The California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB) convened on March 20, 2025, to discuss critical funding decisions impacting trauma recovery centers (TRCs) across the state. The meeting highlighted significant concerns regarding the funding cuts to several established TRCs, which provide essential services to victims of crime.

The session began with a motion to approve item six on the agenda, which was aimed at addressing the funding recommendations for TRCs. Board member Becton emphasized the importance of hearing from stakeholders before finalizing any decisions. Public comments were then invited, leading to a series of testimonies from representatives of various TRCs.

Teddy Valenzuela, representing Amasa Community Counseling in Downtown Los Angeles, expressed deep concern over the funding cuts that have left his center unable to meet the high demand for trauma recovery services in a community plagued by violence. Valenzuela requested reconsideration of the funding allocation, advocating for the restoration of financial support to ensure continued service delivery.

Martha Wade, founder of A Quarter Blue Trauma Recovery Center in Orange County, echoed similar sentiments, highlighting the devastating impact of funding cuts on existing TRCs. Wade noted that the community relies heavily on their services, and the loss of funding would leave many victims without necessary support.

Stacy Wiggle, from the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, acknowledged the board's investment in TRCs but urged reconsideration of the funding decisions that have left six established centers without support. She emphasized the importance of sustaining existing programs to avoid service gaps for survivors of violence.

Several other speakers, including Elizabeth Rivas and Donald Frazier, reinforced the need for continuous funding and support for TRCs, arguing that the current grant cycle model disrupts care for victims and undermines the stability of organizations dedicated to healing trauma.

The meeting concluded with a consensus among many speakers that a reevaluation of the funding process is necessary. They proposed exploring alternative models for administering funds to ensure that TRCs can provide uninterrupted services to victims of crime.

As the board deliberates on these critical funding decisions, the testimonies from stakeholders underscore the urgent need for a sustainable approach to support trauma recovery services in California. The next steps will involve further discussions on how to address the concerns raised and potentially amend funding recommendations to better serve the communities in need.