiving philanthropic funds. Ms. Gauthier stated that there’s nothing statutorily that would prohibit CalVCB from taking in additional funds. However, in order to get authority to expend those funds that would have to go through the budgetary process as well. Mr. Howard noted that state departments are allowed to collect grants and funds from philanthropy, and there is a process that usually comes with some type of restriction or requirement related to their expenditure.  

s. Gledhill added that CalVCB absolutely encourages and tells Trauma Recovery Centers that they should look for outside sources of income beyond CalVCB, because they recognize that it is volatile. With the federal government situation and the changing of the state budget and Prop 36, all these funds are volatile and other sources of funding should be sought as well. Member Cohen noted that TRCs may be more impactful seeking philanthropic funds themselves.  

Mr. Howard noted that the distribution of funds from Prop 47 could be changed to potentially increase the percentage that goes to CalVCB.  

Chair Ravel noted that, as long as he’s been on the Board there has not been enough money to go around and now the problem is worse than ever, and if nothing changes it’s going to continue to get worse. The presentation really goes to the heart of the problem here. It puts everybody in an extremely difficult spot. The members of the Board don’t like not giving the funding that’s needed for this program, and the staff don’t like it either. They just don’t know how there’s a way to carve up a dwindling amount of money to come anywhere close to meeting the need that’s been described by the presenters. 

Item 4. CalVCB TRC Grant Administration Process and Considerations 

The next item was presented by Katie Cardenas, Deputy Executive Officer of External Affairs and Compliance Division for CalVCB. Ms. Cardenas said that as Deputy Executive Officer, she oversees the Trauma Recovery Center Grant Program. As part of this work it’s been really amazing getting to know the folks that presented and seeing the impact of the work that they do. She’s had the opportunity to visit a couple of Trauma Recovery Centers. She’s worked very closely with the UCSF Technical Assistance Program and learned a lot about the model and the way that it helps victims heal and recover. It’s really difficult with the current funding outlook, knowing just how valuable that this program is, and it’s very difficult to come before the Board every March and make these recommendations about how the funding should go.  

Ms. Cardenas’s presentation was to explain the current grant administration process and then to share some considerations made internally based on feedback from the stakeholders. After that she was looking forward to the conversation and hearing from the public, to take notes and figure out how to move forward. 

Ms. Cardenas showed a slide with an annual timeline for this process. They post the notice of funds available, or NOFA, in December, and before they post this document, the staff always take a look based on feedback they’ve received about areas where additional clarity might be needed or where they could provide more information. They make updates as needed. 

Ms. Cardenas explained that grantees typically have 30 to 45 days to prepare and submit their grant applications. During that time period CalVCB offers grantees the opportunity for written questions and provide written responses to those questions. The reason that they do this in writing is because they want to ensure that all the potential applicants have access to the same information. Then, at the recommendation of the Board last year, and for the 2025 NOFA process, CalVCB also held a Zoom Webinar, where staff walked through the NOFA and highlighted the key requirements that they thought were important for applicants to understand. The purpose of the NOFA from their lens is to provide grant applicants as much information as they can about what they are looking for. It also provides scoring rubric. Staff are trying to provide transparency. Their goal is for folks to have as much information as possible, so they can submit the strongest applications possible. 

Ms. Cardenas stated that, in February, when all the grant applications are submitted, they go through the scoring process. Historically, that scoring process has been done by three CalVCB staff members who are informed about the TRC model and the statutes. They grade those applications individually first and then come together as a committee to discuss any areas where they might not have agreed. They work those out and then come up with a total final score. Those total final scores are then ranked for all the applications that they received, and staff start running different funding scenarios.  

Ms. Cardenas stated that, at the January Governor’s budget, they have some indication of what they think the funding might be. When they start running those funding scenarios in March, they’re looking at how to establish a few things. Their recommendations to the Board in the last few years have involved a tiered system. Staff aim to create tiers that they think are fair, objective, and defendable. After they have those tiers, they look at percentages within them based on the amount of money they have. They have also recommended to the Board that they cap funding at a maximum of $2.2 million or $1.1 million a year. Collectively, the tiers, the percentages and the cap are so they can bring a recommendation before the Board that allows them to fund the greatest number of TRCs possible. If they funded people at the organizations at the amount that they requested, they would end up funding fewer TRCs. They have been trying to find a strategy that allows them to fund more organizations across the state.  

Ms. Cardenas continued, stating that after bringing that presentation to the Board in March, assuming it’s approved, they then move forward at the May Revise. That’s when staff get final numbers for Prop 47 and make adjustments to the grant awards. The last couple of years they’ve had the good fortune of seeing very slight increases in that amount of money, so they’ve actually been able to make small percentage increases to the grant awards. Then staff move very quickly to finalize those grant awards so that they are effective July 1^st. At the beginning of the fiscal year, there’s a lot of activity that happens administratively to get those awards done by July 1^st. 

