California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

March 21, 2024, 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 Wednesday, March 21, 2024, at 10:11 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 January 31, 2024, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the January 31, 2024, 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.) Ms. Burrell advised that if anyone wishes to make public comment on agenda items 7 through 10, there will be a separate call for public comment when each item is heard by the Board.

There was no public comment.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on several items:

To start, Ms. Gledhill advised that the CalVCB has submitted the draft legislative report for the Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program to the Governor’s office for review. This is an annual report required by statute which provides information about the CalVCB’s outreach efforts and demographic data. A small number of applications are still being processed and once finalized, the data in the report will be updated so it is current. The report will be shared with the Board, the legislature, and the public later this spring. The CalVCB is proud of the efforts made to implement a successful program that provided compensation to survivors of this injustice and is thankful to the stakeholders and partners who helped to find survivors.

In early March, the CalVCB submitted the final regulations that were discussed and approved at the January 31, 2024, Board Meeting, which is the final step in the rulemaking process. Ms. Gledhill anticipates a July 1, 2024, effective date.

On February 5, 2024, the Federal Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) proposed changes to the VOCA Victim Compensation Program guidelines. The OVC administers the crime victim’s fund which provides funding to states for Victim Compensation and Victim Assistance programs that offer support and services to those affected by violent crimes. In California, VOCA grants help fund both the CalVCB and the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). The fund is financed by fines paid by convicted offenders and other settlement payments. The OVC publishes federal guidelines for the use of these funds by the state, and they were last amended for victim compensation grants in May 2001.

The proposed changes announced in February have been in development since 2022 with input from stakeholders, including the states. Ms. Gledhill attended a meeting about the regulations in Washington, DC last year. The proposed updates reflect changes to federal statutes, including the VOCA Fix Act of 2021 and also reflect an updated policy environment regarding victim compensation. If enacted, the updates could lead to significant changes in who is eligible for compensation, what factors can be considered to determine eligibility, and what expenses can qualify for reimbursement. Public comment on these proposed rule changes must be received by April 5, 2024. The CalVCB is currently working with the administration to determine whether the organization should submit public comments. Given the current budget climate, of particular concern is the financial sustainability of the proposed changes that could significantly increase outgoing costs. It is not anticipated that any additional federal funding will come with these changes. If the CalVCB does submit public comments, those will be shared with the Board. The CalVCB will continue to monitor these federal changes and update the Board throughout the process.

Ms. Gledhill informed the Board of an administrative issue related to paying erroneous convicted felon (PC 4900) claims approved by the Board. The CalVCB received a $7 million dollar appropriation to pay PC 4900 claims in the Budget Act of 2023; however, this amount was nearly $100,000.00 too low to pay the three claims approved by the Board at the January 31, 2024, meeting. Two of the approved claims were paid in full and a partial claim payment was made on the third claim. The CalVCB has received approval from the Department of Finance to make full payment on the third claim, and a second check was mailed to that claimant. For the rest of the fiscal year, the CalVCB will need to seek approval from the Department of Finance to increase the appropriation before being able to pay approved PC 4900 claims. This will increase the processing time to get the final payments to victims. The CalVCB will continue to work closely with the Department of Finance on this issue.

Ms. Gledhill briefly touched on some issues to be discussed in greater detail during this Board Meeting. Specifically, she previewed one of the action items on the agenda – the CalVCB’s recommendation for awarding grants to trauma recovery centers. The CalVCB received 19 applications requesting approximately $35.8 million in funding. The CalVCB estimates $12.5 million in available funding for grant awards and therefore will not be able to award all applicants at the level requested. Ms. Gledhill explained that the CalVCB’s recommendation is to award the top nine applicants who scored more than 50 out of 100 possible points in the scoring process. The process for determining the amount of awards largely matches the methodology used last year. If the Board adopts this recommendation, the CalVCB will fund seven existing TRCs (all of the TRCs previously funded) and one new TRC.

Another issue Ms. Gledhill previewed was the update regarding the CalVCB’s Civilian Statewide Marketing contract. Civilian aims to launch this marketing campaign during National Crime Victim’s Rights Week, which begins on April 21, 2024. The CalVCB has worked closely with Civilian to prepare for this launch and looks forward to the campaign and to increasing public awareness and engagement.

Ms. Gledhill continued her report, noting for the month of April the CalVCB has additional activities planned to recognize National Crime Victims’ Rights Week and Sexual Assault Awareness Month. The CalVCB will be sharing a toolkit with its partners and the public to spread awareness about victim services and resources. The CalVCB will also be hosting its annual Denim Drive throughout the month of April to collect new or gently used denim. The denim will be donated to the Community Against Sexual Harm (CASH), which is based in Sacramento. CASH assists human trafficking victims by providing survivor-led peer support and harm reduction services, while also providing education about the harm inflicted on women. CASH maintains a closet used to help survivors get back on their feet and everything collected during the Denim Drive will be used to help those survivors directly. Denim Day will be officially observed on April 24, 2024.

Ms. Gledhill concluded her Executive Officer Statement.

Chairperson Ravel inquired, with respect to the proposed VOCA changes, whether those would require statutory and regulatory changes to conform. Ms. Gledhill stated that yes, there would be several areas where statutory and regulatory changes would be required in order to conform at the state level. At this time, it is unclear what the timeline would be in terms of the enactment date. California has a more robust legislative session than many other states. Some states only meet once every other year, so it is anticipated the federal government will have to take that into consideration as almost every state would need to make some kind of statutory change in order to be compliant.

Regarding PC 4900 payouts, Chairperson Ravel noted an observed increase in the volume of claims and inquired if there has been any discussion with the Department of Finance about increasing the annual appropriation to account for that increased volume and to alleviate the administrative burden on the CalVCB and on claimants. Ms. Gledhill advised that the CalVCB has had and will continue to have these discussions with the Department of Finance as we transition into a new fiscal year.

Seeing no other questions, Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for the updates.

Item 4. Legislative Update

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

Ms. Cardenas advised that since her report at the January 31, 2024, meeting, several key bills have been introduced that could impact the CalVCB. The deadline for bill introduction was February 16, 2024, and the CalVCB is in the process of analyzing the bills. Ms. Cardenas provided the following updates:

• AB 2307 by Assemblymember Davies would authorize the CalVCB to reimburse up to $1,000 for self-defense courses. This bill passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and was referred to the Assembly Appropriates Committee.

• AB 2979 by Assemblymember Fong would exclude Victim Compensation and Good Samaritan payments received from the CalVCB from the definition of gross Income under the Revenue and Taxation Code. It was introduced as a spot bill and amended with specific language this week. It has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

• SB 1430 by Senator Glazer would require the Department of Justice to issue a certificate of innocence to an individual with a finding of factual innocence. It would also require an individual’s criminal record to be annotated by the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies. This bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 16. The CalVCB is evaluating the impact this bill’s language may have on the process for erroneous conviction claims.

