DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

September 18, 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, September 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Also, present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Appearing via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney.

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill, and 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. Approval of the Minutes of the July 17, 2025, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the July 17, 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.)

Margaret Petros appeared via Zoom and first expressed her sincere sympathy for the family, friends and supporters of Charlie Kirk who was murdered recently. Ms. Petros continued, stating that regardless of political differences, no one in this country should lose their life for expressing their opinion. Violence of this kind is unacceptable, and Ms. Petros expressed her thoughts as an individual and professional are with his wife, two young children and all in this nation who are grieving for this loss.

Ms. Petros specifically offered comments on Item 3, the Executive Officer Statement. She explained that reading the California Victim Compensation Board’s Annual Report is upsetting as the legislature appropriated $172.6 million for this agency to service crime victims. Ms. Petros stated that only $44 million made its way to victims, leaving $127 million unaccounted for. Ms. Petros questioned where the remaining money went. Thousands of dollars did not go to families burying their children, survivors of rape, domestic violence, child abuse cases, nor to the thousands of victims who applied for compensation and were denied. Ms. Petros continued, expressing that the report is not transparent and does not show clearly how much goes to salaries, executive staff, information technology contracts and consultants, so the public can determine what is happening with the funds. Lack of transparency, Ms. Petros added, is an insult to every single victim who was denied help this year. Out of 35,480 claims processed, 10,000 were denied, nearly 29 percent or 1 in 3 victims were told no, Ms. Petros noted. She continued, stating that when an agency holds $172 million in its hands, and less than a third of that ever reaches the people it is meant for, that is bad management. Ms. Petros urged the Board members to ask executive staff to release the details to the public. She also urged the Board to have the executives explain why less than $45 million dollars went to victims and address why nearly 29 percent of claims were denied. She finished by stating that victims, advocates and the public deserve transparency.

Ms. Petros thanked the Board for allowing her to make a public comment.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Petros and expressed he believes everyone can agree that political violence is totally unacceptable and horrifying and thanked her for her input.

Janelle Melon appeared via Zoom and introduced herself as the new director of the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers (TRC). She explained that colleagues of hers came to the TRC meeting in July and made recommendations around grant making to trauma recovery centers. She continued stating she and her team thought these recommendations would be taken back and worked on and that they would hear updates about what was considered and what happened after those recommendations were given. Ms. Melon urged the Board, after seeing the agenda and noticing that these recommendations would not be talked about at this Board meeting, to possibly take this up in a more public way next time. Ms. Melon asked the Board what steps have been taken to consider what was recommended in the last meeting and for CalVCB, what do they anticipate changing, if anything, to the process to make it more predictable and sustainable.

Ms. Melon thanked the Board.

Mechiel Taylor appeared via Zoom and provided feedback on the Annual Report. Ms. Taylor said there are additional barriers beyond what has been identified in the Annual Report. Ms. Taylor pointed the Board to the section “Promote Access and Equity to CalVCB Services.” Ms. Taylor told the Board that she had to break this heading down to understand what it meant to her and what it may mean to others. She continued, stating the definition of the word equity means to be fair and impartial, which means everyone should have access to the same level and quality of services. She then pointed the Board to page seven of the report (Advocate Portal enhancements) where it is noted that there are real-time updates available. Ms. Taylor explained that without having any experience using this specific portal, she imagines that having the ability to see application updates in real time is a valuable enhancement for victims, their advocates, and CalVCB staff who assist callers from the customer service line. Ms. Taylor explained through the initiation of her own application, since 2022, she has personally called customer service more than a dozen times inquiring about updates to her application, though these updates were not given in real time.

Ms. Taylor continued, expressing the updates that have been received after the hearing on her appeal have remained unchanged. She expressed she would like to see the same type of portal enhancement which is currently available to advocates be made available for individuals like her, who do not have an advocate.

Ms. Taylor moved on to page seven of the Annual Report (Updated Appeal Process; New Guidance). Ms. Taylor asked the Board what information it could provide on that section.