Ms. Cardenas spoke about the criteria that is used to score the grants, and the key takeaway is that it is based on that UCSF TRC model.  Dr. Boccellari did amazing work in getting the model put into statute. Key core elements of the model are referenced in statute, and so staff take those core elements and put them into the NOFA. What CalVCB asks grant applicants to do is to explain how they, through examples, can demonstrate their experience and ability to meet those requirements. 

Ms. Cardenas spoke about the scoring criteria. The NOFA contains six questions for a total of 60 points. There is a score of zero which means an applicant is not qualified. If an applicant gets a score of zero on one of these six questions, CalVCB disqualifies them from the process because it indicates that they won’t be able to meet all of the statutory requirements. Most commonly the score of zero comes up with relation to the multidisciplinary team and organizations not having the ability to have a psychiatrist or a psychologist or not demonstrating that through their application. A score of one to two indicates that an applicant is less qualified, because their answer provides little or no direct experience. They also may not provide examples. A score of three to six indicates that they are qualified, and that means that they have shown, through their application, that they have direct experience, complete knowledge, and they have shared comprehensive examples.  

Ms. Cardenas continued stating that a score of seven to ten indicates that the applicant is highly qualified. In addition to meeting the qualified standard, CalVCB also asks that for each qualification question that applicants clearly state that they can begin providing those services related to that qualification within 30 days. This was added as a way to acknowledge that the existing TRCs are likely able to provide those services right away. And so CalVCB does ask that they clearly articulate that for each qualification question. CalVCB thinks that this is important, because even the existing TRCs, often in their applications, discuss potentially changing their services, expanding them, doing something a little bit different. And so, having that indication that whatever they are proposing can be done within that first 30 days justifies the highly qualified score. That is 60 of the 100 points that CalVCB scores. 

Ms. Cardenas stated that they also have 40 points that are more administrative. They have 20 points related to a budget worksheet and a budget narrative, and that helps CalVCB understand how the applicants plan to spend the money that they’re requesting. It gives CalVCB a sense of the salaries for the staff and what they would spend on overhead. There are various thresholds that CalVCB asks them to meet to ensure that most of the grant money is going to direct client services. That budget information helps CalVCB ensure that that grant is going to go to help victims.  

Ms. Cardenas stated that CalVCB also gives 5 points for a client flowchart. The client flowchart is important because it allows CalVCB to see how they plan to serve victims, how they plan to engage them from the community or hospitals, how they will be referred to mental health services, what other partners or networks they might use, and then how they will ultimately finish the TRC program. CalVCB also asks for an organizational chart, which is 5 points. Some of these organizations are embedded within larger organizations, so that is helpful for CalVCB to know. 

Ms. Cardenas stated that CalVCB asks for a time task plan, which is 7 points. In addition to providing mental health services, the TRCs also provide outreach and training services. The time task plan helps CalVCB understand when they plan to meet those outcomes during the two-year grant cycle. Lastly, there is an optional, three letters of recommendation that they can submit for one point per letter. That gets to the total of 40 points for administrative areas and 100 points in total. 

Ms. Cardenas stated that when CalVCB goes through that scoring process, they look at how applicants ranked at the end and then start going through the process of developing the funding recommendation for the Board. 

Ms. Cardenas showed a slide with the qualifications that are pulled from state law and which are informed by the UCSF TRC model. What CalVCB is asking folks to do is provide examples of their experience or ability to meet these qualifications. They relate to outreach, serving a wide range of victims, providing those evidence-based mental health services, and then being able to use that multidisciplinary team and serve the widest number or the greatest number of victims in a geographic area. 

Ms. Cardenas shared some of the considerations and conversations they have had internally based on what they have heard at the Board meetings and based on conversations with NATRC and other Trauma Recovery Centers. CalVCB has considered funding only existing TRCs or providing additional points to existing TRCs. There are some challenges with that recommendation. It comes down to the funding volatility if you make a commitment to fund all the existing TRCs. CalVCB granted $18.4 million this year, and they are looking at a total amount next year of $5 million. They have nine TRCs that are likely to reapply next year, so spreading that $5 million across those nine TRCs is going to be challenging while ensuring that they have enough money to operate and meet the statutory requirements. That is one of the biggest challenges they face, especially as the funding outlook looks the way it does. 