Ms. Cardenas concluded her updates. Seeing no questions or public comments, Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas for the updates.

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.

Seeing no comments or questions from the Board, Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez for the update.

Item 6. Update on Marketing Campaign with Civilian, Inc.

The update on the marketing campaign with Civilian, Inc. was provided by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated that as Ms. Gledhill shared in her Executive Statement, the CalVCB is excited to share the progress made on the three-year, $3 million dollar marketing campaign since the contract with Civilian was approved in July of 2023. The CalVCB has worked closely with Civilian to plan its Statewide Awareness Campaign, which it plans to launch the week of April 21, 2024, for National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.

To measure the success of the campaign, the CalVCB will be closely tracking certain metrics such as the number of applications submitted, website hits, and social media impressions. The CalVCB also plans to track the amount of compensation reimbursed over time. However, as this is a reimbursement program, there may not necessarily be as much of an increase in that particular metric. At the end of the campaign, the CalVCB will compare the results of a pre-campaign survey and post-campaign survey, with the hope of seeing an increased awareness among Californians about the CalVCB and the services that it provides.

During the initial planning stages, the CalVCB shared a lot of information with Civilian regarding the processes for how compensation is issued as well as data collected about the CalVCB and prior research regarding the application and crime rates. Late last year, the CalVCB and Civilian launched a pre-campaign public awareness survey which provided initial information about how many Californians are aware of the CalVCB and the services it provides and about what their thoughts were regarding the best tools to market the information.

Ms. Cardenas then referred the Board to a slideshow sharing some of the demographic information from the survey. The information shows that responses were received from a pretty good range of Californians in terms of factors such as age, gender, and background. Information was provided by 600 individuals from the top 15 most populated counties in California. Civilian was also asked to get information from people in Shasta and Butte counties, so there would be representation from Northern California as well. Out of everyone who responded to the survey, 21% identified as victims of violent crime and 30% were identified as being underserved because they engaged in a social program such as Medi-Cal or CalFresh. The findings of this survey highlight the importance of this marketing campaign as not many Californians had heard of the CalVCB or were aware of the services it provides.

On a positive note, after learning of the CalVCB and its services, respondents to the survey wanted to share that information with others. Survey respondents recommended utilizing digital advertising methods to get the message out. In January of this year, Civilian tested some creative concepts with 101 focus group participants. Ms. Cardenas shared with the Board an example of the marketing poster planned for use in the upcoming campaign, which reflects the findings from Civilian’s work. A major highlight is the word, “rebuild”, which was seen as very positive by the focus group participants. Additionally, focus group participants expressed that inclusive graphics and language are important to inspire people to learn more about the CalVCB. Ms. Cardenas pointed out that the imagery of hands grasping each other was viewed as a universal sign of support and was recommended by the focus group participants.

Ms. Cardenas moved on to the next slide which showed a draft social media post and is based on Civilian’s finding that things which mimic real life scenarios help people to engage more with the content. The draft post, which would show as a video on applications like Facebook or Instagram, shows text messages between two fictitious individuals discussing a situation, receiving CalVCB benefits, and how those benefits helped. The draft post is a good example of how the CalVCB plans to use plain language and more engaging content to get people to learn more about its services.

Lastly, Ms. Cardenas informed the Board of the CalVCB’s plan to purchase advertising in key markets. Due to the finite amount of funding, the CalVCB has decided to do digital marketing in 15 counties chosen based on their crime rates and/or populations. The marketing will consist of advertisements through social media and web pages, as well as several well-vetted social media influencers from medical and mental health communities. This is based on feedback from focus group participants who thought they would trust information more if it came from people in those communities.

Additionally, there will be emphasized marketing in three priority counties including Los Angeles and San Diego, which were chosen based on data CalVCB has about the discrepancies between crime rates and application numbers from those counties. In those counties, additional radio advertising will occur to try to increase awareness of CalVCB services.

Due to limited funding and the ambitious goal of the campaign to raise awareness throughout California and in specific underserved populations, the CalVCB will not be able to pursue more expensive advertising methods, such as television advertising; however, the CalVCB is planning to work closely with Civilian and other partners to capitalize on this contract as much as possible.

Ms. Cardenas concluded her presentation and advised that two individuals from Civilian, Hannah and Camelia, were present via Zoom and available to answer questions.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas for her presentation and commented that the work is both exciting and very important as one of the CalVCB’s major priorities is getting the word out about the services available to Californians. Chairperson Ravel noted that presently, the CalVCB’s visibility is not where the Board would like it to be. Chairperson Ravel expressed excitement at seeing if the campaign is successful.

Member Johnson then echoed Chairperson Ravel’s excitement about the work and stated that getting the word out about the CalVCB and its services is critical. Member Johnson is glad to see that the campaign is moving ahead and is particularly pleased to see the focus on obtaining a pre-campaign baseline to establish metrics and to understand the impact of the campaign. Once the CalVCB understands what works, then those methods can be replicated in the future. Member Johnson thanked Ms. Cardenas’ team and Civilian for their work.

Member Becton echoed the sentiments already expressed and added that she is appreciative of the outreach efforts and the attempts to obtain good feedback about what types of advertising are effective. The most important thing is that people learn about the great services that are available to them and this campaign is a step in the right direction. Member Becton thanked Ms. Cardenas for her work.

Chairperson Ravel invited public comment on this item. Tina Rodriguez appeared via Zoom and asked if the social media graphics and videos would be available in Spanish? Ms. Cardenas advised that the materials will be translated to Spanish once the content has been finalized.

Dr. Castro appeared via Zoom and asked if the materials would be translated into other languages as well, and whether there would be any information provided about how victims can connect with advocates to assist them in applying for CalVCB benefits? Dr. Castro explained she is the former chief of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and one of her primary roles was to support survivors in completing CalVCB applications and getting together the necessary documentation, which can be very difficult for people who speak other languages or have a different capacity for reading or writing. Ms. Cardenas responded that she is working closely with Civilian to determine which languages make sense for the different paid marketing campaigns and they are definitely looking at opportunities to translate the materials as needed. Additionally, Civilian is assisting with revamping the CalVCB’s fact sheets and other information available on its website and will also be looking at translating those into other languages as well. The fact sheets include some higher level information regarding connecting with victim advocates, which Dr. Castro referred to.

