Providers, advocates tell CalVCB that verification changes and appeals delays are harming therapists and victims

At the May 28 meeting of the California Victim Compensation Board, public commenters and victim‑service advocates urged operational fixes to reduce payment delays and procedural traps that they say have reduced access to hearings and payments for providers.

By phone, public commenter Mr. Seagull described dozens of recent notices of denial affecting his clients’ providers and said the board’s newer verification process—where staff attempt to contact claimants to verify services—has resulted in many denials when staff cannot reach a claimant. He warned that small providers serving Hispanic and low‑income communities face closure without timely payment. "The processing of the claims and awards of benefits to my clients has plummeted and I'm at like 20% of my income from a year ago," he said, and urged alternatives such as therapist self‑verification under penalty of perjury or routing verification to authorized representatives.

Advocate Margaret Petro (Mothers Against Murder) criticized recent regulatory changes and additional notices and deadlines, arguing they create "procedural traps" that prevent victims from getting hearings to contest denials. She said a court decision in August 2024 demonstrates systemic failings and called for accountability and restoration of access to hearings.

Board members and staff responded that they are aware of the appeals backlog, that staff are working to increase attorney capacity to address delays, and that they are trying to balance fraud detection with timely payment. Executive Officer Linda Glill and Deputy Executive Officer Katie Gardinas said staff have been coordinating with county partners and plan to continue in‑person outreach and operational adjustments to reduce claimant friction.

Why it matters: Public comments described operational consequences—delayed provider payments and closed services—that could reduce victims’ access to mental‑health care. The board acknowledged the issue and committed to staffing and process follow‑up but did not announce immediate procedural changes at the meeting.