The Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board oversees California’s Victim Compensation Program (CalVCP), which gives financial assistance to victims of violent crime, including domestic violence, child abuse, assault and drunk driving. It also compensates people who are erroneously convicted and incarcerated. CalVCP raises money through its Restitution Fund, which collects fines and penalties from convicted criminals. The board, which is in the State and Consumer Services Agency, also oversees the Government Claims Program, which resolves claims against state government employees and agencies, including state vehicle accidents and property damage. Neither program uses state General Fund tax dollars.
About the Board (Board website)
The Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board grew out of the Board of Control, a powerful agency created in 1911 to supervise the business affairs of all state hospitals, prisons, reform schools, departments, other boards and commissions and the Office of Public Accounting. From 1856 through 1911, a government agency known as the “Board of Examiners” provided a similar function.
The board’s oversight role ended in 1927 and was replaced by responsibility for adopting rules and regulations governing how claims or lawsuits against the state would be submitted and handled. In 1963, it began administering the Torts Claim Act, which spells out in legislation how these claims and lawsuits are handled.
In 1965, California created the nation’s first victim’s compensation program, which since 1967 has been overseen by this board. It became the board’s largest program, by far, and in 2001, the Board of Control officially became the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
The program collects money, through its Restitution Fund, from fines and penalties paid by criminal offenders, which it uses to assist victims of crime. It gets some federal money, but doesn’t use any state General Fund tax dollars.
Shortly after the 2001 name change, the number of victim compensation claims spiked and the Restitution Fund, despite a small rise in revenues, was in trouble. Faced with insolvency, the board cut reimbursement rates to providers of victim services in 2002 and 2003. A number of providers refused to participate for less money, prompting a decline in fund expenditures.
That balanced the books and the fund continued to grow through 2007, but, gripped by financial crisis in 2008, the state moved $80 million to the General Fund from the Restitution Fund. The state lost an estimated $48 million in matching federal compensation funds as a result of the transfer. All it took was a jump in expenditures and by 2009, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office was warning that the fund would be insolvent by fiscal year 2012-13.
In 2010 and 2011, the board broadly reduced payments for mental health and medical expenses and burial services. Cuts in 2011 included 10% for mental health reimbursements and a 10% cut in the $70,000 maximum total per victim benefit.
In November 2010, the board passed the $2 billion mark for victim compensation.
A year later, the state gave the Restitution Fund a breather and helped refill its coffers when it increased by 50% the minimum fine or penalty levied on a convicted criminal.
History of the Board (Board website)
1910 First Biennial Report of the State Board of Control
The History of the Crime Victims' Movement in the United States (Office for Victims of Crime Oral History Project)
Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill: Criminal Justice (Legislative Analyst’s Office)
Overview of The Restitution Fund (Legislative Analyst’s Office) (pdf)
State Reaches $2 Billion Milestone in Helping Victims of Violent Crime (Board website)
Board Reduces Payment Rates For Medical And Mental Health Expenses (Board website)
Governor Signs Legislation to Preserve Victim Compensation Fund (Board website)
The governing body of the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board has three members: the Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, the state Controller and a public member appointed by the governor. The board appoints an executive officer to run the day-to-day operations.
The board’s main preoccupation is overseeing administration of the Victim Compensation Program (CalVCP). But it also: administers the Government Claims Program; processes claims for the Missing Children Reward Program; helps run the California State Employees Charitable Campaign; processes claims through the Good Samaritan Program; resolves bid protests over state contracts; compensates people wrongly convicted of crimes up to $100 per day that were falsely imprisoned; and provides for reimbursement of counties’ expenditures for special elections to fill vacant seats in the Legislature and Congress.
A 10-member Office of Audits and Investigations performs evaluations of programs, operations and processes. It reviews applications, performs audits and investigates fraud. It reports directly to the executive officer.