Margaret Petros appeared via Zoom and stated that outreach for victims is important because many do not know about CalVCB. However, Ms. Petros feels that what needs to be fixed is what happens with applications once they are received by the CalVCB and why some claimants are not paid for one reason or another. Ms. Petros reiterated her opinion that this is the real issue that needs to be fixed. Ms. Petros reminded the Board that at its November 16, 2023, meeting she expressed a concern regarding support loss not being aid continuously because there is not a “triggering system” to let staff know to process future support loss. Ms. Petros asked for someone to connect with her, but it has been four months, and she has not received a call or email. Ms. Petros stated that if she were the executive director of the CalVCB, it would have taken her less than 24 hours to look into the issue. Ms. Petros explained that the case she is referring to has been ongoing for seven years, and therefore, she is providing three claim numbers to bring them to the highest attention of the Board members, executive staff, and the public. Ms. Petros provided claim numbers A16-5995436 (for a wife), A16-5995527, and A16-5995501 (for two children). Ms. Petros expanded and said that an innocent college professor was shot and killed, and the family is eligible for up to $70,000.00, but the initial support loss request was processed as fully reimbursed by life insurance. However, for the past five years, there is a loss that should have been paid. Ms. Petros has asked for the status and brought it to staff’s attention, but nothing happens. Ms. Petros expressed her belief that there are thousands of cases, and all staff needs to do is “run a program for this category” and see how many claims have been. Ms. Petros opined that support loss is a continuous process and asked that the CalVCB fix the problems because victims are retraumatized when they come to CalVCB and are denied compensation.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comments.

Item 7. Proposal to Approve Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards

The Proposal to Approve Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated that the CalVCB is charged with administering the Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) Grant process. The TRC grants are awarded on a 2-year cycle and there is no limit to the amount of funding that can be requested. There is no guarantee of funding, regardless of whether a TRC was previously funded or not. In this cycle, applicants requested nearly $36 million in grant funds and there is approximately $12.5 million available to distribute. 19 organizations applied for TRC funding but two were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum qualifications outlined in statute. Although 17 demonstrated that they could meet the minimum qualifications, eight of those applicants received very few points with scores between 30-47 out of 100.

Funding for the TRC program currently comes from three sources: the Restitution fund, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund, and one time funding from the state’s General Fund, which was appropriated in the Budget Act of 2022. The only guaranteed funding for this program is the $2 million from the Restitution fund. The numbers from the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund and the General Fund that are included in the Board member’s binders are budget estimates that the CalVCB will confirm after the May revise.

Notably, since the last time the Board approved grant awards for the existing TRCs who reapplied this cycle, which was in 2022-2023, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund has decreased by approximately $7 million.

This decrease in revenue is a significant reason why the Proposed Grant Awards this year are lower than the last time these existing TRCs applied for grants.

For this grant cycle, the CalVCB introduced the Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) in December and received applications from interested organizations. The process of scoring the applications is consistent with the previously approved Board practice. The CalVCB takes the minimum qualifications as outlined in statute and determines whether the grantees meet the minimum qualifications. Consideration is given to things like geography and how quickly an organization would be able to get up and running as a TRC. These scores are used to inform the recommendation provided to the Board.

Although there are clusters of TRCs across the state, the CalVCB has no control over who applies to this grant program or where they are located. In developing this recommendation for the Board, the CalVCB did consider options to maintain or provide services in as many geographic areas as possible, given the amount of funding available, the amount of funding requested, the number of applications received, and the scores that those applicants received.

The CalVCB’s funding recommendation uses a similar methodology as approved by the Board in March 2023. Specifically, the recommendation the Board adopted included capping the maximum funding at $2.2 million for the 2-year cycle and then applying a percentage based on the score the TRC received. Although the monetary cap and tiered funding methodology are not in statute, they provide the CalVCB with a fair methodology for granting money given the finite amount of funds available. Ms. Cardenas reiterated that the CalVCB estimates $12.5 million available to distribute and $36 million in requests.

There are 17 organizations that met the minimum qualifications, and eight of those applicants received low scores between 30-47 points out of 100. Therefore, the CalVCB recommends funding nine TRCs, all of which scored more than 50 out of 100 points during the scoring process. The recommendation includes funding seven existing TRCs, which are all of the existing TRCs that applied, one new TRC, and one former TRC. The CalVCB had to reduce the funding percentages for the Tier 2 and Tier 3 TRCs, which was necessary so that the CalVCB could fund all of the TRCs who scored within Tier 3. It was also necessary so that all of the existing TRCs could be funded.

The CalVCB did consider other alternatives as outlined in the Board item; however, the CalVCB believes the recommendation is fair, financially feasible, and balances the objective to provide services across the state. Ms. Cardenas requested that the Board approve the TRC Grant Awards as recommended, and further requested the authority for staff to increase or decrease the awards as necessary to reflect the funds available following the Governor’s revised budget in May.

Chairperson Ravel opened the item up for discussion among Board members. Member Johnson acknowledged the reduced funding and tough budget situation. Member Johnson asked if, when the scoring is done, is there a metric which measures if the awards are matching the needs across the state better than others? Ms. Cardenas responded that is one of the statutory requirements on which applicants are scored. Each applicant helps the CalVCB to understand what the need is in the community. For example, the existing TRCs will describe what services they are providing and to how many people. New TRCs will provide estimates on who they could serve and, within their applications, discuss crime rates, the provision of other services, and the availability of other services in the community. Therefore, the extent to which an organization is able to establish need will increase their score.

Member Johnson then asked Ms. Cardenas to clarify that no existing TRC which was funded in the last grant cycle will be losing funding in this cycle? Ms. Cardenas confirmed that was correct; every TRC that applied, and which currently receives funding, will receive an award this cycle. Member Johnson thanked Ms. Cardenas for her responses.

Chairperson Ravel also commented on the tough budget situation and acknowledged that the need is great, but based on the information provided the distribution of funds is fair given the number of applications received and the geographic distribution. Chairperson Ravel acknowledged that hard choices have to be made in the current budget climate.

Member Johnson asked if a TRC rejects the funds because the award does not meet their needs, does it go back into the general scoring criteria and get re-evaluated or does it go to the next tier? Ms. Cardenas responded that it would be factored back into the total funds available, and the funding percentages would be adjusted again so that the distribution is fair among the TRCs based on the tier in which they scored. Member Johnson clarified that it would not go to a new TRC or the next TRC on the list, rather it would get distributed among the initially funded TRCs. Ms. Cardenas confirmed this and stated that they are not recommending that funding be distributed to tier 4 applicants due to their low scores and recommends that funding stay within tiers 1, 2, and 3. Member Johnson thanked Ms. Cardenas for her responses.

Chairperson Ravel asked for a motion to approve Item 7. Member Johnson moved to approve Item 7 and Member Becton seconded the motion.

Ms. Burrell asked for public comment on the item and Dr. Castro Rodriguez, appeared via Zoom to share information. Dr. Castro Rodriguez stated she is the executive director of the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, which is an alliance of 52 TRCs across the United States, 22 of which are in California. Dr. Castro Rodriguez acknowledged the difficult position the CalVCB is in regarding distributing funds that are declining and reducing. However, the TRC model is a unique situation. The TRC model is evidence based, as shown through multiple random controlled studies, which show that the model produces significant positive impacts for survivors such as declining PTSD symptoms and trauma reactions, increasing capacity for survivors to heal and recover, to take care of their families, return to work and rejoin their communities. The TRC model requires a structure in which all pieces of the model can be implemented. To have fidelity to the model means having all elements of it including a group of people working in different positions to provide intensive case management, perform extensive outreach, provide mental health services, and to be advocates for crime survivors.

