State-funded Trauma Recovery Centers face defunding and short grant cycles, witness tells Little Hoover Commission

Stacy Wigall, director of training and technical assistance for the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers at UCSF, told the Little Hoover Commission on Aug. 28 that California’s grant administration for Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs) has created avoidable disruptions to a network that serves survivors of violent crime.

"Whenever a TRC closes, it harms the underserved communities that are most impacted by violent crime," Wigall said, describing the state program’s recent decisions.

Why the TRC network matters

TRCs provide wraparound clinical and case-management services for survivors of gun violence, domestic and sexual violence, human trafficking and homicide loss. Wigall said research shows TRC models raise engagement in services and reduce post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, improve return-to-work rates and reduce substance use.

Specific problems Wigall described

- Defunding of performing programs for application technicalities: In the most recent cycle, CalVCB (California Victim Compensation Board) defunded six existing TRCs, Wigall said, most for a missing sentence in their grant application that purportedly confirmed the ability to begin serving clients within 30 days of award. Wigall told commissioners that asking established programs to reconfirm that capacity is "a moot point" and that closing established TRCs wastes state investment and damages community trust.

- Lack of subject-matter expertise in grant design and review: Wigall recommended a standing advisory board for CalVCB that includes survivors, TRC staff and UCSF model experts to inform grant materials, review and ongoing grant management.

- Training-time pay disallowed: Wigall said CalVCB’s current grant rules prevent programs from billing grant funds for staff time spent at training and professional development — a change from prior practice — even though training is required for clinical licensing and for maintaining evidence-based care.

- Short grant cycles: California law allows grant cycles up to three years, Wigall said, but the TRC program has used two-year awards. She recommended matching the statutory three-year cycle and funding three years at a time; shorter cycles make hiring and staff retention harder and impose recurring administrative burdens.

Wigall’s recommendations and examples

Wigall recommended that CalVCB: - Prioritize funding for well-performing TRCs (for example, a 10-point bonus for existing high-performing programs, modeled on New Jersey’s approach). - Create an advisory board that includes survivors and model experts to guide grant design and management. - Allow grant funds to cover staff time for mandatory training and professional development. - Move to a three-year funding cycle and allocate three years’ funding at award.

Wigall also said other states, including New Jersey and Michigan, operate similar programs and that the NATRC at UCSF could help arrange peer learning.

Commissioner questions and context

Commissioners asked about the number of TRCs and the eligibility scope. Wigall said there are 55 TRCs nationally and 21 in California; 20 receive state funding and one nonprofit continued operations after being defunded. She said the TRC eligibility is currently focused on survivors of violent crime, though centers sometimes serve people with other trauma if their experience meets eligibility criteria.

Ending note

Wigall provided sample NOFA language and other written recommendations to CalVCB. Commissioners said the testimony and written material would be useful as the commission continues its study of state grant-making practices.