Victim Compensation Program
This program helps California’s violent crime victims and in some cases their families, pay for the resulting expenses. Violent crimes include domestic violence, child abuse, assault, sexual assault, molestation, homicide, robbery, drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter.
Assaults (23,366) dominated the 57,600 applications made for assistance in 2009-10, followed by child physical and sexual abuse (12,531), homicide (6,102), other crimes (6,161), sexual assault–adult (4,951), robbery (2,525), driving under the influence (1,072) and other vehicle crimes (992).
Victims must have reported the crime to a law enforcement agency. In most cases, they must apply for financial assistance within one year of when the crime took place. The program grants extensions on a case-by-case basis.
Crime victims who were under 18 at the time can apply until their 19th birthday, and sexual assault victims who were minors can apply until their 28th birthday. Minors who witness a violent crime, and who were emotionally traumatized by this, can receive up to $5,000 in mental health services even if they are unrelated to the perpetrator or the victim.
The Victim Compensation Program also reimburses “good Samaritans,” people who go out of their way to rescue someone else, apprehend a criminal or prevent a crime from taking place. A private citizen (not a law enforcement officer or rescue worker) who is injured or who suffers financial loss while helping others this way is eligible for compensation of up to $10,000 through the Good Samaritan Program.
Expenses covered include medical and dental treatment, mental health services, medical equipment, income loss, funeral and burial expenses, financial support and child care for dependents when the crime victim is killed or disabled, job retraining, home and vehicle modifications, home security systems, relocation expenses, insurance co-payments and crime scene cleanup. The program does not cover expenses not related to the crime, anything covered by insurance or another source, pain and suffering and lost, stolen or damaged items (except for items that became medically necessary because of the crime).
Crime victims can reach the Victim Compensation Program at 1-800-777-9229. They may also find a victims’ advocate for their county online. These are usually representatives of the county’s district attorney, but some counties also offer advocates in police departments, child and domestic violence prevention programs and free-standing (though funded by county district attorneys) victims’ service centers.
In addition to advocates who can process victims’ applications for compensation, the department maintains databases of therapists, psychologists, domestic violence organizations and sexual assault organizations.
The board also compensates people who have been erroneously convicted and incarcerated although, according to its website, only 16 of the 116 claims submitted since 1984 have been approved. Forty-two claims were denied on their merits and 49 were rejected for other reasons.
Government Claims Program
Anyone wishing to sue the state of California must, in most cases, first deal with the Government Claims Program. Courts will only consider lawsuits against the state if the plaintiff has tried to resolve the problem by contacting this program, or the affected agency’s administration first. The department asks anyone with a claim involving death or injury, or damage to personal property or crops to submit their claim within six months of the incident, but will process claims submitted between six months and one year of the incident on a case-by-case basis. It requires any other types of claims to be submitted within one year of the incident.
Of the 7,441 claims submitted in 2009-10, payouts of $9.9 million were made in the 951 allowed.
When the program’s staff receives a claim against a state agency, they first attempt to work with that agency to resolve the claim. If unsuccessful, the staff makes a recommendation to the board, which considers the claims in public sessions during which the claimant and representatives of the state agency state their case. If the board approves the claim the affected department pays the amount.
The Government Claims Program does not handle claims involving public state-run universities (University of California or California State University), courts or the Insurance Compensation Fund. These state entities handle their own claims. It also doesn’t address claims of less than $100, as it expects affected agencies to handle those claims.
Claims against the California Highway Patrol, Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of General Services, Department of Mental Health and Department of Motor Vehicles, if less than $1,000, are handled by representatives of their own departments. If the claim is under $5,000 and against the California Department of Transportation, that agency handles the claim itself.
The Government Claims Program also reissues checks from state agencies issued more than three years ago.
2009-10 Annual Report (pdf)
Almost all the money handled by the board comes from fines and penalties levied on people convicted of crimes, and is spent on victim compensation. More than 90% of the board’s $138.7 million budget for 2012-13 is earmarked for victim compensation, with 82% of that coming from the Restitution Fund and most of the rest from federal Victim of Crime Act (VOCA) matching funds.