Ms. Cardenas stated that CalVCB also has had conversations about what an existing TRC is. Sometimes TRCs receive funding, and then they don’t receive funding in a subsequent year. Depending on how you define what an existing TRC is, it could widen that pool even more than just the folks who are currently being funded at this moment. There may be other organizations using the model who haven’t even received a grant. They also struggle with the strong desire to expand this program across the state. The one-time general fund money that CalVCB received made it clear that the Legislature was interested in having TRCs in Northern and Central California. They created pilot programs to that effect. When speaking about funding only the existing TRCs there needs to be an analysis of whether those existing TRCs are in the areas where they believe that they should be or are there other organizations that should be considered.  

Ms. Cardenas spoke about the scoring system and that to get into that highly qualified range of seven to ten, there is a current advantage that the existing TRCs have, because they can say that they can operate within 30 days. They have also been successful before. In this last cycle CalVCB funded 11 TRCs. Nine were existing and two were new, and there were 40-plus applicants. Many, many more new applicants proportionally did not receive funding compared to existing applicants. 

Ms. Cardenas said that CalVCB has also heard recommendations about a three-year grant cycle. It is very difficult when they don’t know what their funding will look like in the next year to think about allocating the funding differently. The way they do it right now is meant to be very safe for the existing TRCs, because they take the money they know we have in that two-year cycle. The three-year cycle is difficult because you add an extra year, which means you’re spreading that money even thinner, and TRCs have to use it for a longer period of time.  

And then because of state law, staff are also concerned about a technical challenge. State government agencies must spend money within three years of when it’s appropriated, but they are often not done closing out TRC grants until about six months after they end. So, staff would have challenges paying any expenses that they incurred towards the end of a three-year grant. 

Ms. Cardenas said that the last piece she wanted to talk about was the concept of micro grants. CalVCB has established a $1.1 million benchmark that they try to get as close as possible to with the money they have for applicants. That is because they have heard from the community that is the level of funding needed for them to do their jobs well. They have had conversations with TRCs about their minimum viability level, the least amount of money they would need to implement the model and function. They are concerned that it would cause issues for the TRCs related to hiring and recruitment, which are issues they already face. They are concerned that TRCs may not be able to operate across the entire two-year cycle, which means that they’d be cutting services for victims towards the end of the grants. And they are also concerned about the potential compromise to quality and to the outcomes that the TRCs currently have. For that reason, they have not moved forward with recommending micro grants to the Board. 

Ms. Cardenas stated that she was very grateful to the panelists, to the Board and to her staff, and she was looking forward to hearing the additional feedback about how they can improve this process.  

Member Becton asked about the 30-to-45-day period of time for the applications to be submitted and wanted to hear from some of the existing organizations as to whether that’s an adequate amount of time to pull together a meaningful application and submit it or whether there’s more time needed. She also asked whether that is a statutorily mandated period or some arbitrary period that is thought to be sufficient.  

Ms. Cardenas answered that it is not a statutory requirement and that is an adjustment that CalVCB could potentially make by changing their administrative processes. They are open to feedback on that.  

Member Becton said that she imagines that most TRCs do not have grant writers or people on staff that are trained to write grants. She asked if there was any technical assistance that might be provided to TRCs in the application process, especially from some of the smaller organizations that simply don’t have the resources.  

Ms. Cardenas answered that CalVCB has clarified the NOFA and answered questions they have about the NOFA but, from an actual grant writing perspective, they currently do not provide any of that technical assistance. 

Member Becton expressed an appreciation for some of the things that have been brainstormed, some very good ideas and a lot of food for thought, because with each one, there is some possibility of drawbacks. She inquired about the point system and how much of it can be subjective versus objective. 

Ms. Cardenas answered that the scoring rubric really is meant to help guide that. CalVCB tries to have folks scoring those applications who are familiar with the model. The scoring system from her lens, and disclosing that she is a scorer on the panel, is pretty objective, and it’s definitely helpful. Once an individual scorer has seen all of those applications, they can go back and make sure that they have been fair. And then coming together as a group with two other individuals who have also scored also adds integrity to that process, because if you do have a situation where people’s scores are far off, they have that conversation and figure out how to come to resolution to make sure that they are scoring in a way that is consistent. 

Member Becton asked about the issue of where the TRCs are located and if there could also be points awarded by geographic area. If, in a particular cycle, there are areas that don’t have any services available to them, perhaps there could be a point system that could take that into account. 

Ms. Cardenas answered that CalVCB does have a qualification around serving the greatest number of victims in a geographic area. When they are scoring that, the TRCs definitely have an opportunity to make an argument about the available services in their community and how the grant money would help expand those services. In her experience, areas that are underserved tend to do really well on that particular qualification. But she thinks it is something to take under consideration whether or not 10 points is enough in that particular area. Their role at the meeting is to really hear from all the participants, hear the feedback and then take it under consideration and figure out what they can do differently with the NOFA, so she appreciated the idea. Currently, how they have implemented that concept is that, if an applicant is in an area that doesn’t have a lot of services, they do score higher in that particular category. 

