California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

May 16, 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, May 16, 2024, at 10:02 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. The meeting was recorded.

Item 1. Approval of the Minutes of the March 21, 2024, Board Meeting

Member Becton moved approval of the Minutes for the March 21, 2024, Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 2. Public Comment

The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Chief Counsel Gauthier 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.)

Hovanes T. appeared via Zoom on behalf of himself and other victims of violent crimes. He also provided this statement to the Board:

First, the regulations of the Board have not been updated in over a decade. We have new regulations going into effect on July 1, and no outreach has been conducted to the hundreds of cities and law enforcement agencies, the 58 counties and their victim centers and district attorneys, the hundreds of courts in the state and their honorable judges, or any other stakeholder across the state. The regulations present untested implementations that I am concerned do not do victims justice. The newly proposed Office of Regulatory Counsel should make sure that these regulations benefit victims first and foremost, to partially divest this Board of its quasi-legislative powers and place it back into a more democratic executive branch agency, leaving CalVCB and its counsel to better focus on implementing crime victim statutes and regulations, and quasi-judicial resolutions of them within the agency.

Second, CalVCB does not do enough to ensure all Californians come within the protections of its ambit. Accessibility is limited to in person meetings in Northern California, or phone or Zoom connections, with few meetings. We need a CalVCB meeting every month, and we need satellite opportunities around the State. This is a historic election year, plagued with political violence across academic institutions, communities, and even against political candidates, who have as difficult of a time funding mental health and security expenses as California’s victims have with getting their own funding from CalVCB when psychologically injured, financially injured, physically injured, or threatened with physical injury, as a result of crime. We need victims and advocates and many others, such as academics and legal scholars, to be invited to present, share their screen or PowerPoints, share analytics, data, and technical information, and engage in dialogue with the Board and stakeholders.

Third, CalVCB is taking claim denials and claim underpayments to an extreme. For every 1 dollar going to victims out of $200 million, 3 dollars does not go to victims. Its meeting agendas track legislation which rarely makes it through the legislative process, yet the meeting agendas do not discuss active or ongoing litigation with the CalVCB and claimants or parties. Every other executive branch or legislative branch body that meets publicly includes at least a list of active litigation to be discussed in close session. Claimants who pursue declaratory relief, injunctive relief, writ relief, or any other relief, from the courts, are faced with more systemic injustice due to lack of access to counsel, deference to the agency, lack of consistent or contemporary case law, all while living within the catastrophe that remains in the wake of violent crime. We need statutes, regulations, Governors executive orders, trial and appellate court rulings, and court general and emergency orders by Presiding Judges and Justices, that bridge these gaps for crime victim litigants, both in cases involving the CalVCB, and any other litigation where crime victimization is at the crux. We need elected or appointed judges to be trauma-informed, bias-resistant, and passionate about balancing the interests of crime victims above the interests of the government or the crime perpetrators.

Fourth, law enforcement and county victim centers can do more. We need before CalVCB-county contracts, expansions of mandatory and discretionary services to victims in the Penal Code, before performance monitoring, before technology and security, and more cooperation between cities, counties, and CalVCB. We need before policy manuals and training for CalVCB staff, beyond the Wikimanual and other internal resources. We need access to selecting local Administrative Law Judges with OAH for claimants and their agency hearings, who know their communities more than Sacramento does. We need access to the subpoena powers and verification powers authorized for cities, counties, and CalVCB. We need access to discovery in agency claims as well as evidentiary hearings with full due process and examination rights. We need increased subrogation rights and remedies for the CalVCB to recoup from the losses incurred by Californians as a result of the crime perpetrators.

Fifth, the federal government is implementing new regulations to reform many aspects of crime victim claims administered by the States. I recently attended the National Crime Victims Rights Week candlelight vigil on the National Mall in D.C. on April 24th, as 1 of the only 2 Burbank advocates in attendance, the other being my esteemed fellow alumni from UC Berkeley now working on the Hill. CalVCB has not had any public discussions about the implications of these federal regulations, and how they too can be incorporated within claim processing systems, agency claim appeals, agency claim hearings, and litigation over victim claims. Nor has CalVCB discussed how they plan to meet federal requirements for civil rights, including ADA accommodations for individuals with disabilities.

On May 31st, I will be launching a press release regarding my vision for crime victim reform across the state, with a focus on all the litigation against CalVCB, all the conflicting regulations and statutes, all 58 county victim center contracts, and my expansive requests for CalVCBs public records. I want everyone listening, to know that this year is going to be the year where we Californians bring change to an agency and system that desperately needs it and has needed it for decades. Victims and survivors are suffering. Their wallets are drying up, their health is deteriorating by the day, week, month, and year. They lose housing, lose employment, lose credit scores, and they lose their electoral rights to have their voice heard in our democracy. We hope now we will be heard. We are looking in every corner, we will stand up for every victim and survivor, and we will make sure that Sacramento serves all Californians equally.