Ms. Taylor then directed the Board to page nine of the Annual Report where it shows application data, which includes applications received by race and ethnicity. Ms. Taylor asked the Board what additional data is analyzed but not listed in this part of the report. She explained, as someone with an interest in public health, she recognizes disparities exist, though she is most curious about the statistics on the allowed versus denied applications by racial and ethnic groups. Ms. Taylor asked the Board what disparities are identified and how they are addressed. Also, on the same page of the Annual Report, the bottom mentions the use of outside agencies for investigations, Ms. Taylor asked the Board what information can be shared about that referral process.

Ms. Taylor moved on to page thirteen of the Annual Report. The first paragraph discusses government agencies that have access to the portal and Ms. Taylor asked the Board if the Sherrif’s office and police departments are examples of government agencies that have access to the portal and why they would need this access.

Ms. Taylor then provided feedback on page 17 of the Annual Report explaining that when someone clicks on the link for the appeals web page, the public is presented with before, during, and after hearing information. The web page states that the hearing is informal, while stating the hearing will be conducted by a Hearing Officer. Ms. Taylor stated that as an applicant who has experienced the hearing process and gone through it, she did not feel that the hearing was informal. The Hearing Officer (an attorney) was present, and a trainee was also present. Ms. Taylor continued, explaining the web page needs to be updated so the applicants have a better sense of what to expect.

Ms. Taylor finished by pointing to the section of the Annual Report about the use of language. Ms. Taylor requested that since the legal section of CalVCB has made some updates, CalVCB should consider sending out new letters with these updates to anyone with a pending application who was sent a letter prior to these updates. Ms. Taylor thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Taylor for her perspective and comments.

Hovanes Tonoyan appeared via Zoom. Mr. Tonoyan commented on the joint legislative audit committee. He explained that on April 23, 2025, there was a letter sent to state Assemblymember Harabedian by state Senator Ashby requesting an audit of CalVCB, the compensation system and the restitution system. On June 18, 2025, the committee went over the request for the audit, and they approved proceeding with the audit. Mr. Tonoyan continued, expressing that on July 17, 2025, CalVCB at their public meeting discussed the status of that audit request.

Mr. Tonoyan clarified that the reason he mentions the audit is because audits by a legislative agency rarely happen. Mr. Tonoyan urged the members to reach out to both Assemblymember Harabedian, Senator Ashby and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to let them know their thoughts. Mr. Tonoyan explained that the different topics they will be looking into are eligibility, how approvals and denials are being made, any kind of demographics, and they will be looking at different areas of the criminal justice system as well. Mr. Tonoyan wanted to emphasize the importance of the crime victim’s compensation so that all those different interests can be balanced. Mr. Tonoyan echoed that the denial rate of over 25% is unacceptable and that the number should go down, not up.

Mr. Tonoyan finished by commenting on the CalVCB online application and the technology system in general. Mr. Tonoyan stated that in March 2017, CalVCB updated the Cares system from version one to version two and that it was likely prompted by the 2008 audit. In late 2018, CalVCB launched the expenses and billing portal for providers and in 2019, CalVCB launched the system that they have today for crime victims. In August 2020, the online application for victims and their advocates was made available and everything that goes through these publicly facing portals goes into the updated Cares2 system. Mr. Tonoyan continued, stating sometime in 2021, CalVCB worked with a contractor and vendor to launch an update to the public facing website.

Mr. Tonoyan asked the Board what is being done to continue to audit the technology systems and to make sure that these online applications have all the information that crime victims, advocates, and providers need to be able to support victims getting their claims approved. Mr. Tonoyan said that additional updates need to be made to these platforms. In addition, Mr. Tonoyan addressed his own claim and explained that back on July 17, 2025, his claim was partially approved and partially denied for a hearing held on March 20, 2025. Mr. Tonoyan said he did file a request for reconsideration on August 20, 2025, which was timely. Mr. Tonoyan explained he noticed, section eight, the employer section on the online application is not available for applicants, however, section ten for the paper application is available. He expressed there is a discrepancy between what CalVCB provides online and what is available on paper.