The suggested minimum budget for a TRC to do this work and have those positive verified outcomes is $1.1 million. When funding is decreased and distributed in this way, although the intent is to be equitable and try to fund more TRCs and/or new TRCs, what it actually does is take away the capacity of existing TRCs to follow the model and do the work. Additionally, it handicaps new TRCs that receive a significantly lower amount of money and will therefore not be able to implement the model. Dr. Castro Rodriguez acknowledged that these decreases in budget come from a larger source; however, they have a very serious impact and will lead to about half the number of survivors being served.

Dr. Castro Rodriguez pointed out that these survivors are victims of crime by no fault of their own who are in the throes of trauma and whose lives have been devastated. Additionally, it will produce gross layoffs of staff members who are trained and skilled in this work and who will not have the opportunity to serve survivors. It will have a big impact on the community and the resources available to help people not just intervene in violence but to prevent violence by helping people to recover from trauma and get back to their lives.

Dr. Castro Rodriguez went on to say that she understood the need to have new sites and that is what her organization does across the states and counties, but it is not effective when the new sites receive $400,000.00 or $500,000.00 to start. It is the equivalent of asking for a doctor and being given $10,000.00. It is not enough money to do the work that needs to be done and it will not allow the community to have the impact that Dr. Castro Rodriguez knows can be had with the proper amount of funding. Additionally, new TRCs have ramp up time. They need to hire staff and provide training. Dr. Castro Rodriguez’s organization assists with providing training, technical support, hiring, and creating policies and procedures, but all of that takes time. Therefore, the new communities need time to ramp up at the same time that existing trauma recovery centers are losing services. Dr. Castro Rodriguez recommended the following as an alternative to the staff recommendation:

1. Fund the existing TRCs to the maximum capacity so that they can try to negotiate and deal with the impact of these budget decreases to the best of their ability and continue the work they are already doing;
2. Stop funding new TRCs until there are new dollars available to give those TRCs the tools and resources they need to be successful and to implement a model that is known to be effective as proven through data; and
3. Request the CalVCB to create an advisory Board of content experts and crime survivors to help guide and inform these processes in the future so that everyone understands the value of the TRCs, the impact they have, the needs that they have, and how we can do better for violence prevention in California.

Dr. Castro Rodriguez thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak,

Stacey Wiggall, the director of the Trauma Recovery Training and Technical Assistance Program with the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Wiggall stated that she was a part of the founding team who developed this model in 2001 and has been supporting replication of the model since 2013. Her work includes providing technical assistance to TRCs and helping them build capacity for implementing the evidence-based model. The model is comprehensive and provides wraparound and individualized services with the goal of meeting the needs of survivors in marginalized and underserved communities. The model has not only been replicated in California since 2013, but core elements of the model were codified in legislation in 2017.

Ms. Wiggall continued stating when TRCs are underfunded, they are unable to deliver comprehensive wraparound services and meet their grant deliverables. Additionally, when TRCs are underfunded, it does not just mean that they are able to operate as normal but at a slightly limited capacity, it significantly impacts their capacity to deliver services. For example, when TRCs lose staffing, it means that survivors may end up on long wait lists for services and ultimately will not be able to connect with the services they need. Staff in underfunded programs are asked to do much more with much less, which contributes to burnout and vicarious trauma for staff. Ms. Wiggall asked that the Board please consider these impacts of funding cuts.

Carla Richmond, a licensed clinical social worker and lead clinician and supervisor of the training program at the San Francisco USCF TRC appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Richmond echoed what her colleagues and community members shared regarding their deep concerns about the impact of such significant decreases in funding. Ms. Richmond stated that their case capacity would be reduced and at current staffing levels, there is already a 30-person wait list. Ms. Richmond expressed her concern at what the wait list and case capacity would be like with reduced funding.

She continued, noting the need for these services has only continued to grow. The TRC model reduces barriers to care for the most marginalized and impacted community members and survivors become vulnerable when they are on wait lists for care. Early intervention and reducing barriers to care interrupts the negative impacts of crime that survivors experience. Additionally, a reduced capacity will also impact the ability to do community outreach and training, thus producing a ripple effect and limiting the ability of the TRCs to share their knowledge in the community.

Reduced funding will also impact staff retention and have huge implications for staff burnout, which affects the stability of their careers and families. Ms. Richmond pointed out that the UCSF TRC is the only clinic providing these specialized trauma informed care services in the area and that people must sometimes be told the TRC is unable to make services available to them. Both the capacity and the quality of services provided will be negatively impacted, which undermines the capacity of survivors to recover.

Ms. Richmond recommended that rather than funding new TRCs, the proposed allocated $2 million should be given to the existing fully operational TRCs, the funding cycle should be extended to three years, and there should be more flexibility with rollover funds for the three years, which would allow for longer term programmatic and staffing planning. Ms. Richmond stated the goal is to maintain and, if possible, enhance the TRC model which is proven to interrupt cycles of violence and is a benefit to the community.

Ms. Cardenas clarified that the CalVCB is charged, by statute, with administering a grant program that is competitive and which was not set up to have ongoing funding and that organizations may seek additional sources of funding to complement the grants administered by CalVCB.

Amy Turk, the CEO of Downtown Women’s Center, appeared via Zoom to comment on the TRC awards. Ms. Turk explained that for the last 10 years, the Downtown Women’s Center has partnered with Peace Over Violence to operate a TRC to provide critical services to victims in the Los Angeles community, with a particular expertise in serving women and gender diverse individuals who are experiencing homelessness and gender- based violence. They were the third TRC in California to follow the model created by the UCSF. While they are grateful that existing TRCs will receive funding, the deep budget cuts to all the TRCs are devastating. There needs to be more TRCs across the state, but adding two new TRCs will dilute the existing TRCs and will completely hobble their services beginning in July. Ms. Turk stated they will be fundraising to supplement the budget, but this will result in layoffs and less services available to those who need them most.

Ms. Turk recommended that the Board not fund the two new TRCs and continue to support the infrastructure of the existing TRCs while they find new funds. She noted that simultaneously, victim service providers across the state are facing even deeper budget cuts due to the decreases in Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding. Basically, the budget in California is showing that victims of gender-based violence and victims in general will not be served at the same level they have been previously.

Wendy Blanco, the director of clinical services and Peace Over Violence and a private practice owner, appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Blanco stated that is tough to maintain a business while expecting reimbursement from the CalVCB, which is meant to help non-insured victims of crime. Ms. Blanco has experienced delays in application approvals, denials due to administrative issues like missing dates or lack of efforts to contact the clients, long wait times when calling the customer service line, and arbitrary rules such as only checking three claims at a time and having to call back to follow up on other claims. This has proven to be a system that is not meant to support continuity of client care because care is consistently disrupted and the protocols in place are not aligned with mental health needs and values.