Member Becton asked about the scoring for the letters of recommendation, whether it is three points for three letters or simply one point.  

Ms. Cardenas answered that for each letter as long as it’s not a form letter, they get a point. Sometimes they have seen the exact same language across multiple letters, and so then in those cases, they typically give one point because it’s the same letter three times with different signatures. As long as they’re unique letters, they get three points. That is also something that is optional in the application. If they receive an application with no letters, they can still move forward in the process where some of the other materials, especially the budget information, is required.  

Member Cohen inquired about the internal review process that the organization goes through to constantly check assumptions, make sure that they are meeting their mark, and that the system is working. 

Ms. Cardenas answered that internally they talk about this program a lot with the Board and are cognizant of bringing forward a recommendation that they believe is defendable and in compliance with statute. CalVCB meets with Trauma Recovery Centers. The grant liaisons on her team meet with them monthly, and so through that process, if organizations bring up concerns or feedback it is elevated to her, so that they can consider it for things like making changes to the notice of funds available or other processes. They have a quarterly meeting with Trauma Recovery Centers, all of them across the state, so that is an opportunity to hear from the collective group. She always attends those meetings. They work very closely with the UCSF Technical Assistance Program. They have some really exciting work that they have been doing around looking at strategic planning for the Trauma Recovery Centers, around looking at needs around the state, and how they could balance those needs and what the potential cost of that would be. For some of their other internal processes, they are always trying make sure, especially since this program involves so many external stakeholders and comes before the Board, that what they are doing is defendable and accurate. 

Member Cohen asked whether CalVCB performs any internal audits. 

Ms. Cardenas answered that they have assessments. They have a quality assurance team that’s scheduled to do an assessment of this particular program this year. The State Controller’s office also audits the program. CalVCB just received a job start from the State Controller’s Office a couple of weeks ago. They will be at CalVCB in August to look at the usage of the Prop 47 funds in particular, and that is an audit that occurs on a rotational basis. Sometimes they look at CalVCB, and sometimes they look at individual Trauma Recovery Centers.  

Member Cohen said that she was talking about a different type of audit about 

the application process and the grant cycle. She inquired how the award process was created.  

Ms. Gledhill answered that the history of the TRC program predates those currently in leadership at CalVCB, so it is a process that they inherited. It was started as legislation by UCSF and Senator Mark Leno, who has sponsored the legislation to create the program. It has developed over those number of years. CalVCB has continued to try to refine it, to make it as strong as they possibly can. The legislation passed starting the grant program, but she couldn’t provide a full history of how it came to where it is today.  

Member Cohen asked about feedback from participants that would be informative as to whether or not the grant cycle is perceived as being fair. 

Ms. Cardenas answered that they were all there because there have been consistent concerns with the grant process and, based on what happened at the March Board meeting, it was decided that the venue was needed, and they needed some additional information and decisions from the Board to figure out how to move forward.  

Member Cohen noted the map showing that there were 21 TRCs in California, but 15 other states have TRCs. She suggested taking a survey and talking to them about their process. 

Dr. Boccellari noted that they are in contact with most of the 15 states that run the TRCs and gave an example from the state of New Jersey. They do have a competitive grant cycle, but they give 10 points to existing TRCs. So, at the get go, they start out with 10 points. Another way of doing it is, instead of having a grant process is that when a TRC comes up for renewal of their money, it is actually done on an application process where applicants are asked over the last two years to report on how they have achieved their performance metrics. They get renewed, based on their performance rather than the quality of their grant writing. In California they have the Office of Emergency Services which funds rape crisis centers in California, and they use a similar process. They don’t have all of the existing rape crisis centers that are funded with Cal OES money when they come up every three years or five years. They have to say what they have achieved and they get funded based on the fact that they have done a good job, not based on the quality of their grant writing. 

Member Cohen liked that suggestion, making it more quantitative as opposed to qualitative and using a little bit more of a data driven approach. She noted that looking at the map, she sees TRCs clustered in the San Francisco Bay Area and down in the Los Angeles area and nothing in Northern California. She asked what can be done to incentive TRCs in other areas.  

Ms. Cardenas noted that there is one TRC in Northern California that got approved in the last cycle in Shasta County. CalVCB does what they can to promote that the NOFA is posted. CalVCB includes it in their external newsletter, which goes to all the CBOs that they work with, they make sure that they are promoting it on social media, on the website, on the other venues that they have to get the word out. The first year she was in her role, they had 15 grant applications and this year they scored 45. 

Member Cohen noted that there will be more applicants due to continued funding challenges. She asked whether when there were more funds available there were more TRCs in the Central Valley, or if TRCs are closing down because of a lack of funding. 

