CalVCB meeting spotlights risk to Trauma Recovery Centers as funding outlook falls

SACRAMENTO — The California Victim Compensation Board heard detailed presentations and public testimony July 17 on the Trauma Recovery Center model and grant administration process and was warned the program faces steep funding declines that could force cuts or closures.

The board convened a special meeting to hear from providers, technical‑assistance partners and state fiscal staff about how Trauma Recovery Centers, or TRCs, operate and how grant awards are made. Deputy Secretary Justin Howard of the Government Operations Agency told the board projections tied to Proposition 47 savings and the effects of subsequently passed Proposition 36 have cut the program’s near‑term revenue by tens of millions of dollars.

The shortfall matters because state statute and past practice channel a share of savings from Proposition 47 to TRC grants, and several TRCs report they rely heavily on state funding to operate. Without a change in revenue or allocation policy, staff said, fewer centers will be funded and services to survivors are at risk.

The TRC model, developed at the University of California, San Francisco, provides multidisciplinary, community‑based services that combine assertive outreach, case management and trauma‑focused mental health care for survivors of violent crime. “The TRC model recognizes that the most harmed are the least helped,” said Dr. Alicia Basilere, identified in the presentation as the founder of the UCSF Trauma Recovery Center and the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers. Stacy Wagall, director of the NATRC training and technical assistance program, described TRCs as “one‑stop centers” that provide crisis intervention, assessment, psychotherapy, coordination with hospitals and prosecutors, and help with victim compensation applications.

Justin Howard gave the board specific fiscal figures that he said underlie the problem. He said projected annual state savings tied to Proposition 47 were estimated at about $88,300,000 for 2025–26 in the governor’s January budget; 10% of that figure is the portion statutorily slotted for certain victim services. At a later projection the same savings figure fell to roughly $30,500,000, which would lower the TRC share to about $3,050,000; projections fall further to roughly $27,000,000 in 2027–28, he said. Howard also described the restitution fund as “essentially insolvent” and said the legislature has on past occasions provided general‑fund backfill for victim payments.

CalVCB deputy executive officer Katie Gardenis walked the board through the agency’s grant process. Applications are scored on qualifications tied to the UCSF model (60 points) and on administrative materials such as a budget and client flowchart (40 points). Gardenis said grant reviewers seek evidence that an applicant can begin providing services within 30 days and that staff have tried to design tiers and a cap (currently $2.2 million total, or $1.1 million per year) so the agency can fund the greatest number of TRCs possible with available dollars. She said the board’s staff received 45 applications this most recent cycle and funded 11 TRCs: nine existing and two new.

Presenters and public commenters urged the board to prioritize stable funding for currently operating centers. Carrie Cordero and Melissa Nixon, who introduced Napa‑Solano SANE/SART TRC, described how a smaller Bay Area program used an “expansion grant” to extend services into neighboring counties and said a one‑time “fee cap” fund had allowed them to meet immediate basic needs for clients, including rent and funeral costs. Ed Little of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and other advocates urged the board to “prioritize funding to well‑performing existing TRCs” and to create an ongoing TRC advisory board to guide grant policy.

Board members and staff discussed several alternatives raised during the meeting: giving extra points to existing TRCs in the scoring rubric (New Jersey was cited as one example that gives existing centers a points advantage), moving to a renewal/application model tied to documented performance rather than a purely competitive NOFA each cycle, instituting a multi‑year grant period, or creating regionally allocated pools of funding so each part of the state retains at least some local TRC capacity. Gardenis said each option has tradeoffs, and the agency has not recommended micro‑grants because of concerns about program quality and staffing continuity.

Public commenters described the practical impacts of lost TRC funding. Martha Wade, executive director of A Quarter Blue, said Orange County lost its TRC and residents now face “up to four to five hours of round‑trip travel” to access a qualified TRC therapist. Survivors and providers testified about application timing, the difficulty smaller providers face in producing competitive NOFA materials during a 30–45 day application window, and points lost over technicalities in submitted materials.

The board did not vote on a new funding formula at the meeting. Members thanked presenters and commenters and said staff would take the input back for further consideration ahead of the next budget and grant cycle. The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Sept. 18, 2025.