BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2013-2014 Regular Session B 1 6 2 AB 1629 (Bonta) 9 As Amended May 23, 2014 Hearing date: June 17, 2014 Government Code JM:sl VICTIMS OF CRIME FUND: REIMBURSEMENT FOR PEER VIOLENCE RECOVERY COUNSELING HISTORY Source: Youth Alive Prior Legislation: AB 2809 (Leno) Ch. 587, Statutes of 2008 AB 2869 (Leno) Ch. 582, Statutes of 2006 AB 2413 (Spitzer) Ch. 571, Stats. 2006 AB 105 (Cohn) Ch. 539, Stats. 2006 SB 972 (Poochigian) Ch. 238, Stats. 2005 SB 631 (McPherson) Ch. 223, Stats. 2004 SB 1423 (Chesbro) Ch. 1141, Stats. 2002 AB 2898 (Bowler) Ch. 1077, Stats. 1996 Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; California Catholic Conference of Bishops; Californians for Safety and Justice; Children's Defense Fund, California; Crime Victims United of California; National Network of Hospital-based Violence Intervention Programs; Mayor of the City of Oakland; Oakland City Council; PolicyLink; San Francisco Wraparound Project; WellSpace Health Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety AB 1629 (Bonta) PageB Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 79 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUES SHOULD THE VICTIMS OF CRIME PROGRAM BE DIRECTED TO REIMBURSE SPECIFIED VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME FOR ELIGIBLE PEER VIOLENCE RECOVERY COUNSELING? SHOULD PEER VIOLENCE COUNSELING REIMBURSEMENT BE CONSIDERED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT, INCLUDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT LIMITS? SHOULD PEER VIOLENCE COUNSELORS ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION MEET SPECIFIED TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to 1) authorize or direct the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board to reimburse specified victims for peer violence counseling from eligible programs; and 2) require that peer violence counselors eligible for board compensation have six months of violence recovery counseling experience and complete 40 hours of training in the conditions afflicting victims of violence, techniques for assisting in recovery by victims and case management. Existing law states that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the perpetrators. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(b)(13).) Existing law requires the court, to order a criminal defendant to pay both a restitution fine and restitution to the victim or victims, if any, in addition to any other penalty provided or imposed under the law. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (a)(3).) Existing law establishes the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB or board) to operate the California Victim Compensation Program (CalVCP). (Gov. Code, § 13950 et. seq.) Existing law provides than an application for compensation shall (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageC be filed with VCGCB in the manner determined by the board. (Gov. Code, § 13952, subd. (a).) Existing law states that except as provided by specified sections of the Government Code, a person shall be eligible for compensation when all of the following requirements are met: The person from whom compensation is being sought any of the following: o A victim; o A derivative victim; or, o A person who is entitled to reimbursement for funeral, burial or crime scene clean-up expenses pursuant to specified sections of the Government Code. Either of the following conditions is met: o The crime occurred within California, whether or not the victim is a resident of California. This only applies when the VCGCB determines that there are federal funds available to the state for the compensation of crime victims; or, o Whether or not the crime occurred within the State of California, the victim was any of the following: § A California resident; § A member of the military stationed in California; or, § A family member living with a member of the military stationed in California. If compensation is being sought for derivative victim, the derivative victim is a resident of California, or the resident of another state who is any of the following: o At the time of the crimes was the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child or grandchild of the victim; o At the time of the crime was living in the household of the victim; o At the time of the crime was a person who had previously lived in the house of the victim for a person (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageD of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a previously listed relationship; § Another family member of the victim including, but not limited to, the victim's fiancé or fiancée, and who witnessed the crime; or, § Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim, but was not the primary caretaker at the time of the crime. (Gov. Code, § 13955.) Existing law defines the term "derivative victim" as a person who was one of the following at the time of the crime: A parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child or grandchild of the victim; A person living in the household of the victim; A person who previously lived in the victim's household for not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to that of a family member described in the first bullet point, above; One who was another kind of family member - such as fiancé or fiancée and witnessed the crime; or, The primary caretaker of a minor who was the crime victim. (Gov. Code § 13955, subd. (c)(1)-(5).) Existing law authorizes VCGCB to reimburse for pecuniary loss for the following types of losses (Gov. Code, § 13957, subd. (a)): The amount of medical or medical-related expenses incurred by the victim, subject to specified limitations; The amount of out-patient psychiatric, psychological or other mental health counseling-related expenses incurred by the victim, as specified, including peer counseling services provided by a rape crisis center; The expenses of non-medical