In 2009-10, California's victims compensation program paid $96.6 million for aid to crime victims and their families. Medical care was the largest expense ($33.8 million), followed by mental health ($27.2 million), income and loss of support ($16.4 million), funeral and burial ($12.3 million), relocation ($4.4 million), dental ($2 million), attorney payments ($338,000), and rehabilitation and other ($161,000).
Not all of the board’s outlays are compensation payments. The 2012-13 budget indicated 61% would be spent on victim compensation, 26% would pay for employee salaries and benefits and operating expenses, and the rest would be for other forms of assistance.
The board has its own Fiscal Services Division, which is responsible for collecting and accounting for the restitution and other funds that finance the two programs, but also is the board’s second largest expense, at $9.1 million. The division also educates court officials, district attorneys, probation officers and others who work in the criminal justice system about the Victim Compensation fund.
The Government Claims Program has expenses of approximately $1.4 million. Since the affected state department pays out any claims awarded, this program’s expenses are entirely for salaries and operations.
3-Year Budget (pdf)
State Reaches $2 Billion Milestone in Helping Victims of Violent Crime (Board website)
Victims Program Needs Major Overhaul (by Richard Trainer, CalWatchdog)
Submittal to Board of Supervisors (Riverside County District Attorney) (pdf)
Ten Percent Rebate Program (Board website)
The Restitution Fund
Since its inception in 1965, the Restitution Fund has provided around $2 billion to victims of violence. Almost all the money provided for victim compensation by the board comes from fines and penalties paid by convicted criminals to the Restitution Fund.
The fund balance has fluctuated over the years. It dipped to under $40 million in 2003, but increased revenues and lower expenditures (crime payments up; victims compensation down) more than tripled it, to $130 million, in a short time. That proved to be too tempting a pot of gold during the budget crisis of 2008-09. The state moved $80 million to the General Fund to help balance the budget just as claims took a turn upward. The move cost the state $48 million in matching funds from the federal government.
By 2009, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office was warning that the fund could be insolvent by 2012-13. The shift of money to the General Fund took a heavy toll, but high administrative costs and reduced collections exacerbated the problem. The analyst’s office likened the situation to 2001-02 when, faced with a spike in claims, the fund reduced its payments to providers of services to victims who in turn stopped providing services at all. It was “pretty horrific,” said Catherine Duggan, director of the Ventura County District Attorney’s Victims Assistance Program.
With the fund facing a potential $20 million deficit, the board announced drastic cuts in late 2010 to stave off disaster. Reductions in compensation to providers and victims raised the specter of fleeing providers again and devastating choices for beleaguered victims. Current projections are for a $12.3 million reserve in 2012-13.
In September 2011, the state helped the Restitution Fund refill its coffers when it increased by 50% the minimum fine or penalty levied on a convicted criminal.
Overview of The Restitution Fund (Legislative Analyst’s Office) (pdf)
California’s Victims Restitution Fund Running on Empty (by Jim Miller, The Press-Enterprise)
Changes to Victim Compensation Reimbursement Rates (by Phillip Ung, California Coalition against Sexual Assault)
Victims Restitution Cut as State Fund Faces Deficit (by Adam Foxman, Ventura County Star)
Governor Signs Legislation to Preserve Victim Compensation Fund for Years to Come (Board website)
State Auditor Finds Problems
The State Auditor reviewed the Victim Compensation Program and its report in December 2008 complained that although the board found it necessary to induce a 50% reduction in victim restitution from 2001-02 to 2004-05 because of a financial squeeze, its costs to support the program went up. Those costs were big, ranging between 26% and 42% annually during a seven-year period.
The report also said not enough attention was being paid to available funding when decisions are made to compensate victims. Part of the problem was laid at the feet of a new computer system, the Compensation and Restitution System (CaRES).