Mr. Tonoyan further explained that in his Proposed Decision, the Hearing Officer stated that Mr. Tonoyan did not provide CalVCB with any employer information, which he alleged is not accurate because of CalVCB’ s own technical malfunctions with the online portal. Mr. Tonoyan stated his online application was submitted at the very end of 2023 and even now, when he attempted to create a mock application, section eight is still unavailable. Mr. Tonoyan expressed to the Board that this is an issue because CalVCB knows they have had a malfunction but are making false accusations against victims who have eligible claims. Mr. Tonoyan opined that denying applications because of CalVCB’ s own malfunction is an abuse of power. Mr. Tonoyan asked the Board to create an agenda item to review this during the November Board meeting. Mr. Tonoyan added that he understands there has been a lot of turnover in the IT department and that CalVCB has a Chief Information Officer, though he is concerned about the vulnerabilities that may still be present besides the one he previously mentioned.

Mr. Tonoyan finished by echoing his sympathies to all victims of political violence as it is completely unacceptable and expressed that everyone needs to do a better job of being there for one another. Mr. Tonoyan thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Tonoyan for his comments and stated that the issues with the portal will be investigated and addressed to ensure that applicants are able to submit documents.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on several matters that have been previously discussed.

To start, Ms. Gledhill noted that in late July the federal government posted the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the federal Victims of Crime Act compensation grant. The grant requirements included broad language regarding states supporting and assisting federal immigration enforcement activities. Consequently, explained Ms. Gledhill, on August 18, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, on behalf of CalVCB and other similarly situated state departments, joined a coalition of fifteen other states in filing a lawsuit challenging these new requirements. The basis for this challenge included that these grants are unrelated to federal civil immigration enforcement and are used by states to provide critical resources to victims and survivors of crime. Ms. Gledhill further explained CalVCB, with this lawsuit pending, applied for the federal grant before the deadline and last night was awarded the grant. CalVCB continues to work very closely with the Attorney General’s Office on next steps to make sure that CalVCB is protecting the ability to use this federal money and serve the California victims .

Ms. Gledhill then notified the Board that CalVCB has begun the process of streamlining its Mental Health Guidelines in a way that will result in only service rates and limitations existing outside of the statutes and regulations. Historically, CalVCB’ s mental health claims have been governed by a separate document with content approved by the Board based on the statutory authority to allow CalVCB to set rates and service limitations without the necessity of going through the formal rulemaking process or the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Ms. Gledhill continued, noting that for purposes of clarity and to strengthen any questions of interpretation of statutory authority, CalVCB has decided to move away from the stand-alone document and establish regulations to support mental health claims processing. Ms. Gledhill stated teams are currently reviewing existing guidelines and preparing a regulation package. As CalVCB proceeds through this process, CalVCB has suspended what is known as the 90-day policy, which requires mental health providers to submit bills within 90 days of each date of service provided. Ms. Gledhill explained, despite the Board approved policy being implemented, following discussions with providers, stakeholders and feedback from CalVCB staff, there have been some challenges including an increase in related appeals, and CalVCB believes the streamlining of this effort will resolve those challenges.

Ms. Gledhill updated the Board on Trauma Recovery Centers. Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB appreciates the Board and stakeholders for the insights shared during the informational meeting in July. Ms. Gledhill explained the meeting highlighted the challenges regarding several issues, including the lack of stable funding, declining funding for the TRC program, and ways to change the administration of the grant if sufficient funding was provided. Ms. Gledhill explained CalVCB has been considering the feedback and is implementing administrative suggestions where feasible.

For the next Notice of Funding Available (NOFA), CalVCB plans to move the NOFA timeline up to start in mid-October and end in mid-December to give the TRCs more time to complete their application before the holidays and providing 60 days instead of 45 days from release of the NOFA to applications being due. However, Ms. Gledhill noted that extending the NOFA application timeline may also result in a larger number of applications. Ms. Gledhill continued stating that CalVCB also plans to improve clarity in two areas: How organizations can receive the highest number of points for each component of the application; and that the application scoring team can only consider information submitted in the application when determining scores. These issues are both ones that Trauma Recovery Centers have raised in the past.

In addition, Ms. Gledhill explained the other suggestions made by stakeholders during the meeting are policy decisions that would be contingent on stable funding. CalVCB does not believe these ideas can be effectively implemented given the current uncertainty and the decreased funding projection of only having about $5 million to distribute in 2026. Ms. Gledhill stated ultimately, if stable funding were available, CalVCB could have that discussion and get the Board’s direction on different ways to approach for some of the goals that were expressed during the July meeting. Ms. Gledhill expressed her interest in continuing the conversation and stated she is open to comments from the Board but would also like to proceed with the changes to the NOFA as has been expressed at this meeting for the upcoming grant cycle.