remedial care and treatment rendered in accordance with a religious method of healing recognized by state law; Compensation equal to the loss of income or loss of support, or both, that a victim or derivative victim incurs as a direct result of the victim's injury or the victim's death, subject to specified limitations; Cash payment to, or on behalf of, the victim for job (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageE retraining or similar employment-oriented services; The expense of installing or increasing residential security, not to exceed $1,000, with respect to a crime that occurred in the victim's residence, upon verification by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim; The expense of renovating or retrofitting a victim's residence or a vehicle to make them accessible or operational, if it is medically necessary; and, Expenses incurred in relocating, as specified, if the expenses are determined by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety or by a mental health treatment provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim. Existing law limits reimbursement for outpatient mental health counseling, including peer counseling provided by a rape crisis center, to either $10,000 or $5,000, depending on the category of claimant. $10,000 maximum mental health treatment reimbursement is available for the following claimants: o A victim; o A derivative victim who is the surviving parent, child, sibling, fiancé or fiancée of a victim who died as a result of the crime; and, o A derivative victim who is the primary caretaker of a minor victim, with specified requirements and exception. $5,000 maximum mental health treatment reimbursement is available for the following claimants: o A derivative victim who is not eligible for the $10,000 maximum reimbursement; o A specified derivative victim if mental health treatment is necessary; o A victim of unlawful sexual intercourse, as defined in Penal Code Section 261.5; and, o A minor who suffers emotional injury because he or she witnessed a violent crime and who is not otherwise eligible for reimbursement. (Gov. Code § (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageF 13957.) Existing law provides that "the board may establish maximum rates and service limitations for reimbursement of medical and medical related services and for mental health and counseling services" below the maximum rates in statute. (Gov. Code § 13957.2.) Existing law limits the total award to or on behalf of each victim to $35,000, except that this amount may be increased to $70,000 if federal funds for that increase are available. (Gov. Code, § 13957, subd. (b).) Existing law requires the board to pay an approved claim for medical or mental health services within 90 days of approval. Where the board determines that payments to a provider will be discontinued, notice must be given to the provider within 30 calendar days. (Gov. Code § 13957.2, subd. (c).) Existing law states that an application shall be denied if VCGCB finds that the victim or derivative victim failed to cooperate reasonably with law enforcement. However, in determining whether cooperation was reasonable, VCGCB shall consider the victim's or derivative victim's age, physical condition, and psychological state, cultural or linguistic barriers and compelling health and safety concerns. These concerns include but not limited to, reasonable fear of retaliation or harm jeopardizing the well-being of the victim, victim's family, derivative victim or derivative victim's family. (Gov. Code, § 13956, subd. (b)(1).) Existing law provides that a domestic violence claim may not be denied solely because the victim did not make a police report. The board shall adopt guidelines to consider and approve domestic violence claims based on evidence other than a police report. The evidence may include, but is not limited to, relevant medical or mental health records, or the fact that the victim has obtained a temporary or permanent restraining order. (Gov. Code, § 13956, subd. (b)(2).) Existing law states that an application for a claim based on human trafficking, as defined, of the Penal Code may not be denied solely because no police report was made by the victim. VCGCB shall adopt guidelines that allow the board to consider and (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageG approve applications for assistance based on human trafficking relying upon evidence other than a police report to establish that a human trafficking crime, as defined, has occurred. That evidence may include any reliable corroborating information approved by the board, including, but not limited to, the following (Gov. Code, § 13956, subd. (b)(3).): A Law Enforcement Agency Endorsement was issued, as specified; or, A human trafficking caseworker has attested by affidavit that the individual was a victim of human trafficking. Existing regulations provide that a victim has the burden to prove that a crime for which compensation may be paid occurred. Medical or mental health records may not be sufficient to prove the crime occurred. (2 CCR § 649.38) Existing regulations provide the following as concerns the responsibility of victims to cooperate with law enforcement: (a) A victim or derivative victim shall reasonably cooperate with any law enforcement agency in its investigation of the qualifying crime and the apprehension and prosecution of any person involved in the qualifying crime; (b) A victim or derivative victim who knowingly and willingly failed to reasonably cooperate with a law enforcement agency in the investigation of the qualifying crime and the apprehension and conviction of any person involved in the qualifying crime is not eligible for assistance; (c) A victim or derivative victim who initially cooperated with a law enforcement agency as required by subsection (a), and was determined to be eligible for assistance, and subsequently knowingly and willingly failed to cooperate with a law enforcement agency, may be found eligible for assistance only during the period the victim or derivative victim cooperated with a law enforcement agency. ?