The system—while credited with speeding up payments, enhancing customer service and distributing workload—was also blamed for erroneous payments. Bills that had been denied were paid; bills that were supposedly purged from the system were paid; and amounts beyond that billed were paid.
The State Auditor accused the board of not developing benchmarks or measured results that would more effectively utilize CaRES and made 25 recommendations for improvement. Four years later, the Auditor reported that the board had implemented all but two of them.
The State Auditor had recommended the board develop specific procedures to promote the public’s awareness of the Victim Compensation Program, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these outreach efforts. The board contended it had complied with this recommendation, although it had not conducted a performance survey because of the expense.
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (State Auditor) (pdf)
Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year (State Auditor) (pdf)
State Panel Spends More, Helps Less (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)
Fraudulent Claims
A 10-member Office of Audits and Investigations, which reports directly to the executive officer, performs evaluations of programs, operations and processes. It reviews applications, performs audits and investigates fraud.
The office was the first to become suspicious of claims submitted by Tito Ace Thomas for reimbursement of lost wages, counseling services and medical treatment after a New Years Eve beating in 2008. As part of his claim, Thomas submitted letters, allegedly from a doctor, claiming that his inability to work was a result of the assault. An investigation determined the letters were forged. The office also determined Thomas had fraudulently obtained reimbursement for counseling services.
The information was turned over to the state Department of Justice and on January 23, 2012, a court ruled Thomas had fraudulently submitted $21,419 in claims, and ordered him to pay the money back. Thomas plea bargained a sentence of 180 days in Los Angeles County Jail and five years probation.
California Victim Compensation Program Recovers Fraudulently Obtained Funds (Board website)
Getting to Know VCGCB’s Office of Audits and Investigations (CalVCP January Newsletter)
Falsely Convicted Have Trouble Collecting
In 2002, Jeffery Rodriguez, while in line at the DMV, was falsely identified as the man who robbed an auto parts store the night before. He spent five years in a Santa Clara County jail before Santa Clara County determined he didn’t do it. The court declared him factually innocent, and expunged the arrest and conviction from his record. He won a $1 million settlement from Santa Clara County after alleging prosecutorial conduct but the Victim Compensation and Government Claims board turned his request for reimbursement of $138,000 in lost income.
Rodriguez was not alone in finding that release from jail and a legal settlement didn’t necessarily guarantee restitution from the state. The board denied all but 11 of 132 claims submitted between 2000 and 2011 by inmates who were falsely imprisoned. Forty-seven cases never made it past the staff to a hearing. Even though the courts have cleared their records, the board wanted additional evidence in many of the 132 claims. The 11 winners netted $3 million in payments ranging from $17,200-$756,900.
In the 11 claims the board approved, it relied heavily on
In March 2012, Executive Office Julie Nauman addressed concerns raised in a story published by California Watch about the low rate of approval. She defended the “complicated and often misunderstood” process that uses a different standard than the courts in reaching a decision. The courts may focus on issues like attorney competence, or prosecutorial misconduct, while her board is solely focused on likelihood of innocence.
The court also requires a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the board requires claimants to show a “preponderance of evidence” that they did not commit the crime.
Wrongly Convicted Face Uphill Battle to Obtain Compensation (by Marie C. Baca, California Watch)
Claims for Erroneously Convicted Persons (PC4900) (Board website)
Discussing Erroneous Conviction Claims (by board Executive Officer Julie Nauman, CalVCP newsletter)
Consolidate Victim Programs
Relying on a report from victim compensation board’s parent—the State and Consumer Services Agency—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2004 California Performance Review recommended consolidating the board’s Victim Compensation program, the Department of Health Service’s Battered Women’s Shelter program and the Office of Emergency Services’ Victim Services Branch into one department.
At the time, there were three primary and 10 secondary state departments delivering victim services and a number of reports—from the state Auditor, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Little Hoover Commission—documented problems with coordination, communication and duplicate administration.
The consolidation didn’t happen.