Dr. Boccellari answered that they have seen year after year existing TRCs closed as a consequence of the grant review process. This last time six TRCs closed and money went to two new TRCs. She absolutely wants to have a TRC in every county in California, but with the amount of money available it makes no sense to take a TRC that has been functioning. Six of them were closing closed down the previous week, July 1^st. It means that the community, the people who need those services the most are being told that, they are in the middle of treatment, but the center needs to close and they need to go someplace else. It is not efficient. It is fiscally wasteful to close programs that have been doing well. That has been one of the concerns that they have had. 

Member Cohen asked whether in the grant process TRCs are asked to show a funding plan. 

Ms. Cardenas said that CalVCB requires that they submit a budget and a budget narrative, and the purpose of the budget narrative is to give additional insight into what they plan to use that money for. Then there are various thresholds they require that they meet, one of which is that 75 percent of the funding is spent on personnel that are going to directly help victims. They also have that time task plan and that is very important as it helps CalVCB understand over the course of the two-year grant period how they plan to meet various goals that they have outlined in their application.  

Member Cohen clarified that a funding plan explains where they are going to raise money, other streams of income that’s going to be coming in. That might be something that TRCs need to be pressed on to make them more resilient. She noted that the Governor doesn’t like to fund new one-off programs. New programs are very hard in tough economic times. TRCs should have multiple diverse streams of income.  

Ms. Gledhill noted that this program has grown in popularity over the past five years. Initially, there were a handful of TRCs that applied and asked for not a very large amount of money, and CalVCB was able to fund them all. Now they have to think about who they can fund and who they can’t. There is no limit set on statute about how much they can ask for, so they have TRCs who are asking for millions and millions of dollars to fund their program or to expand their program because they’re doing good work, and they want to continue it which is to be applauded. But it puts additional pressures on who can be funded and how to make sure that they are reaching as many people throughout the State of California as they possibly can. Unfortunately, they’re a victim of their own success because they’re growing, they want to expand, they want to help more people, more people are finding out about this Trauma Recovery Center model, and they want to start them in their communities. They have this situation where they have more TRCs that are growing. They set the limit when they realized the funding was not going to meet as many of the new TRCs as there are asking for money. They are trying to find different ways to manage the program within the realities that they are facing.  

Member Cohen asked whether there are advocates and partners that are out there that can be making the rounds advocating for money to be allocated in the budget. 

Ms. Gledhill answered that Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice have been a strong advocate for this program, and when the General Fund money was allocated three years ago, they were one of the principal sponsors of that and making that happen. She thanked them for their partnership in that, and they have been great advocates. 

Dr. Boccellari noted the role that Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice have played. They were instrumental in working with UCSF on the initial legislation that was passed. They were instrumental in getting Prop. 47 passed, and in 2022 they were instrumental in getting one-time money allocated for the pilot program in Napa and Solano counties. She said that in talking about giving current TRCs additional points, she recognizes there are 20 TRCs in California with nine of them coming up for renewal. Instead of having $10 million, it’s going to be about $3 million. Clearly there were going to be cuts and they need to begin really doing more legislative work on it. She noted that the way the Trauma Recovery Center is different from other programs is that they don’t put people in silos. They are also seeing victims, like family members of homicide and gun violence. Looking at where victim money goes in California, outside of CalVCB, it’s not really going toward those groups of people. By eliminating the TRCs, you have crime types that are not going to get services because other sources of state funding are not funding underserved communities and not funding certain crime types. A policy issue is how to get existing monies to try to cover people that don’t usually have access to services. 

Member Cohen commented that perhaps they should discuss a pool of money or set aside money that will be available for certain regions for the State of California. The Central Valley folks compete for this money, all the Northern California folks compete for this money, all the Southern California folks compete for this money, and that way, they are more on equal footing. 

Item 5. Public Comment 

Chair Ravel invited public comment. He noted that to make sure that the Board hears from everyone, both in the room and on Zoom, they would be limiting public comment to two minutes per presenter. 

Ed Little, Government Affairs Manager with Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice spoke in the room. They have long been a strong supporter of the Trauma Recovery Center model, and they were disappointed that six Trauma Recovery Centers were defunded in the last grant award cycle. Closing high-performing Trauma Recovery Centers harms the underserved communities most impacted by violent crime. It abruptly discontinues needed services and disrupts community trust and creates additional barriers to care. They recommend prioritizing funding to well-performing existing TRCs. In addition, they strongly support the creation of an ongoing California Trauma Recovery Center Grant Advisory Board. More broadly, California’s Trauma Recovery Centers are facing a funding crisis due to the passage of Prop 36. They will continue to advocate for more funding for Trauma Recovery Centers in order to provide the best care to California survivors. He wanted to be clear that Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice have advocated generally for CalVCB for funding through the budget. They have advocated with the State Legislature, with the Budget committees, and they will continue to do that particularly for Trauma Recovery Centers. They would like to be a resource to the Board and to any member of the Board who would like to speak with them. They were authors of Prop 47 and worked with folks who were involved in the establishment of Trauma Recovery Centers. And so, they want to be part of the solution.  