(e) Cooperation with a law enforcement agency includes, but is not limited to: (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageH (1) reporting the qualifying crime; (2) completely and truthfully responding to requests for information in a timely manner; (3) cooperating with identifying and apprehending any person involved in the qualifying crime; and, (4) testifying in all proceedings, including restitution proceedings, as required. (2 CCR § 649.59.) Existing law provides that a sexual assault services program (SASP) , including a rape crisis center, that is eligible for a grant from the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) shall provide the following services: Crisis intervention 24 hours a day, every day; Follow-up counseling; In person counseling, individual or group; Accompaniment services; Information and referrals for victims and the public; Community education presentations; and, Rape prevention and self-defense programs. (Pen. Code § 13837, subd. (a).) This bill allows the board to reimburse for outpatient violence peer counseling expenses to direct or derivative crime victims. This bill defines "service organization for victims of violent crimes" as "a nongovernmental organization" meeting both of the following criteria: Has a primary mission of providing services to victims of violent crime; and, Provides programs or services to victims of violent crime and their families, and other programs, regardless of whether a similar program exists in an agency that provides additional services. (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageI This bill defines "violence peer counseling" as "counseling by a violence peer counselor for the purpose of rendering advice or assistance for victims of violent crime and their families." This bill defines "violence peer counselor" as "a provider of formal or informal counseling services who is employed by a service organization for victims of violent crime, whether financially compensated or not" who has met specified requirements and standards. This bill provides that a violence peer counselor shall meet the following requirements: The counselor must have at least six months of full-time equivalent experience providing peer support services acquired through employment, volunteer work, or an internship; He or she must have completed a training program for preparing a former mental health services consumer to use his or her life experience with mental health treatment, combined with other strengths and skills, to promote the recovery of other mental health services consumers in need of peer-based services for recovery from violent crime; and, The training shall consist of 40 hours of training on all of the following: o Profound neurological, biological, psychological, and social effects of trauma and violence; o Peace-building and violence prevention, including, but not limited to, conflict mediation and retaliation prevention related to gangs and gang-related violence; o Post-traumatic stress disorder and vicarious trauma, especially as related to gangs and gang-related violence; and, o Case management practices, including, but not limited to, ethics and victim compensation advocacy. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageJ For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances. Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA" (which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation, which would increase the prison population. In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31, 2013. The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageK overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27, 2014, and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013, Order, including means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to the prison crowding problem." The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10, 2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the following interim and final population reduction benchmarks: 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014; 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and, 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark. In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison population have been made, even greater reductions may be required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore, the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may impact the prison population - will be informed by the following questions: Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the prison population; (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageL Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or legislative drafting error; Whether a measure proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy; and, Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy. COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: The California Attorney General has reported a three percent increase in violent crime from 2011-2012. These statistics demonstrate the need to expand statewide efforts to curb violence. The California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board's Victims of Crime Program (board) received 54,115 applications for assistance in fiscal year 2012-2013. Of those greater than half -29,000- were related to violent crimes, excluding sexual assault. Ending violent crime and supporting victims of violent crime should be major priorities for the state. AB 1629 will support violence prevention efforts, targeting those eligible for benefits offered by the board. For example, victims of gun violence often return to the environment where the crime occurred. This return creates a cycle where victims are constantly traumatized by experiencing the event over and over. Moreover, victims