The California Victim Compensation Board on Nov. 20 authorized staff to conclude rulemaking on revisions to hearing procedures and income‑loss and emergency award regulations, concluding a months‑long public comment process that included a June hearing and October revisions.

Senior Attorney Jessica Shops told the board the package modifies 26 regulations to simplify hearing procedures, repeal a now‑invalid written‑record provision and reflect the court ruling in Mothers Against Murder v. California Victim Compensation Board that requires providing oral hearings in cases where staff recommends denial.

"These changes ensure fairness, transparency, and compliance with the current directive while making the hearing process more accessible to crime victims and their representatives," Shops said.

The income‑loss revisions (revised §649.32) consolidate verification requirements, expand the categories of individuals who may qualify (including applicants with documented job offers, gig workers and other nontraditional workers), broaden acceptable documentation (wage statements, payroll records, direct deposit information) and clarify when disability statements are required.

At public comment, victim advocate Margaret Petros said the proposed language in §647.21(c) would unlawfully require victims to make a second hearing request after contesting a denial and argued that a contested denial should itself trigger assignment to a hearing officer without additional steps.

"The proposed language requires that victims make a second request for a hearing within 20 days even though they have already contested the denial and triggered the assignment of a hearing officer," Petros said, adding that she believes that step would create a barrier to justice and contradict statutory and court requirements.

Board counsel and staff replied that the proposed process notifies applicants of the issues on appeal and offers hearing options (in person, Zoom, telephone or written record) after providing the issues so applicants understand what evidence is needed at a hearing. Counsel stated staff believes the regulations are consistent with the court order.

The board authorized the executive officer to submit the final rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law; staff said if OAL approves the package it is expected to become effective at the next quarterly effective date in April 2026.

What’s next: The rulemaking record will be submitted to OAL and, if approved, the revised regulations are expected to take effect in April 2026.