Jess Nichol spoke in the room, introducing herself as a crime survivor of a high-profile crime which was the kidnapping of Polly Klaas up north in Petaluma. She was her sister. It was a devastating loss, with a huge impact on her family, and they clearly needed help. They got a victim compensation account set up. Their case received a lot of attention, and they got public validation as victims. They had people helping them navigate the system. By all measures, they were positioned better than most trauma survivors to access the services that they needed. But what she discovered was that even when you have resources, connections, and know-how to work with bureaucracy, the system is almost impossible to navigate. She is grateful for the funds that they did get, but she also wants to highlight some of the challenges that her family faced. There are a lot of requirements that CalVCB has that actually perpetuates harm to victims, such as requiring the therapist to submit detailed notes about your session to CalVCB. That then is going to be submitted for approval about whether your sessions are going to get reimbursed or not. And if you’re going through a traumatic healing cycle with a therapist to have those notes then be submitted to somebody else that you don’t know, it’s a violation of a person’s vulnerability, their privacy. It’s not okay, actually. There’s another factor with therapy where your sessions are supposed to be 100% crime related. And the thing that happened to her was that she was 12 at that time, and it’s hard to know what’s related to what and that’s common among crime survivors. And so there’s this weird dynamic talking to the therapist wondering if she can bring this thing up or talk about this. And it has this kind of ick factor. And one other piece about therapy is there’s this unrealistic assumption of what therapy actually costs. 

Teya Hisel introduced herself as the policy manager at Downtown Women’s Center. They are the only organization in Los Angeles dedicated exclusively to serving and empowering women and gender diverse individuals who are experiencing homelessness. They greatly appreciate CalVCB for their ongoing partnership and support for Trauma Recovery Centers and the thoughtful discussion especially given this budget environment. In partnership with Peace Over Violence, they started their Trauma Recovery Center in 2015, Since 2019 they have served over 2,600 clients with a small but mighty team consistently exceeding their yearly goals. They provide trauma-informed care in Los Angeles where 90% of women who are experiencing homelessness have been victimized in some way. With six TRCs defunded in the last renewal process, many due to technicalities and a lack of clarity in the application process, those most impacted by violence will suffer for TRCs like theirs that have been showing up for their community for years. Consistent, stable and transparent funding is crucial. They know how hard that is when the budget environment is anything but stable, but they urge the Board to ensure that established TRCs are able to continue serving communities like theirs by amending the scoring criteria to clarify requirements for existing TRCs and to prioritize uninterrupted access to care.  

Sarah Metz introduced herself as the Director of the UCSF Trauma Recovery Center. She appreciates the Board making the space for them, and she does not envy the decision making that has to happen, especially in this current landscape. They are all seeking to set each other up for success to continue to be able to serve their communities. The timing of when the grant is released in December is exceptionally impactful on organizations. That is the holiday season. They have employees that are out. She works in the UC system. Their contracts and grants office closes, and they are required to go through them to submit their applications. It is a great hardship for them to have the resources that they need in order to meet the deadlines of having the grant submitted during that season of the year. Second, there is not clear guidance on the flow chart, time task plan or organizational chart, and they have lost significant points in those sections which absolutely has impacted their funding tier. 

Michelle Ornelas Knight introduced herself as the director of the UC Davis Trauma Recovery Center. They are one of the newer Trauma Recovery Centers. They received funding last funding cycle. The only reason why they were able to submit a successful application is because they started researching and putting together their thoughts and doing needs assessment six months in advance. This included reaching out to established TRCs to determine what is needed in order to be a successful Trauma Recovery Center. Although they are affiliated with UC Davis Health, she is also a director of a care center. They specialize in trauma services and have been doing this work for 30 years in the community. They have established partnerships. Trauma Recovery Centers are about accessibility and removing barriers. She wanted to also give voice to some of the survivors that they have served. They have been able to build trusting relationships with youth who have never even disclosed previously that they were victims of crime. They are actually referring others because of that established trust, and the flexibility that a Trauma Recovery Center offers is what makes it so unique. They are not able to do that with other funding sources. It is such extremely meaningful work, because it reduces the barriers to receive these important services. 