are also more likely to be victimized again in the place where the violence occurred. Hospital-based violence intervention programs are proven to be effective in ending the trend; AB 1629 removes a (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageM statutory barrier to achieving that objective. AB 1629 would provide reimbursement for a crime victim or derivative victim for outpatient violence peer counseling expenses, thereby providing greater and more equitable access to services for all victims of violent crime. This reimbursement is a first step to curbing community violence and supporting victims. Setting up a pay-for-service reimbursement for 'Violence Intervention Specialists' would accomplish two things: (1) Allow more organizations to offer intervention specialist services to victims, and (2) Increase the number of victims receiving benefits, who can spread awareness among victims about the services offered. AB 1629 is part of the recognition that all victims of violent crime deserve support and assistance. AB 1629 is also a big step toward relieving our communities of the violence that plagues them. 2. Basic Purpose and History of the Victims of Crime Program The victims' compensation program (CalVCP) in the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (board) was created in 1965, the first such program in the country<1>. VCGCB provides compensation for victims of violent crime. It reimburses eligible victims for many crime-related expenses. Funding for the board comes from restitution fines and penalty assessments paid by criminal offenders, as well as federal matching funds. The other core function of the board is to review claims against the state and request payment of claims by the Legislature in annual legislation. A person must present a claim for damages against the state to the board before filing a lawsuit.<2> 3. Crime Victim Reimbursement Statutes are Likely very Difficult for Lay Victims to Understand The crime victim reimbursement statutes are extremely layered and complex. A victim or "derivative" victim of a crime faces a daunting task in determining how much reimbursement is available ----------------------------- <1> http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/board/ <2> http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/claims/ (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageN for what level or amount of services. A victim must negotiate a relatively complex application process. The board may request additional documentation. The victim must then typically wait many months for a ruling on the application and payment of reimbursement. A victim might well wish to have an attorney, victim-witness program, trauma recovery center or other source assist him or her in the claim process. 4. Reimbursement for Mental Health Services Through the Victims of Crime Fund Typically, the victim compensation program covers individual, family, and group therapy necessary as a direct result of the qualifying crime. There are both monetary and service limitations for mental health services. A victim can obtain services from different types of mental health providers, including licensed psychiatrists, licensed or registered psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, marriage family therapists, psychological assistants, licensed professional clinical counselors, peer counselors, psychiatric mental-health nurses, clinical nurse specialists, and certain types of interns. However, peer counseling is only available<3> to victims of sexual assault who obtain services from a rape crisis center - formally described as a sexual assault services program (SASP) - as defined in Penal Code Section 13837. Peer sexual assault counseling is generally not reimbursed through payments by the board, however. Peer sexual assault programs generally receive block grant funding under the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), as disbursed through Cal EMA. Unlike the board, VOCA money is not used to reimbursement victims for fees paid to service providers on a per-session basis. The board cannot provide reimbursement to an entity that has another source of funding, as the board is intended to be a funding source of last resort for crime victims. (Gov. Code 13951, subd. (e).) Further, as the board receives substantial funding from VOCA, other entities that receive VOCA money through Cal EMA would be prohibited from essentially double dipping by receiving board ----------------------------- <3> http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/providers/mental.aspx#reimbursableproviders (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageO payments that are significantly drawn from VOCA funding and that would otherwise be used for services to other victims.<4> Thus, the board has been authorized to provide reimbursement for peer sexual assault counseling only in a very limited number of cases. 5. Peer Counseling - Background Peer counseling is "the process of giving and receiving non-clinical assistance to achieve long-term recovery from severe psychiatric, traumatic or addiction challenges. This support is provided by peer supporters - people who have 'lived experience' and have been trained to assist others in initiating and maintaining long-term recovery and enhancing the quality of life for individuals and their families."