Analysis of the 2003-04 Budget Bill (Legislative Analyst’s Office)
Consolidate Victim Services (California Performance Review)
Improving Public Safety (Little Hoover Commission)
Office of Criminal Justice Planning (The State Auditor)
Better Tracking
The California State Auditor in 2008 recommended improvements to a database program used by the Victim Compensation Program to keep track of restitution. The board began working on these improvements in 2010, but doesn’t plan to have them fully implemented until December 2013.
The Auditor also recommended the board develop better procedures for community outreach. One suggested procedure was a statewide survey to measure how effective new outreach programs were, however, the board balked at the expense.
Recommendations Not Fully Implemented after One Year (State Auditor) (pdf)
Reform in the Victims’ Rights Movement
Victim compensation is just a small part of a wider victims’ rights movement whose roots some trace back to the development of the field of victimology after World War II. Academic interest branched out in many directions, including the study of how crime affected its victims and their disillusionment with the criminal justice system.
The movement is still in its infancy and its direction remains uncertain as countervailing forces vie for influence. While it seeks dignity from the criminal justice system, financial support and services, it also seeks a harsher outcome for perpetrators and more control over the process.
Victims’ Rights (by Robert P. Mosteller, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice)
A Liberal Path
One of the earliest motivations behind the victims’ rights movement involved women’s groups focused on the plight of rape victims. The movement highlighted outmoded laws and attitudes toward rape and the insensitivity of the criminal justice system to its victims.
Civil rights movements of the ‘60s were models for victims’ rights activists, who took to heart a statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg: “In a fundamental sense, then, one who suffers the impact of criminal violence is also the victim of society's long inattention to poverty and social injustice.”
The early victim compensation programs, including the nation’s first initiated in California in 1965, had a welfare precept which dictated that only those who needed assistance should get it. But within a decade, compensation programs were more concerned with social justice than need.
The movement has helped change the legal system from one end to the other, providing protection to victims from the initial reporting of a crime and restitution after a case’s dispensation.
History of the Victims’ Movement in the United States (by Steven D. Walker, California State University, Fresno)
The History of the Crime Victims' Movement in the United States (Office for Victims of Crime Oral History Project)
A Conservative Path
The movement has had dual liberal and conservative components since the 1960s. Liberals wanted to help an aggrieved group while conservatives wanted to counterbalance decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren that strengthened the rights of defendants.
Victims’ rights have been used to justify a scaling back of due process protections in favor of crime control. In the name of victim’s rights, community notification laws—like Megan’s law—have been enacted; tougher drunk driving laws have been put in place; preventive detention laws have gained favor; criminal sentences have been lengthened; three-strike laws abound; parole has been abolished in a number of locales; and amendments have been offered to the U.S. Constitution.
The President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime in 1982, issued during the tenure of President Reagan and Attorney General Ed Meese, had as a basic premise that “almost all Americans, at some time in their lives, will be touched by crime,” helping shift a decades-long liberal focus on helping the downtrodden to battling criminal elements. Task force recommendations included restrictions on defense discovery motions, limitations on types of testimony in preliminary hearings, reduced use of bail, abolishment of parole and expanded public dissemination of private information about convicted criminals upon their release.
A decade of tough-on-crime talk prompted George H.W. Bush, Sr. to step back from the muscular rhetoric in his 1988 Republican Convention acceptance speech and call for the nation to be “kinder and gentler,” prompting Nancy Reagan to ask: “Kinder and gentler than whom?” But the tougher sentiment arguably needed no apology and remains a mainstay of conservative American ideology.
Punitive Justice & the Victims’ Movement (by Bob Gaucher, Journal of Prisoners on Prisons)
Politics and Plea Bargaining: Victims' Rights in California (by Candace McCoy)
Final Report of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime (U.S. Department of Justice)
Karen McGagin, 2004-2008
Catherine Close, 2003-2004 (interim)
Kelly J. Brodie, 1999-2003
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