Thank you all for your public service, and remember that supporting our fellow neighbors from all walks of life, is the Burbank way.

Chair Ravel thanked Hovanes T. for his comments and noted that at the prior Board meeting the federal regulation changes to the VOCA Victim Compensation Program guidelines were an item for discussion.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on a few items:

To start, Ms. Gledhill noted that California is facing a significant budget deficit this year and next year. The Governor’s May Revise came out late last week and details the numerous ways that California aims to close the state’s budget deficit. There will be multiple impacts to CalVCB and the Programs we administer.

First the Governor announced a plan to eliminate approximately 10,000 vacant positions starting in 2025-26. The Department of Finance will be working with all departments to identify those positions. At this point, CalVCB does not know how many positions will be lost. CalVCB has been able to fill many of its vacancies and will continue to fill critical positions.

More significantly, all California state departments have been asked to permanently reduce ongoing operations by 7.95 percent beginning in 2024-25. As a small state department, CalVCB will feel the impact of these budget reductions. CalVCB has a fiscally conservative and historically lean budget, so identifying these permanent savings will be challenging. CalVCB will do all that it can to reduce the impact these cuts will have on the victims we serve; however, we have to acknowledge that it may impact service levels and will most certainly make it challenging to implement improvements.

Ms. Gledhill continued, stating the Department of Finance also let CalVCB know that the general fund backfill to the restitution fund will be reduced this year. CalVCB began receiving this backfill due to a decrease in funding available from the state penalty fund. Because of this decrease, the restitution fund was projected to be insolvent by fiscal year 2020-21 and CalVCB started receiving transfers from the general fund that year. Since fiscal year 2022-23, those transfers equaled $39.5 million per year. These transfers have allowed the restitution fund to build a modest reserve, and this reduction will decrease that reserve.

Ms. Gledhill reminded the Board that the Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) grant program is funded through the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, money from the restitution fund, and currently general fund money from the Budget Act of 2022. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund did increase by $698,000 in the May revise; however, in the May revision there is discussion of maximizing the pullback of one-time spending. This approach was more specifically outlined by the Department of Finance, which has directed departments to immediately cease spending of one-time funds that meet certain criteria.

The $2.2 million of general fund money provided to TRCs in the Budget Act of 2022 meets those criteria. Therefore, we do not currently believe we have the authority to spend those funds. That means CalVCB is planning to reduce the TRC grant amounts by just over $1.5 million for the nine TRC grantees the Board approved at the March meeting. At that meeting, the Board gave CalVCB the authority to make these adjustments. The $1.5 million reduction equates to about a 12 percent decrease, so the plan is to reduce all awards by that amount. CalVCB did verify that even with these reductions, all nine TRCs will receive enough funding to cover the salaries of the three statutorily required positions, which are psychologist, psychiatrist, and social worker. The plan is to reach out to the TRCs to let them know about the new award amounts and ask them if they still want to accept the funding. If a TRC declines the funding, CalVCB will use that money to increase the grant awards for the other Board approved TRCs. The new grant agreements must be effective by July 1, 2024, to prevent a lapse in service for the existing TRCs that received a subsequent grant award.

Additionally, in 2022, the Legislature passed a Budget Trailer Bill (AB 160) that would make a number of changes to CalVCB statutes effective July 1, 2024. However, those changes were only to go into effect if it was determined there was sufficient funding and an appropriation was made to fill the restitution fund for the cost of those changes. The proposed changes included increasing reimbursement limits, expanding eligibility for income loss, and allowing violent felons to receive compensation while on supervised release. Compensation for erroneously convicted individuals also would have been increased. The May revise states that, due to the negative multi-year budget forecast, these conditions have not been met, and the changes are not included in the revised budget.

Ms. Gledhill also updated the Board on the Joint Powers (JP) contracts. CalVCB currently has seventeen field offices across the state that process applications and bills for CalVCB. These offices are operated by counties and the city of Los Angeles. These contracts are funded via a local assistance line-item in the budget, and the funding is distributed to the counties to perform the processing work as outlined in a three-year contract.

CalVCB is currently negotiating these contracts, which require approval from the County Board of Supervisors or the City Council. There is always a chance that a local government will choose not to renew the contract. Given the current fiscal situation that is also impacting county and city governments, CalVCB wanted to inform the Board there may be some changes with who chooses to take on this role. If a local government chooses not to renew their contract, headquarters will redistribute the local assistance funding to another county. Victims should not be impacted by these changes.

Ms. Gledhill noted that CalVCB received confirmation from the Office of Administrative Law that the regulations we last discussed at the January Board Meeting are complete. Those regulations will go into effect on July 1, 2024.