Ms. Gledhill described how she attended the 14th Annual Sexual Assault Response Team Summit in San Diego at the beginning of September where she participated on a panel discussing the work of the First Partner’s Working Group on Support for Survivors of Sexual Assault that CalVCB helped facilitate. Ms. Gledhill continued, stating she also gave a presentation about the work that is being done at CalVCB to expand access for survivors of violence. The conference was a good opportunity to connect with stakeholders doing important work to help sexual assault survivors across the state, explained Ms. Gledhill.  

Finally, Ms. Gledhill presented the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Report which highlights CalVCB’ s commitment to putting victims first. This year, CalVCB’ s Annual Report shows how the entire organization worked to promote access and equity to CalVCB services, enhance the CalVCB experience, and foster a strong workforce to support victims in alignment with our Strategic Plan. Ms. Gledhill expressed that one of CalVCB’ s proudest accomplishments was expanding the online Advocate Portal CalVCB worked with partners through a series of discussions, videos, and webinars to improve the portal’s capabilities and expand access to community partners. Ms. Gledhill said she is also proud of the work CalVCB has done to improve access, expand outreach, and raise awareness as CalVCB continues to be committed to identifying efficiencies and supporting our team in their professional development so they are well equipped to assist victims of crime.

Ms. Gledhill addressed some of the public comments that were made regarding the Annual Report. Ms. Gledhill explained that all state government salaries are public and available if anyone would like to access them. In addition, most of the IT contracts come to the Board for approval first. Ms. Gledhill continued, stating she understands the approval rate of the applications and expressed that CalVCB’ s goal is to help as many victims as possible and the team is one hundred percent committed to that goal. Ms. Gledhill explained that some denials are related to increased applications of ineligible applicants, perhaps related to the outreach that CalVCB has been undertaking over the last couple of years. Applicants do not always fully understand what the program is about, and that naturally leads to a higher denial rate. Ms. Gledhill continued stating that CalVCB saw this previously when the advertising was happening right around when the LA fires hit. CalVCB was using words like “victims rebuilding” and that on its own created several applications that are not related to the work that CalVCB does, which affects the increase of the denial rate.

Ms. Gledhill finished by explaining there are many reasons for these items and that she is happy to answer any questions. She also added that the advocate portal is open to district attorney’s offices and  victim services centers, but it is not open to law enforcement. CalVCB understands there may be a concern in the community about law enforcement access to victims’ data and there is no connection there.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and asked the Board if there were any questions.

Member Johnson addressed Ms. Gledhill and expressed his appreciation for the work that went into the Annual Report and explained in the past, the Board has talked about bringing increased data and transparency to this process and that this felt responsive to that and that it reflects the good work that Ms. Gledhill and her team have done over the past years such as increased outreach, media campaigns, metrics associated with that, alternative languages, accessibility, and all that comes along with that. Member Johnson also addressed his appreciation of CalVCB streamlining the appeals process and the effort to manage the additional workload that is coming to CalVCB because of the amended appeals process.

Member Johnson then asked Ms. Gledhill a few questions. The first question Member Johnson asked was how CalVCB is handling the workload. Ms. Gledhill stated CalVCB’ s backlog has remained steady – while it has not significantly increased, it has not significantly decreased either. Ms. Gledhill continued, stating the Governor’s budget released in July included additional positions to help address the appeals backlog. Ms. Gledhill said that the state hiring process can be cumbersome, but CalVCB has worked diligently to fill those positions. There have been many interviews and a handful of people have been hired. Ms. Gledhill explained it is an ongoing process, but that CalVCB has more people joining the team, with one more joining on Monday, September 22, 2025. Ms. Gledhill stated as the new hires get onboarded and begin to learn the process, she hopes that this will have a significant impact on the appeals numbers.

Ms. Gledhill stated CalVCB is examining processes every day to see if there are things that can be done to manage that backlog in a different way. Ms. Gledhill assured Member Johnson that the appeals backlog is at the top of mind for herself and the whole CalVCB team as CalVCB continues to make sure hiring is happening as quickly as possible, as well as processing applications.