As a business owner, Ms. Blanco is not able to sustain taking on CalVCB clients because the cost is too high, and it is not ethical to see clients and then have their care disrupted. The TRCs were a game changer because clients could access services without the red tape of reimbursements or having to wait three months for approval in order to continue their mental health care. TRCs are necessary and continue to grow because there is evidence that the model works, and it helps clients when they need it the most. These major budget cuts are detrimental to the work TRCs do and is like taking multiple steps backwards.

There will be cuts in personnel which translates to cuts in services provided and directly impacts clients. Survivors of crime need these services, and it is the least we can do after the harm they have endured. When people do not get the healing they need, they disconnect from their communities and no longer have the resources needed to prevent things like homelessness. They lose access to mental health care, relocation funds, and funds to cover medical and dental care. These funds are a great benefit and evidence shows that the model is effective, but cutting funds affects client trust in these agencies as well as staff morale. Ms. Blanco echoed the previous requests that the Board not fund new TRCs and continue to fund the existing ones.

Myong Kim, chief program director at the Downtown Women’s Center, appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Kim has overseen their TRC program for eight years and this past year has been the hardest year for hiring clinicians. Clinician interest has dropped, especially after Covid, and it has been difficult to hire and retain new talent. Ms. Kim is concerned about the funding cuts and inevitable layoffs that will happen. If will impact retention of current staff which they have worked so hard to hire and will also cause a ripple effect in the community. It could also cause the TRCs to have a negative reputation among clinicians seeking employment with them and will cause them to question if they want to commit their career longevity to a TRC since the funding is so unpredictable. Ms. Kim requests that this be taken into consideration by the Board.

Ed Little, with Californians for Safety and Justice, appeared via Zoom to offer public comments. Mr. Little underscored the remarks made by his colleagues. As an organization, they represent tens of thousands of survivors of crime and the work that the TRCs do to help victims heal is invaluable. Mr. Little asked that the Board take a pause to re-evaluate the current funding scheme and take into consideration the things they have heard today from the people who run the TRCs.

Mr. Little echoed the sentiments expressed by others regarding the challenge of hiring clinicians. To invest in the TRC model means making sure that people are able to execute their work to the best of their ability, which requires having the necessary resources to hire the best people to provide these critical services. Mr. Little agreed with the recommendation to reconsider expanding funding to new TRCs when the existing ones are doing really good work and need the resources available, however limited. Mr. Little expressed hope that the Board would reconsider this issue, not vote on it right now, and take it up again later.

Ms. Cardenas clarified that the CalVCB understands the important work the TRCs do, however the statute does not give the CalVCB’s grant program the authority to fund only the existing TRCs.

Patty Giggans, the executive director at Peace Over Violence, appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Giggans’s organization collaborates closely with the Downtown Women’s Center and wanted to express the devastating impact the cuts would have on their agencies.

Ms. Giggans acknowledged Demin Day and stated that she founded Denim Day back in 1999, and it is the longest running sexual violence prevention campaign. It is now national and international. Ms. Giggans appreciated that the CalVCB would be participating in Denim Day.

Ms. Giggans stated that she is disturbed by the current situation in which agencies are handcuffed by statutes. Ms. Giggans feels that the response to this situation is passive, and she is not hearing or seeing any attempts to engage with the legislature to improve and expand the TRC model. Evidence supports that the model is important and is a combination between government and non-profit agencies. Ms. Giggans has been involved for 40 years in working with victims and survivors and remembers a time when everybody was still trying to figure it out on their own. Ms. Giggans is concerned that, by statute, the Board is expanding to two new TRCs while defunding others by 50%.

Ms. Giggans acknowledged that everyone here is a skillful fundraiser and knows that there is competition for funding, but Ms. Giggans thinks that expanding now at the same time cuts are being made, including cuts to VOCA, is going to be devastating. Organizations must hold on to every single dollar they can to get through these tough times. Ms. Giggans wants to lend her voice to those of her colleagues and means no disrespect to the two new TRCs whom she is sure are deserving. Whether or not the statute requires it, it just does not make sense to expand while other agencies are being defunded.

Tina Rodriguez appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Rodriguez thanked the Board for acknowledging Denim Day. She stated she understands the limitations of funding streams and that these are tough positions to be in. It is difficult to project funding for other crime victim services. Ms. Rodriguez understands what cannot be done and wanted to emphasize conversations about what can be done.

California is currently facing a housing crisis and the TRC model allows clinicians to meet victims where they are, whether it be in homeless shelters or substance abuse treatment centers. However, there are a lot of agencies in the Central Valley that will not allow that. Ms. Rodriguez’s biggest concern is how the rehoused and/or homeless, who have the greatest need, will be impacted. Ms. Rodriguez asked what the CalVCB can do to work with other organizations or expedite claims. Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged the difficult position the CalVCB is in and thanked the agency for its diligence.

Member Johson stated that the conversation was extremely illuminating and that he appreciates everyone showing up to advocate on behalf of their organizations. It is valuable to hear from everyone, in their own voices, more of the detail about the work they do which is funded by these grants. Member Johnson acknowledged the difficult situation with there being not enough money, statutory requirements aside. He stated no one is happy about this situation, and we all wish there were enough dollars to go around. He acknowledged that the CalVCB could not fully fund any of the seven TRCs, even removing the two new applicants. The problem is that there simply are not enough funds, and it is a lean budget year. Member Johnson thanked everybody for speaking up on behalf of their organizations.

Member Becton expressed her appreciation for the speakers taking their time to give comments today, who have provided much food for thought. As there is a motion on the floor, there must be a vote; however Member Becton requested clarification on two points: first, the statutory limitations in terms of not being able to fund the existing TRCs before funding new ones, and secondly, could the Board see an analysis for what it would look like if the two new TRCs were not funded, if it were statutorily possible to do, and how that would affect the funding for the existing TRCs. Member Becton stated she would like clarification on how it would be helpful to the existing TRCs for the funding to be allocated in that way and it if would be significant or only slightly helpful.

Chairperson Ravel suggested that Ms. Cardenas or Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier possibly speak on the statutory question. Chair Ravel expressed his understanding that the grant program is competitive and is required to allocate funds in accordance with the strength of the applications. Regarding Member Becton’s second question, Chairperson Ravel stated that $2 million is allocated to the two new TRCs, so if that were instead evenly distributed only to the existing TRCs, it would be roughly $300,000 each, which is nowhere close to their full request.

Ms. Cardenas explained that the statute requires the CalVCB to distribute the funding using a well-defined grant process, and that process involves scoring the application against the statutory criteria. There are six different statutory criteria, and the NOFA makes it clear that applicants will be scored based on their ability to meet those statutory requirements. The scoring is objective and done by people within the CalVCB who are familiar with TRC services.