Stacy Wiggall, the director of the Training and Technical Assistance Program at the NATRC spoke. The NATRC put together a brief summary of issues with the grant award process and recommendations that they would like to leave with the Board members today. The big issue that they see for the short term is defunding the well-performing TRCs while funding new TRCs, and they have some recommended solutions around that in terms of how to think about prioritizing funding for the well-performing existing TRCs, so that they’re not defunded based on a technicality in the grant application. She expected to hear from some of the defunded TRCs and how, because they didn’t state that they would be able to offer services six times in every narrative question, that they lost a lot of points throughout the application. That resulted in them being defunded, although they are able to offer services in 30 days. They have included in their recommendations some sample language from the state of New Jersey, for how they describe awarding those 10 points or suggestions around changing that component of the current seven-to-10-point tier scoring criteria. One other short-term recommendation was the creation of an ongoing California TRC Grant Advisory Board. It is a best practice, and they definitely see that in other states. An advisory board, composed of survivors of violence, composed of representatives of multiple California TRCs as well as content experts in the model would be part of that board potentially meeting with CalVCB on a quarterly basis, to have ongoing opportunities for dialogue and discussion about the grants.  

Martha Wade, appearing via Zoom, introduced herself as the founder and executive director of A Quarter Blue. A Quarter Blue exists today because she received these wraparound services, when the church where she met her perpetrator put a lien on his home that covered her cost of therapy and the therapy of her parents. She had well over 50 sessions, and they literally saved her life. Now Orange County is left with no Trauma Recovery Center. This is not just a loss of funding. There’s a loss of access, hope, and safety for more than three million people. The TRC grant mandate states this care shall be provided in a manner that increases access to services and removes barriers to care for victims of violent crime. The mission is not being fulfilled when Orange County residents now face up to 4 to 5 hours of round-trip travel to see a qualified TRC therapist. That is not trauma informed, that is not accessible, that is not justice. They are now forced to return to a system that has proven unreliable. A Quarter Blue must again rely on CalVCB billing, yet four years ago they were denied reimbursement for over $10,000 in services. That is not a sustainable or equitable model for survivors or for nonprofits who serve them. Without early accessible trauma recovery care, they risk increased homelessness, addiction, human trafficking, and suicide. And this is not hypothetical. This is what happens when trauma goes untreated. California has the opportunity and the responsibility to lead them, and how they care for survivors of crime. She urged looking again at the current California map of funded TRCs and asking if access to trauma recovery should exist only in a few regions when violent crime reaches every corner of our state. Survivors deserve support, no matter where they live. For the sake of those still suffering in silence, for those just beginning their healing journey, and for those who never got a chance.  

Wendy Blanco, appearing via Zoom, introduced herself as the director of counseling services and trauma recovery at Peace Over Violence, which is a co-funded TRC With Downtown Women’s Center. She was representing Peace Over Violence, but also giving some feedback like a private practice owner in Los Angeles, and some of the barriers that exist in that realm as well. She thanked the Board for being trauma informed. The meeting really started off being collaborative and curious, which wasn’t always their experience in these meetings. She was very humbled to hear that there is curiosity about the process, and then also questioning the intent around why they do the things that they do was really critical. They understand that they are under unprecedented times which require unprecedented and creative solutions. She was really happy to hear the different efforts and different recommendations, and she wanted to echo what Dr. Boccellari has recommended. Dr. Boccellari has been in this fight for a long time, and really a champion for the TRCs. Thinking as a provider of private practice she also wanted to appreciate the survivor that stood up and talked about the barriers that she experienced because she, as an owner, has also experienced those things where approvals have to be submitted in order for people to continue services. Often after the third session and approval has to go in a treatment plan. If it’s not approved, then the client is on a standstill, and as a person who is committed to trauma informed services, she never allows that lapse to happen, which then turns into her not getting reimbursed for those sessions. She believes the TRCs were a remediation to some of these things, the lack of access, or the lack of sufficient reimbursement for services. 

Margaret Petros, appearing via Zoom, introduced herself as the executive director of Mothers Against Murder, a nonprofit victim advocacy organization, the agency that prevailed last year in the writ of mandate against CalVCB, impacting positive changes for California’s crime victims. She thanked the Board for holding the public meeting. It is a necessary step toward building trauma recovery infrastructure and ensuring vital services reach survivors. But what’s most urgent and still unresolved is fixing the broken performance of California victim compensation itself. They cannot build on a faulty foundation. The Board must confront its administrative cost and misuse of funds for decades. The cost to operate this program has been disproportionately high compared to what is actually paid to victims. Forty years ago, 60 Minutes exposed the very same systemic failures that continue today. Quoting from the 60 Minutes segment in the late 80’s, State Assembly Member Carl Duran said, “if this program were a private corporation, that private corporation would be bankrupt.” Senator Art Torres told Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, “The facts are clear. You have incompetency. You have people that have not been paid from a program that we told them we would pay them from.” 