Member Johnson expressed his appreciation for the situation Ms. Gledhill and CalVCB are in. Member Johnson asked what the average processing time is for an appeal.

Ms. Gledhill turned the question over to Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier. Ms. Gauthier responded to Member Johnson that the average processing time to resolve an appeal is approximately 18 to 24 months. In addition, Ms. Gauthier said that CalVCB has implemented actions to streamline the work as much as possible. CalVCB has done focused reviews for both the attorneys and appeals analysts, which includes management going through the appeals queues to identify similar items that could be quickly resolved,  and working grouping and working appeals by subject matter. Ms. Gauthier added that CalVCB has changed the process for appeals where the applicant has failed to appear and/or proceed so those appeals could be resolved more quickly as well. In addition, CalVCB is pursuing technological updates to help identify the work and to make it easier to organize and process.

Member Johnson stated he appreciated the efforts and the challenge. He asked the Board about a comment that a couple of the advocates had made in their public comment, which was the significant increase in the denial rate going from 15.3 percent in 2022-2023 to 28.9 percent in 2024-2025. Member Johnson asked for a better understanding of these numbers while noting that Ms. Gledhill touched on some of the reasons why, such as increased outreach, misapplications, or people who do not quite understand what CalVCB is or the benefits it provides. Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill if there is any additional explanation behind the increased denial rate. Ms. Gledhill addressed a comment made about applications being referred to an outside law enforcement agency and noted there was a significant number of applications where that was needed, and they were all denied. Ms. Gledhill explained this is an ongoing investigation and she apologized for not going into a lot of detail, though this situation did have an impact on the denial rate, which is why there is a footnote on some of those numbers.

Member Johnson expressed his appreciation for Ms. Gledhill’s explanation.

Member Johnson moved on to the TRCs and expressed his appreciation for the hearing that happened back in July 2025 and all the advocates that showed up and shared their points of view. He expressed how the hearing was helpful to him as a Board member to be able to understand the process and how CalVCB’ s grant making process impacts them, the work they do, and the challenges that CalVCB faces. Member Johnson explained it was a productive conversation, and it was appreciated. Member Johnson stated there were significant comments made about potential policy changes. Member Johnson expressed his appreciation for Ms. Gledhill flagging the challenge CalVCB faces in the funding arena.

Member Johnson then asked if there is funding available, can the policy question be revisited. Member Johnsons continued, stating that the administration has shown in the past that they are willing to support this program, so it is not out of the question to think an early back action budget item could happen next year that gloriously restores the funding or supplements the funding to put the funding back to maximum or even higher. Member Johnson asked if, in that instance, would the Board then reopen the NOFA and accept more applications, or would that be a question for that moment in time? Member Johnson clarified his focus was on how the Board prepares for this funding, even though it is potentially unlikely.  

Ms. Gledhill noted that Member Johnson’s question included several unknowns and much depends on timing. The TRC contracts start on July 1. In order for the contracts to be fully executed and in place by that date, they need to be ready 6-8 weeks prior so they can be signed and processed. Ms. Gledhill explained that is why CalVCB has the March Board meeting, which also includes approval for an update on the day of the May revise to reflect budgetary changes. Ms. Gledhill continued, explaining that within the timeframe for the current year, there could be an influx of money. Ms. Gledhill stated that if there was that influx, she would be happy to have that conversation and would commit to having that conversation. However, given uncertainty about the timing and the impact that it would have on how CalVCB would proceed, Ms. Gledhill expressed she is not sure she would want to commit to anything beyond that conversation.

Member Johnson stated that the TRC hearing was back in July, now the Board is back in September, the NOFA is going out in a couple of weeks. Member Johnson expressed the Board had a month or so where policy amendments could have happened, beyond the proposed technical amendments. Member Johnson explained that it sounds like the Board is postponing this policy conversation until there is certainty around funding for the program. Member Johnson asked if there was certainty about funding, how quickly could the Board have that conversation and would that conversation occur this year or next year. Member Johnson said he does not want the Board to wait until money is in hand and then scramble to fix the program if the Board feels like there are deficiencies. Member Johnson said he understands the challenge that the Board and CalVCB is facing in the moment, though he does not think this should prevent the Board and CalVCB from thinking about addressing the broader policy questions that were raised at the TRC hearing.