Chief Council Gauthier specified that government code section 13963.1 discusses the grants to TRCs and denotes the Board as the entity responsible for administering the grant program. The statute requires that the Board use a well-defined selection process that takes into consideration the rate of crime and geographic distribution to serve the greatest number of victims or potential victims. Ms. Gauthier stated that as Ms. Cardenas said, the NOFA identifies the scoring criteria by which applicant organizations will be judged and it is the CalVCB’s responsibility to have a fair and impartial process in determining who gets the funds.

Member Johnson stated that there does appear to be flexibility in the funding formula that results from the different scoring tiers. Tier 1 is recommended to get 100% funding, tier 2 gets 76%, and tier 3 gets 60%. Those tiers are a choice related to the amount of funds available. If the Board chose to 100% fund everyone down the list, it would still result in one of the new TRCs receiving full funding.

Ms. Cardenas acknowledged that was correct, as the top scoring TRC is one of the new ones. Using the grant scoring from the NOFA, that TRC should be funded as a Tier 1 TRC.

Dr. Castro Rodriguez offered further public comment via Zoom. She stated that the author of the statute is the founder of the National TRC Alliance, Dr. Alicia Boccellari, who could not attend the meeting today due to a family emergency, however she specifically put language in the statute to allow for flexibility in making these kinds of decisions. They have offered in the past to be available to sit down and discuss the statute to find a way to distribute funds in a way that allows the model to be successful. Although it would only be an additional $2 million made available (if the new TRCs were not funded), it would allow the TRCs to continue providing services with some fidelity as they try to find additional resources.

She continued, stating the idea of expanding services for survivors is being lost because yes, there are new TRCs opening; however, services will be pulled away in existing agencies who already have the relationships and connections and are already serving survivors. There will not be a net gain, but rather a net loss in the number of survivors served. Dr. Castro Rodriguez understands the budget crisis and is not asking the Board to come up with money that is not available, rather she asks that the Board be strategic about the existing services and resources available while continuing to work as a group to increase funding opportunities at the federal level, so that the TRCs have more chances to apply for resources that specifically fund this kind of work. There really are no other funding sources in California that fund this type of work, so they must be very strategic with the dollars available.

Stacey Wiggal appeared again via Zoom to add further public comment. Ms. Wiggal stated that in their work with TRCs in other states, they work with government funders who fund grant programs for TRCs and would be willing to share examples of that work with the CalVCB. Additionally, they would be willing to convene a meeting of grant funders from other states to contribute to the conversation around well-defined grant funding for TRCs. There are examples in other states of giving priority points to existing TRCs, since the impact on communities of pulling away these services from established programs is known. It takes a lot of time to build up new programs. Ms. Wiggal understands the pressure to increase access, but we should also be realistic about the impact of those funding decisions. Ms. Wiggal echoed what has been said around the potential for changing the grant management process by including TRC model content experts and survivors of violent crime in the process of evaluating grant proposals.

Chief Counsel Gauthier again referenced Government Code Section 13963.1 where it states in subsection (d) that the Board may award consecutive grants to a TRC to prevent a lapse in funding. Ms. Gauthier noted, however, that there is no preference provided in the statute and the competitive process is outlined as previously stated.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Chief Counsel Gauthier and Deputy Cardenas, as well as all of the other commenters on this issue. He recognized that it is an extremely important issue, and no one is happy about the inability to fully fund everyone. He noted it is in no way a reflection of the work done, which is vital to communities and to crime victims.

Counsel Gauthier reiterated the motion pending before the Board – to approve the TRC grant awards as recommended and to grant the authority to increase or decrease the awards as necessary to reflect the funds available following the release of the Governor’s revised budget in May. By unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Member Johnson stated it may be useful to revisit this conversation next year or next time the grant cycle comes around so that the community is engaged and so that there is a robust understanding of how to have the best outcome.

Executive Officer Gledhill noted that when the NOFA is issued, it is spread far and wide and the grant process is very defined. The state’s fiscal situation, however, is not always widely known and shifts with time. Executive Officer Gledhill encouraged every TRC, both new and existing, to look at the requirements to write a grant proposal that will allow them to receive a good score so that the Board can fund the best applicants. Ms. Gledhill acknowledged these are very challenging times, with not enough money to go round, but the Board follows a defined process to the best of its ability. The Board will continue to work with its partners in the community.

Patty Giggans again appeared via Zoom to make further public comment. Ms. Giggans expressed her disappointment and stated they are in a very critical crisis period. Ms. Giggans stated that acknowledging that the community is vital is important, but we must also make sure the community is included and sometimes the structure of things does not allow that to happen until after the fact. The cuts from VOCA and the CalVCB have left the situation for victims in California looking very dire and bleak. It is important to use this crisis to restructure things, to look at the statutes and to look at how the Board gets information. There are other Boards who include expert witnesses, practitioners, and survivors. Ms. Giggans knows that the rules must be followed, but as an advocate, thinks that the rules need to be changed. She thanked the Board for its time and for listening to all of the public comments, which she acknowledges is not easy to do.

Edward Buchanan appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Mr. Buchanon described his affiliation with a brand new TRC, which is in development. They have weekly meetings to discuss the status of program development, and to look at the budget and determine financing, which has been very difficult due to limited funding. The situation is very disheartening as they are developing a new TRC, which is in a traumatized area with a dire need. As an agency, they have relied on UCSF for the support and development of their program, and it is difficult to imagine the impact that these budget cuts will have across the board.

Item 8. Truman Simon (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

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

On March 23, 2022, Truman Simon filed an application with the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. The application is based on his 2018 conviction as an aider and abettor to an assault with a firearm and criminal threats. The claim seeks $154,560.00 for 1,104 days of alleged imprisonment. The Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing that the evidence fails to prove Mr. Simon’s innocence. As explained in the Proposed Decision, the claim is recommended for denial as Mr. Simon has failed to meet his burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is innocent of the challenged convictions as required by Penal Code 4900(a). Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Simon represented himself. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko.

Chairperson Ravel allowed for comment from Mr. Simon, however he did not appear at the meeting.

Chairperson Ravel called for comment from Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko. Ms. Petrushenko appeared via Zoom and requested that the Board adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision. Ms. Petrushenko noted that Mr. Simon submitted a letter objecting to the Proposed Decision in which he continues to maintain that the reversal of his conviction by the Court of Appeal amounts to a finding of factual innocence, which is not accurate. Based on Mr. Simon’s failure to prove his factual innocence, Ms. Petrushenko requested the Board adopt the Proposed Decision.

Chairperson Ravel acknowledged that this is potentially a close case as it comes down to the burden of proof. There is not a lot of affirmative evidence of the crime. It is unknown if Mr. Simon saw the weapon, or whether the weapon was loaded. Additionally, the timing is unusual; it is unknown if he continued to threaten or talk to the victim aggressively after the weapon was pulled. On the other hand, although there was a reversal on appeal, there was not an affirmative finding of factual innocence after the case was dismissed. It is not clear what evidence Mr. Simon has brought forward to show that he did not see the gun or did not escalate the conversation. Chairperson Ravel asked to hear more from Ms. Petrushenko on that point.

