Report 2008-113 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2008-113: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board: It Has Begun Improving the Victim Compensation Program, but More Remains to Be Done (Release Date: December 2008)

Recommendation #1 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that it maximizes its use of CaRES, the board should address the structural and operational flaws that prevent identification of erroneous information and implement edit checks and other system controls sufficient to identify errors.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From June 2017

The Cares2 system improvements have been completed. The system successfully went live March 2017.

  • Completion Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

According to an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V report) provided by the board, because the legacy CaRES application did not meet all business requirements and had documented database and application design issues, the board initiated a project to modify the CaRES application. This project modified the legacy CaRES application and produced Cares2. The IV&V report notes that Cares2, among other things, enhanced the reporting functionality and includes multiple master reports which provide management the ability to monitor and track critical performance issues and verify and validate compliance.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

The requirements analysis, design, and development activities are complete. Project management best practices, knowledge transfer, and technical documentation activities continue. System testing, user acceptance testing, end user training, and organizational change management activities are underway. As a result of statewide security requirements and legislation regarding data privacy and security, an encryption solution is underway for the new system. The additional security and data encryption work will extend the project schedule. System go live is expected in Spring 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Spring 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

To better ensure a successful implementation, the Board leveraged services from the California Department of Technology and in partnership conducted a complete assessment of the CaRES Modification Project in early Spring 2015. As a result, a more defined go-forward approach was developed to adequately incorporate system and user acceptance testing, training, as well as project management best practices, disciplines and documentation as applicable. The go-forward approach is scaled to meet the needs of the department and the current state of the project, while ensuring compliance with new legislative mandates, control agency IT project requirements, and mitigating risks for the State. The estimated completion for system implementation is Fall 2016.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Fall 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

The scheduled implementation of the final increment of the CaRES Modification Project has been delayed. Based on initial user acceptance testing earlier in 2014, the Board determined that the complexity of the improvements in this final phase required additional time for adequate system and user testing and subsequent training of all headquarter and Joint Powers staff across the State. This refinement of our testing processes and training schedule is important to the successful completion and operation of the system. We are developing these testing and training plans and will be able to report an estimated completion date by December 31, 2014.

  • Estimated Completion Date: TBD

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

In an effort to correct the underlying database and application architecture issues in CaRES and to ensure the maximum use of the system, the Board authorized the CaRES Modification Project in June 2010. The final phase of the project is underway and will be completed in early Spring 2014. When complete, CaRES will by fully functional, scalable and can be expanded with additional functionality.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Spring 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

To correct the underlying database and application architecture issues in CaRES and to ensure the maximum use of the system, the Board authorized the CaRES Modification Project in June 2010. Phase 1 of the project, the Discovery and Validation process, was completed in June 2011. Phase 2 of the project, implementation of the database and application architectural changes, is currently underway. The implementation is divided into 3 increments. Increment one will be completed by December 2012. Increments 2 and 3 will be completed in 2013. When complete CaRES will by fully functional, scalable and can be expanded with additional functionality. The estimated date of completion remains December 2013.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Recommendation #2 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board appropriately carries out its outreach efforts, it should define the specific procedures to accomplish its action strategies for outreach and establish quantitative measures to evaluate the effectiveness of its outreach efforts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

In 2013, the Restitution Fund reserve was stable enough to continue to pursue an aggressive outreach program that had been placed on hold from 2009. The Comprehensive Outreach Plan was updated with new statistics and implementation began. The strategies and tactics created were designed following extensive research that involved; demographics and crime statistics statewide, application data collected at CalVCP, input from Joint Power agencies, stakeholders, law enforcement and marketing professionals. Furthermore, the Plan also called for the development of a baseline account of the public awareness of the program in order to measure success in future years. The updated version provided 8 primary objectives:

1. Develop metrics, awareness surveys and statistical analysis to target and evaluate communications activities.

2. Provide outreach to underserved and vulnerable populations.

3. Educate and partner with California first responders

4. Strengthen partnerships with victim service programs

5. Provide members of the legislature with information on CalVCP

6. Conduct outreach for key awareness months

7. Provide digital Outreach

8. Enhance media relations

The baseline survey was conducted in February 2014 and all aspects of the Plan are being implemented including, media relations, advertising, public service announcements, community outreach, advocate and partner outreach as well as legislative outreach. All aspects of the audit recommendations are met and fulfilled.