Executive Officer Gledhill continued, noting April is both Sexual Assault Awareness month and the month where we recognize National Crime Victims’ Rights week. In addition to participating in multiple crime victim focused outreach events, this year CalVCB also launched its statewide media campaign and has targeted advertisements across the state sharing information about CalVCB’s Programs and services.

On denim day, CalVCB staff collected 170 pieces of clothing for Community Against Sexual Harm (CASH). This Sacramento based nonprofit helps victims of human trafficking. Last week, CalVCB dropped off the donations and took a tour of the facility. The facility has added a new health clinic, food pantry, and a children’s room.

Ms. Gledhill concluded her report by letting the Board know that CalVCB has started the strategic planning process. CalVCB is developing a four-year strategic plan that will guide the organization from 2025 through 2028. As part of this process, CalVCB is soliciting internal and external feedback.

In late April a survey was shared with CalVCB’s stakeholders to learn more about the areas of excellence and opportunities for improvement. We also asked for suggestions on how to promote and implement diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the work that CalVCB does. CalVCB staff was asked for their feedback on core values. CalVCB will use all of this information to help guide the strategic planning process.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for the updates.

Member Johnson asked:

1. Are the TRC funding cuts to be universal or is that at the executive director’s discretion?
2. Are the reduced amounts going to be enough to support the programs adequately?
3. Did CalVCB consider not awarding the last eligible applicants?
4. How does CalVCB plan to gather the public feedback to inform the strategic plan?

Ms. Gledhill stated that the Board did approve any adjustments that needed to be made based on the May revise, so the plan with the 12% cut is to make across the board cuts. CalVCB did confirm that the reduced amounts will be enough to fund the statutorily required positions. At that point, it will become the decision of each TRC if they want to accept the grant award as part of their overall funding or decline the grant award. CalVCB did consider not awarding the last eligible applicants; however, that would mean not funding some current TRCs.

Regarding the strategic plan, CalVCB has mailing lists for multiple stakeholders throughout the state. Information is sent out multiple times. CalVCB is always communicating with stakeholders and interest groups around the state, making sure that they are aware of CalVCB processes.

Member Johnson suggested reaching out in-person, having one-on-one conversations, and holding workshops to get the feedback needed.

Ms. Gledhill thanked Member Johnson for his input.

Item 4. Legislative Update

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

Ms. Cardenas stated that the Senate and the Assembly Appropriations Committees were both meeting this morning to hear bills on the suspense file, which are bills that are determined to have more than a negligible cost. At the hearings, the committees will determine whether these bills will move forward or be held in the committee for the remainder of the year. Due to the state’s budget situation, fewer bills are expected to move forward than in prior years. Among the bills that will be heard today are:

• AB 2307 by Assembly Member Davies would authorize CalVCB to reimburse up to$1,000 for self-defense courses provided or operated by a nonprofit organization, a university, or a law enforcement agency.

• AB 1430 by Senator Glazer would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue a certificate stating that an individual received either a finding of innocence from a court or an award of compensation for an erroneous conviction from CalVCB. It would also require the DOJ to annotate the individual’s criminal record with the same information.

Additionally, AB 2979 by Assembly Member Mike Fong passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 15 and was referred to the assembly floor. This bill will clarify that Victim Compensation and Good Samaritan payments received from CalVCB are excluded from the definition of gross income in the Revenue and Taxation Code. Since this bill contains clarifying language and has no fiscal effect, the bill was not required to be heard on suspense.

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.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez for the update.

Item 6. Mental Health Guidelines

The Proposed Updates to the Mental Health Guidelines agenda item was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Vincent Walker.

Mr. Walker proposed an increase in the initial mental health session limits and other updates to the mental health guidelines. The California Victims Compensation Board has the authority pursuant to Government Code section 13957.2 to establish maximum rates and service limitations for reimbursement of mental health and counseling services. Reimbursement of mental health expenses by CalVCB is based on the definitions, session limitations, documentation requirements, and other criteria set forth in the Mental Health Guidelines.

Mr. Walker stated CalVCB established initial session limits in 2003 for claimants receiving reimbursement for mental health treatment. The limits were determined by CalVCB’s clinical psychologist to control the costs of mental health treatment and review the right assessment-based treatment. The claimant’s initial session limit is dependent on their filing status. Session limits have been reviewed several times since implementation, the last time was in 2015. Each review resulted in an increase to the session limits for one or two filing statuses. Currently the initial limit for a derivative adult, new caretaker, or roommate survivor is 15 sessions; for a minor derivative, minor witness, or parent/caretaker it is 30 sessions; and, for an adult survivor, adult victim, minor survivor, or minor victim it is 40 sessions. Once the initial limit has been reached, an Additional Treatment Plan (ATP) must be submitted by a mental health provider. To ensure the treatment provided is related to the qualifying crime and that the mental health guideline requirements are met, the ATP will then be reviewed and approved by CalVCB. If the necessary criteria is met, CalVCB will authorize additional sessions beyond the claimant’s initial sessions, while not exceeding their maximum monetary benefit limit. The maximum monetary benefit limit for adult derivative, minor derivative, new caretaker, roommate survivor, and minor witnesses is $5,000. For all others, the maximum is $10,000 for mental health expenses.