Ms. Gledhill acknowledged Member Johnson and indicated her understanding of his perspective. Ms. Gledhill added that if the Board would like to at some point provide a more concrete path that it would like CalVCB to pursue, then that is something CalVCB would be happy to implement.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill.

Member Becton appeared via Zoom.

Member Becton first commented on the TRCs. She stated she had great appreciation for the TRC hearing back in July and expressed that since she has been on the Board, this is the first time they have had an opportunity to hear directly from those that are affected by some of the policies. Member Becton stated she felt the hearing was well organized and that it was great to have a historical perspective, while also getting the specific information about the funding structure as well as the dire outlook about the funding. Member Becton explained that getting more information and transparency about the administrative process and the considerations that go into it were very helpful as well.

Member Becton expressed she is extremely appreciative of all those who participated, especially the TRCs who provided input to the Board, and she felt the Board received information that gives the Board significant food for thought. Member Becton stated she does understand with the funding resources that the Board currently has available and related timeline, that the Board must be able to get the ball moving and that this grant cycle may not have any major changes to consider. Member Becton echoed her fellow Board members’ sentiments about making sure that some of these things that were discussed repeatedly by the TRCs are given time to discuss, for instance, having a definition of what an existing TRC is. Then, the Board could then begin to explore those questions about whether the existing TRCs could get extra points or if they could get some special consideration in the process.

Member Becton stated the Board could consider some of the comments that do not require a lot of money, such as technical assistance to the TRCs during the grant process. Member Becton expressed she has a lot of appreciation for some of the things that Ms. Gledhill mentioned are being changed such as the amount of time TRCs have to apply but also moving away from the holiday period, which was something that previously had not been thought about. Member Becton said she wants to ensure the Board is not losing the opportunity to explore some of the things that were given to the Board to consider, even though the Board may not be able to act on them for this budget cycle. Member Becton said that going forward there are some significant points that were made that she would like to see the Board explore, especially around the things to consider about the existing TRCs and how the Board can have that process work better for supporting them.

Member Becton switched gears and directed her comment toward the public comments regarding the Annual Report. Member Becton stated she believes CalVCB staff has done a great job of being transparent about what is being reported, and she greatly appreciates the efforts. Member Becton said that the graphics in the Annual Report are good, the percentages are good at giving a snapshot of who is being served and where the money is going.

Member Becton addressed the public comment that was made about the ratio of funding that goes to victims versus administrative costs. Member Becton expressed without having to concentrate on individual positions or salaries that this is a category that might be considered in the next report, such as having percentages of the budget that go toward administrative salaries or administration in general, as this is something the public has expressed an interest in and would be helpful in evaluating the work that is being done by this organization.

Member Becton next turned toward the question about declinations, which currently does not include the percentage of applications by race. The request to consider declinations by race could be important especially around evaluating whether there are huge disparities in those who are not receiving funding and the reasons that exist for that group of individuals not to receive funding. Member Becton said this is important so the Board can concentrate on that particular group to lessen some of those disparities.

Member Becton thanked the Board.

Item 4. Legislative Update

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

As the Legislature concluded its session for the year last week, Ms. Cardenas highlighted the status of a few key bills.

AB 379 by Assemblymember Schultz requires CalVCB to award grants to community-based organizations that provide direct services in areas with a high concentration of sex trafficking. The Governor signed the bill on July 30.

AB 938 by Assemblymember Bonta would have allowed 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. The bill was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations Committee and did not move forward.

AB 1213 by Assemblymember Stefani provides that a victim restitution order shall have priority over any other debts, liens, or monetary judgments. The bill has been sent to the Governor who has until October 12 to sign or veto bills.

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 has been sent to the Governor.

Ms. Cardenas thanked the Board and said she was happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and asked if the Board members had any questions.

Member Johnson asked Ms. Cardenas if AB 379 was passed but contingent on funding, as there was no funding made in the budget bill. Ms. Cardenas clarified that the bill established a new fund called the survivor support fund and it established a new fee that can be levied against perpetrators of human trafficking. Ms. Cardenas continued, explaining that this new fund will need to be established after the bill goes into effect at the beginning of the year and then it is supported by fees.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Cardenas.

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.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:51 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 82 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 10:58 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 82 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 11:00 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 20, 2025.