Ms. Petrushenko agreed that it comes down to Mr. Simon failing to meet his burden of proof. She conceded that it is a circumstantial case. There are inferences to be made from witness testimony, the timing of events, and what Mr. Simon knew. With those reasonable inferences and Mr. Simon’s failure to make his case affirmatively, the only result the Board can reach is that Mr. Simon has failed to prove his innocence.

Member Becton asked for clarification regarding whether the language was consistent between the Court of Appeal, which said the evidence was insufficient, and page 10 line 4 of the Proposed Decision, which states that the Appellate Court found no evidence that Mr. Simon shared the gunman’s criminal purpose or intended to aid and abet. Since the matter is a relatively close call and involves circumstantial evidence and inferences, Member Becton stated it is important to clarify if the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence versus no evidence.

Ms. Petrushenko clarified that the Proposed Decision accurately reflects the Court of Appeal’s wording. There is insufficient evidence to prove the aider and abettor theory because, “there is no evidence that Mr. Simon shared the gunman’s criminal purpose.”

Member Becton stated that words matter, and it is difficult to say that there is insufficient evidence on the one hand, while on the other hand there is no evidence as there is a significant difference between the two. Given that the burden in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, it is difficult to find that that burden has not been met if the Court of Appeal, having reviewed the entire record, indicates that there is no evidence.

Ms. Petrushenko explained that the Court, in its’ statement of no evidence, was referring to Mr. Simon owning or possessing a firearm at some point prior to or after the crime. However, both the Board and the court can make reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence that is available, such as the timing in which the three men obtained the gun and then appeared at the victim’s door. The reasonable inference being that Mr. Simon would be aware of the gun’s presence because it was not in anyone’s possession at the time they were searched by police. Ms. Petrushenko acknowledged that there is no affirmative evidence and reiterated that inferences can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence.

Chairperson Ravel stated this is an important point to clarify. The standard is preponderance of evidence, and the claimant has the burden to produce affirmative evidence and therefore must defeat the inferences to show his innocence.

Ms. Petrushenko stated the claimant has the burden to show his innocence and the evidence the Attorney General has put forward raises inferences of guilt. The claimant has not met his burden.

Member Johnson agreed that this was a tough matter to adjudicate due to the complexity of the matter and the standard for the burden of proof. Member Johnson pondered what kind of evidence could hypothetically be put forward to prove that Mr. Simon did not know about the gun and stated that it comes down to Mr. Simon’s testimony.

Member Becton stated she is struggling with the idea of drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence and stated that she believes Mr. Simon is entitled to rely, at least in part, on the appellate court decision. Member Becton finds it slightly contradictory to read that the appellate court found there was no evidence Mr. Simon knew about the firearm or that he intended to aid and abet, while at the same time making inferences about what he knew based on interpretations of the circumstantial evidence.

Chairperson Ravel acknowledged that it is a hard case, but what is most persuasive for him is that the claimant has the burden of showing that he did not commit the crime and the only evidence he put forward is a blanket denial that the crime happened, which is contradicted by the record. Mr. Simon did not say that he did not know about or see the gun.

Ms. Petrushenko stated that was correct. Mr. Simon has solely relied on the appellate decision and did not wish to proceed with the hearing or testify to provide evidence.

Chairperson Ravel stated it would have been a much closer call if Mr. Simon had testified that he did not see the gun, know about the gun, or have an intention to threaten the victim.

Member Johnson stated it was his understanding that the appellate court saying there is no evidence does not change the fact that the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence that he did not commit the crime. If there had been a sworn statement from Mr. Simon, that would carry some weight in this proceeding. Member Johnson noted that both the Attorney General’s Office and the claimant chose to waive the hearing and requested clarification on that process and wondered if it would have changed things had the hearing taken place.

Ms. Petrushenko explained that once the parties submit their briefings, the Hearing Officer sends notice to both parties simultaneously asking the parties to confer on whether they wish to have a hearing and provide further briefings. Ms. Petrushenko contacted Mr. Simon to inquire if he wished to have a hearing or to present evidence. Ms. Petrushenko then informed the Hearing Officer of her conversation with Mr. Simon and no hearing was held.

Chief Counsel Gauthier clarified that it is custom and practice for the Hearing Officer to ask both parties to confer regarding whether or not they want a hearing and to provide the CalVCB with selected dates. If either party requested a hearing, then the Hearing Officer would have held one. Counsel Gauthier further clarified with Ms. Petrushenko that if she responded to the Hearing Officer to inform her that no hearing was requested, she would have included Mr. Simon on that communication.

Ms. Petrushenko confirmed this and stated that Mr. Simon responded and confirmed that Ms. Petrushenko’s summary of her conversation with Mr. Simon was accurate and that he declined to have a hearing.

Member Johnson asked for clarification on the Board’s potential courses of action.

Counsel Gauthier stated that, pursuant to regulations which govern this proceeding, the Board may take any of the following actions:

• Adopt the Proposed Decision in whole or in part,
• Reject the Proposed Decision in whole or in part,
• Defer a decision and request the Hearing Officer to address specific issues or provide additional information.

If the Board rejects the Proposed Decision in whole or in part, it may take any of the following actions:

• Decide the case itself after reviewing the record, including the transcript of the hearing,
• Decide the case itself based on a statement of facts agreed to by the parties,
• Decide the case itself by conducting a hearing to take additional evidence or argument,
• Order the Hearing Officer to take additional evidence or argument,
• Order the Hearing Officer to address specific issues in the Proposed Decision.

Ms. Petrushenko referred to her correspondence with Mr. Simon and stated that she was notified by Ms. Simpton (the CalVCB Hearing Officer) to confer with Mr. Simon, which she did via phone call, and then summarized in writing to the Hearing Officer. Ms. Petrushenko copied Mr. Simon on her response to the Hearing Officer, which she read to the Board. In summary, Mr. Simon was informed of his right to a hearing which he declined, stating he had no further evidence to offer. Mr. Simon agreed to allow Ms. Petrushenko to respond to the Hearing Officer on his behalf. Ms. Petrushenko submitted the response to the Hearing Officer, copied Mr. Simon, and Mr. Simon responded and confirmed that Ms. Petrushenko’s response was an accurate summary of their conversation.

Chairperson Ravel, seeing no further questions, called for a motion to approve this item. Chairperson Ravel moved to approve the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in this matter and called for a second.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell asked for public comment on the item, to which there was none.

The motion did not receive a second.

Chairperson Ravel explained the Board’s options for an alternate motion. Chairperson Ravel then moved that the matter be referred back to the Hearing Officer for additional evaluation. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson.

Chief Counsel Gauthier asked the Board to clarify the specific issues the Hearing Officer is to address, consistent with the regulation.

Chairperson Ravel asked what would be consistent with the statute.