Mr. Walker continued explaining that for fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, CalVCB received 1,163 ATPs from mental health providers; 787 were first time submissions and 376 were at least the second request on an application. In review of applications received over the last seven years in which mental health sessions were paid, CalVCB noticed that in each filing status the initial session limit was exceeded and required completion of an ATP. Specifically, applications with the filing statuses of adult derivative, new caretaker, or roommate survivor with an initial session limit of 15 were paid on average of between 19 and 27 total sessions. Applications with a filing status of minor derivative, minor witness, or parent caretaker with an initial session limit of 30 were paid an average of 40 to 54 total sessions. Applications with a filing status of adult survivor, adult victim, minor survivor, or minor victim with an initial session limit of 40 were paid an average of 54 to 67 total sessions. These totals were within the monetary cap of either $5,000 or $10,000.

CalVCB proposes increasing the allowable initial mental health session limits for all filing status types currently set at 15, 30, and 40, to 30, 50, and 60. These proposed increases will allow for continued services to victims without unnecessary delays and reduce the administrative requirements for providers by completing fewer ATPs. CalVCB does not anticipate any increased fiscal impact as the total amount of mental health sessions reimbursed will not increase. If approved, these new session limits would apply to all applications filed and bills submitted on or after June 1, 2024.

Mr. Walker continued noting CalVCB’s second proposal is pursuant to Assembly Bill 1187, which took effect January 1, 2024, and grants certified Child Life Specialist eligibility for reimbursement for providing treatment to CalVCB applicants. Providers need to be certified by the Association of Child Life Professionals and supervised by a licensed provider. Licensed Clinical Social Workers must have a master’s degree in social work, register as an Associate Clinical Social Worker, obtain 3,000 supervised hours, then pass the licensed Clinical Social Worker exam. CalVCB reimburses licensed clinical social workers $105 per hour for services provided to CalVCB claimants. Certified Child Life Specialist must have a bachelor’s degree in child life studies or a related field, complete a 600-hour child life specialist internship, and pass the certification exam. Additionally, CalVCB surveyed several current certified child life specialist job postings and determined an average hourly rate for compensation being offered by employers for this provider type. CalVCB proposes adding certified Child Life Specialist providers at the reimbursement rate of $38 an hour to the list of approved provider types who will be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Mental Health Guidelines.

Upon adoption by the Board, these updates will be submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office as required by Government Code section 13957.2. The updates will comply will the recently enacted legislation.

Chairperson Ravel asked to confirm his understanding of the following points:

1. This is all sub regulatory, there is an APA [Administrative Procedure Act] exception, andwe can file this with the Secretary of State and go forward.
2. We are not increasing the overall visits; we are just conforming to existing practices and removing obstacles that providers and claimants have to go through to get approved.
3. We are amending the guidelines, so they are consistent with the recently enacted legislation and including this new type of provider within the list of approved providers.

Mr. Walker confirmed that was correct.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Walker.

Member Johnson asked:

1. Were the 376 additional mental health requests because they were denied or just wanting to extend the sessions?
2. How often does CalVCB deny an ATP or find it does not meet the Mental Health Guidelines?

Mr. Walker clarified that the requests were for additional mental health sessions beyond the first approved sessions. Mr. Walker continued by stating, denials happen very rarely and only when the provider is not complying with the requirements of the Guidelines.

Member Johnson thanked Mr. Walker.

Member Johnson moved to approve the proposed changes to the Mental Health Guidelines. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 7. Abel Soto (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

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

On January 29, 2024, Abel Soto submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted felon, which was supplemented twice and filed on March 25, 2024. The application is based on Mr. Soto’s 2007 convictions for murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. In January 2024 the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the joint petition filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and counsel for Mr. Soto dismissing the charges in the interests of justice and finding Mr. Soto factually innocent of all charges 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 $909,720, which represents $140 per day for each of the 6,498 days Mr. Soto was wrongfully imprisoned.

Mr. Soto has been represented by attorney Ellen Eggers throughout this claim and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko and Jessica Leal who is appearing before the Board today.

Chair Ravel requested we hear first from the attorney for Mr. Soto.

Chair Ravel confirmed that neither Ms. Eggers nor Mr. Soto were present.

Chair Ravel requested to hear next from Ms. Leal.

Ms. Leal stated she had no further comment on this claim.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Leal for appearing at the meeting.

Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Abel Soto. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decision was adopted.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:43 a.m. pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 104 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 10:52 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 104 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 May Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 18, 2024.