<5> 6. Issues Concerning Training and Experience of Peer Counseling It appears that the bill does not fully explain the kind of training that is required or acceptable for peer violence counselors. Further, the bill does not specify what entity or person verifies the peer counselor's training or competence. Similar questions could be raised about peer sexual assault counselors. However, the Penal Code section stating the requirements funding of a SASP are sufficiently detailed so as to likely provide a level of competence for peer counselors in most SASP programs. In contrast with peer counselors, licensed therapists - clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists - have extensive academic and clinical training and are subject to oversight and discipline by a state agency. The bill also does not clearly provide or indicate how the board would determine or confirm that a peer violence counselor meets the training and experience requirements in this bill. If the board must confirm that a victim is seeking reimbursement for services from a qualified peer counselor, approval and payment of ----------------------------- <4> http://www.ovc.gov/voca/vaguide.htm <5>(See National Practice Guidelines for Peer Supporters, < http://na4ps.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/nationalguidelines1.pdf >. ) (More) AB 1629 (Bonta) PageP claims could be delayed. The claims system has been prone to delays for many years. Additional delays could be a hardship on victims. The limited expertise and training of peer counselors could be problematic if a victim engages in peer counseling who should be receiving clinical care. This problem may be balanced by the benefit of peer counseling to a victim of violent crime who would not otherwise receive any counseling or care. 7. Peer Violence Counseling is Reimbursed as Mental Health Treatment, but at a Rate of $15 for no more than 10 Sessions Peer counseling is considered mental health treatment for purposes of determining maximum monetary reimbursement and number treatment sessions. Peer counseling reimbursement would thus reduce the money available for expert clinical care. However, the board has authority to set and reduce reimbursement rates below the limits set in statute.<6> The rate of reimbursement for peer counseling is $15 per session for no more than 10 sessions - a maximum of $150. Thus, reimbursement for peer counseling would not likely reduce the ability of a victim to obtain clinical services, unless rates for peer counseling are substantially increased. (More) ----------------------------- <6> In 2011, the board reduced reimbursement rates 10% for most services due to concerns over the balance in the Restitution Fund. The reductions are still in effect. The rates for peer counseling were not reduced. Further, the board may only reimburse victims for services and other costs directly related to or flowing from the crime. The peer violence counseling programs described in this bill will provide a wide array of other services - such as violence prevention - that are not likely reimbursable by the board. This could complicate accounting for the organizations in order to seek reimbursement for authorized services only. 8. Audit of the Victims of Crime Program 2008 California State Auditor Report on the Victim Compensation Program The Bureau of State Audit (BSA) report in 2008 included the following highlights: From fiscal years 2001-02 through 2004-05, program compensation payments decreased from $123.9 million to $61.6 million-a 50 percent decline. Despite the significant decline in payments, the costs to support the program increased. Administrative costs make up a significant portion of the Restitution Fund disbursements-ranging from 26 percent to 42 percent annually. The program did not always process applications and bills as promptly or efficiently as it could have. Board staff took longer than 180 days to process applications in two instances out of 49, and longer than 90 days to pay bills for 23 of 77 paid bills. The board did not adequately investigate alternative sources of funding for victim reimbursement, such as insurance and public aid. The program's numerous problems with the transition to a new application and bill processing system led to a reported increase in complaints regarding delays in processing applications and bills. Some payments in CaRES<7> appeared to be erroneous. Although board staff provided explanations for the erroneous payments, the fact that they were unaware of these items indicated an absence of controls that would prevent erroneous payments. The board lacks the necessary system documentation for CaRES. ---------------------------- <7> Claim review computer system. AB 1629 (Bonta) PageR There are no benchmarks, performance measures, or formal written procedures for workload management. 2010 Update and Progress Report In 2010, BSA found that the program had partially corrected five of the problems noted in the audit and corrected five others. The BSA urged the board to continue correcting the problems noted in the report. For example: The board reduced administrative costs, but processing times for claims had increased. The board increased collections, but it had not determined whether outreach programs had been successful and satisfaction with the program had increased. The board implemented better training program for employees who examined claims submitted by crime victims. The board developed an inventory monitoring system and set performance benchmarks. The monitoring should improve identification and understanding of eligibility requirements. Board training includes an emphasis on alternative funding sources The board did complete a chapter on appeals of denials in its manual. The board did improve its use of the CaRES computer system. However, claims were still more quickly processed in the local agencies with which the board contracts. It appears that the BSA has not issued a progress report or update on the program since 2010. It is not clear what the board has done to address the issues raised in the BSA audit since that time. Many, if not most, of these issues affect the ability of the board to timely and adequately compensate victims, including the ability to compensate elderly and dependent adult victims of fraud. The issues will also be addressed in the Appropriations Committee. HAS THE VICTIM COMPENSATION PROGRAM CONTINUED TO ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED IN THE 2008 REPORT BY THE STATE AUDITOR? *************** AB 1629 (Bonta) PageS