Counsel Gauthier stated the statute does not specify what specific issues can be referred back to the Hearing Officer. In this instance, it would be helpful for the Hearing Officer to know if the Board would like to see more information or evidence regarding the burden of proof, the binding or non-binding effect of the appellate court decision, and to give examples.

Chairperson Ravel requested that Member Becton weigh in on this question.

Member Becton stated she would like the Hearing Officer to clarify the issue regarding the language in the Proposed Decision which she feels is inconsistent with the appellate court. Specifically, the difference between insufficient evidence and no evidence. These mean two very different things and it should be one or the other.

Chairperson Ravel also requested more focus on the burden of proof and precisely what it means in this case in light of the appellate court decision and the record. Chairperson Ravel stated he assumes the record is now closed and it is not possible to supplement it.

Ms. Gauthier clarified that under the regulation the Hearing Officer may reopen the record, if necessary, to take additional evidence.

Ms. Petrushenko stated that the claimant has declined to participate in a hearing or to be present here today. She understands the questions being raised but the legal issue which was raised in the Court of Appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence. It concluded there was no reasonable, credible, or solid evidence which is the definition of sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence was not sufficient to meet a burden high enough to sustain a guilty verdict. Although the phrase used was “no evidence”, it was in light of meeting a legal claim of insufficiency of the evidence, so there can be no factual innocence finding.

Chairperson Ravel moved to remand the Proposed Decision back to the Hearing Officer. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

Item 9. Maurice Caldwell (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Maurice Caldwell was presented by Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier.

On March 25, 2013, Maurice Caldwell filed an application with the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. The application is based on his 1991 convictions for murder, attempted murder, and discharge of a firearm into an occupied vehicle. The convictions were vacated in 2010 pursuant to a grant of habeas corpus and the charges were dismissed in 2011. This matter includes a long procedural history as detailed in the Proposed Decision. As there was no objection filed by the Office of the Attorney General, compensation is automatic under Penal Code 4900(b). Accordingly, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $1,049,160.00, which represents $140.00 per day for each of the 7,494 days Mr. Caldwell was wrongly imprisoned. Throughout these proceedings, Mr. Caldwell has been represented by the law firms of Gross & Belsky and Quadra & Cole. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by Sharon Laughner.

Chairperson Ravel asked to hear from Mr. Caldwell’s counsel, Mr. Gross.

Mr. Gross appeared via Zoom to express his support of the proposed decision and requested that the Board approve it. Under Penal Code 4900(b), the Board is mandated to approve the request. Mr. Gross had no further argument.

Chairperson Ravel asked if Mr. Caldwell was present and would like to address the Board, to which Mr. Gross stated that Mr. Caldwell was not present.

Chairperson Ravel asked to hear from Ms. Laughner, who appeared via Zoom and stated she had no comment.

Chairperson Ravel, seeing no further discussion from the Board, called for a motion to approve Item 9.

Member Johnson moved to approve Item 9. Member Becton seconded the motion.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell called for public comment on this item.

Margaret Petros, Executive Director of Mother’s Against Murder, appeared via Zoom to offer public comment. Ms. Petros stated that the Board is doing a great job with 4900 claims and is being thoughtful and giving claimants the chance to ask questions. Justice and due process are being done. However, Ms. Petros stated the Board does not do the same for crime victims on their victim compensation claims. Ms. Petros has repeatedly expressed this concern and asks that the Board again think about giving victims opportunities at these meetings when their claims are being denied. Instead, the Board goes into closed session and makes decisions based on staff recommendations that have not been shared with the victims or their advocates. Ms. Petros’s agency is currently going through a Writ of Mandate in court about this issue and has tried hard to resolve the issue with staff and the Board.

Chairperson Ravel stated he cannot discuss what goes on in closed session but assures Ms. Petros that the Board takes the staff recommendations seriously, scrutinizes them, and often has vigorous discussion about them.

The motion to approve the Penal Code 4900 claim of Maurice Caldwell was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the Proposed Decision was adopted.

Item 10. Miguel Solorio (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Miguel Solorio was presented by Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier.

On January 9, 2024, Miguel Solorio filed an application with the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon. The application was supplemented on January 23 and February 22. The application is based on Mr. Solorio’s 2000 convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, six counts of assault with a firearm, and other related charges. Those convictions were vacated in November 2023 pursuant to a grant of habeas corpus. In December 2023, the court granted a motion for a Finding of Factual Innocence pursuant to 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 $1,260,420.00, which represents $140.00 per day for each of the 9,003 days that Mr. Solorio was wrongfully imprisoned. Mr. Solorio is represented in this proceeding by Sarah Pace of the Northern California Innocence Project. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by the Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko.

Chairperson Ravel asked to hear from Counsel for Mr. Solorio.

Sarah Pace appeared via Zoom and was joined by Mr. Solorio and his wife, Sylvia. Ms. Pace stated it was her privilege to assist Mr. Solorio with his exoneration, along with a few others at the Northern California Innocence Project. Ms. Pace noted that the Board’s decision is momentous because it is the beginning of the Innocence Network Conference and she, Mr. Solorio, and his wife, are Zooming from New Orleans where hundreds of innocence advocates and exonerees have gathered to learn from their experiences and celebrate their freedom. They are also celebrating the Board’s decision to compensate Mr. Solorio for his 25 years of wrongful imprisonment, which is 25 years of time taken from him.

Ms. Pace thanked the Board for its consideration of Mr. Solorio’s case and is grateful to see the effects of legislative reforms designed to make the compensation process less arduous for the wrongfully convicted. It has not always been easy, and Mr. Caldwell was also a Northern California Innocence Project client, so it is also a momentous day for him to finally get the compensation he so deserves. Ms. Pace congratulated Mr. Caldwell and his attorneys. Ms. Pace stated that the compensation Mr. Solorio receives will undoubtedly assist him and his family. His wife, Sylvia, was Mr. Solorio’s main alibi witness and stayed by his side year after year for the 25 years he was in prison. They fought together for him to come home and for the system to realize the devastating mistake it had made. Mr. Solorio emigrated to the United States from Mexico with his family when he was young and dreamed of achieving the American Dream. He and his wife were both college students when he was arrested and convicted of murder and his life was taken away from him, for a crime that he had nothing to do with. Mr. Solorio wanted to work in an office, own a house, and have a family; things which many of us take for granted. Although the CalVCB cannot undo the 25 years he spent in prison, it can and will help him and his wife make the most of the years to come.

Mr. Solorio addressed the Board and expressed his gratitude to the Board for consideration and approval of his claim.

Ms. Petrushenko appeared via Zoom and stated she had no objection to the compensation award.

Seeing no discussion from the Board members, Chairperson Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 10. Member Becton moved to adopt the Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Miguel Solorio. Member Johnson seconded the motion.

Andrea Burell called for any public comment on the item. None was offered.

The Board voted unanimously to adopt the Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Miguel Solorio.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1A through 61 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:45 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1A through 61 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 the adjournment of the January Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for May 16, 2024.