John Manley, appearing via Zoom, introduced himself as an attorney whose firm represents survivors of sexual assault exclusively. They have for years. He was the lead counsel on the Nassar case and has done thousands of cases. He said you have a situation in California where we spend a billion dollars a year approximately treating felons in state prison with mental health. And now, thanks to the Governor, victims are getting nothing. Their perpetrators get medical, get mental health care, and they are getting nothing. He has represented thousands of victims, little children, three-year-olds whose first sexual experience is rape, and now you are cutting it. He was directing this not at the Board but at the Governor. Their job as board members is to represent victims, and they can do something which is to pass a resolution condemning this. We are actually cutting funding for victims, mental health services, so we can prosecute criminals and send them to prison where they’re going to get more mental health care than their victims.  

Tina Rodriguez, appearing via Zoom, introduced herself as the founder and director of Beloved Survivors Trauma Recovery Center in Central California. They serve between Stanislaus County and Tulare County, and she does not need to repeat the geographic lack of equity with the distribution of funds. While she does appreciate that being elevated by the Board, it is not the first time. It was brought up two fiscal years ago with an emphasis on a need that was unmet. She does not know if this year it will make a difference or not, and it is not specific to the organization that she runs. There is a need here, regardless of who gets funded, and she hopes that that is a priority at some point next time around. She has done her due diligence, advocating for equity with access to all of the funds and informing as many people as she can about other funds, so that they can develop diversified budgets within their organization and be more successful and sustainable long-term. She also wanted to mention that CalVCB did do a really good job of informing people this last round about the RFP. She did see it in multiple different areas, and it was distributed widely. She appreciated that. 

Chair Ravel said that there was less public comment than he anticipated. Not all of the commenters got to say everything that they wanted to. He invited anybody, either on Zoom or in person, to come and address the Board. 

Jess Nichol returned to speak. The main point that she wanted to make with all of the challenges that she navigated in therapy was that, if it is this hard for her and her family, she can only imagine what it is like for the majority of crime survivors to navigate a bunch of red tape and bureaucracy. When you are in a place of shock, and your life is shattered, even when you have know-how to deal with bureaucracy, it is nearly impossible, and her sister actually gave up when she was in a high place of need. To address this, the TRCs come in and serve a real need for people, the majority of crime survivors that just don’t get support. They are denied for a variety of reasons. They don’t know about it. There are a whole bunch of reasons. It was hard for them.  

Dr. Boccellari returned to speak. She said that, when you look at the statute that governs the TRCs, it is actually written in a very permissive way. It says that the Board shall administer a program to evaluate applications and award grants to Trauma Recovery Centers, and it goes on to state that the Board can use any other related criteria. It is actually quite permissive, so she thinks the Board does have the authority to look at the way it’s been administered at this point. The section goes on to say that the Trauma Recovery Center sites shall be selected by the Board through a well-defined selection process. It doesn’t limit or restrict how the Board goes about doing it. She wanted to point out that at times they have been told the Board’s hands are tied, and it has to be done the way they are doing it. As someone who was involved in helping to write up the initial legislation, she believes that it is quite permissive in that regard. 

Margaret Petros returned via Zoom. She wanted to address that back in late 80s and today, still, victims face delays, denials and disrespect, even retaliation and intimidation. When they speak up against the cruelty and the incompetence, you cannot discuss trauma recovery while denying your own trauma-producing practices. Until CalVCB publicly addresses its operational dysfunction these hearings will only pretend to seek justice.  

Martha Wade returned via Zoom. She wanted to share a case where there were 17 John Does, called the Manny Case, where a trusted care provider was found out to be a pedophile. They ended up suing the agency and receiving a settlement of $100,000 and the teenage client had to pay $10,000 back out of his $100,000 settlement to CalVCB for the mental health services he received through A Quarter Blue. He is 18 and that is something that he could have poured into his future. He wants to become a police officer and make a difference. She thinks that is another aspect of CalVCB that needs to be revisited. That a settlement from the abuse that has taken place shouldn’t go back into their therapy for something that they didn’t cause.  

Daniel Pilpe appeared via Zoom. He noted the discussion around where the funding can and should go: new centers to support people who need it, or centers who are currently providing services. They are both needed and very potentially can work together to continue the growth, meaning centers who have been successful maybe can receive funding to support these new centers so that they don’t have five or ten years of figuring it out, but have the expertise. It is true we need more centers, but we also need to support the communities that we have been supporting. He is a therapist from Restorative Pathways. He works directly with these clients. He has heard the stories and seen the tears. It is his job to sit with them while this happens, and we do need more. 

Chair Ravel thanked all the presenters and public commenters. It was really informative for him and very impactful to hear the stories from the providers and the beneficiaries of the system. He thanked the staff for putting the hearing on, and all the work that went into it. He adjourned the meeting, noting that the next Board meeting was scheduled to occur on September 18, 2025.