  • Completion Date: January 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The Board's outreach efforts continue to be consistent with the current Comprehensive Communications and Outreach Plan. The Board recently developed and began implementing an updated 2013-2015 Strategic Communications and Outreach Plan that encompasses reaching underserved and vulnerable audiences throughout the State in an effort to raise awareness of CalVCP and its services. The plan calls for developing a baseline measurement to evaluate outreach effectiveness by capturing quantitative data on program awareness levels pre and post campaign efforts. Furthermore, the Board is leveraging funds received from a Federal Office of Victims of Crime grant to better identify underserved victims, define gaps in services and examine more innovative means to reach and educate victims of crime to the services offered by the State program. The Board expects to meet the deadlines provided in the Federal agreement of the grant by early 2014.

  • Estimated Completion Date: February 15, 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

As noted in previous progress reports, the board has substantially complied with this recommendation. The board's Comprehensive Communications and Outreach Plan identified metrics to establish benchmarks for awareness levels, prioritized projects and targeted underserved populations. The remaining element of the recommendations that has yet to be fully implemented is the performance survey to establish a baseline from which the board may accurately measure its goals. As previously noted the board had planned to contract with a vendor in 2010 but postponed plans due to budget constraints related to the condition of the Restitution Fund. During this difficult economic climate where all but necessary spending is restrained, our plans to conduct a formal performance survey remain on hold. We will continue to conduct our outreach efforts including using tools such as social and digital media and will actively seek feedback from stakeholders and advocates as to the success of these efforts.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Recommendation #3 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

The board should establish a complementary set of goals designed to measure its success in maximizing assistance to victims and their families. These goals should include, but not be limited to, one that focuses on the correlation of compensation payments to program support costs and one that establishes a target fund balance needed to avoid financial shortfalls. As it monitors the goals it has created, the board should ensure that its cost structure is not overly inflexible and that it is carrying out its support activities in the most cost-effective manner possible.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2011

As stated in our December 2009 one-year response to the audit, the board has established key goals for measuring the implementation of its strategic plan and its success in maximizing assistance to victims. In April of 2010, the board identified a specific goal for CalVCP support costs based on the BSA recommended method of calculating support costs as a correlation between compensation and program support costs. Our goal is to reduce CalVCP program and support costs to 20 percent of annual claims payments plus program and support costs, exclusive of revenue generating costs. We plan to reach this goal by 2014, which is two years following the anticipated completion of the CaRES claims processing system modification project. We ended 2009-10 at 26 percent, continuing the downward trend from 35 percent in 2004-05 to 28 percent in 2008-09. The Board plans to meet the 20 percent goal through continued process improvements (including technological and operational changes) enabling us to process increasing numbers of applications and bills while continuing our efforts to reduce processing times. The 20 percent goal will also include the workforce cap and collective bargaining reductions from the Budget Act of 2010. It is our position that a more appropriate method of calculating our administrative support costs is the traditional method showing those costs as a percent of total program costs. Using this methodology, our 2009-10 admin costs were 7 percent of total claims payments, program costs, and administrative support costs. Given either methodology of calculating the support cost ratio, we consider this BSA recommendation fully implemented. (2010-041, p. 137)

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #4 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To demonstrate that it makes appropriate eligibility decisions on applications, the board should ensure that it correctly considers reports from other entities, such as law enforcement, and that it sufficiently documents the basis for its decisions.

1-Year Agency Response

In its six-month response, the board reported that it updated training modules to include an emphasis on correctly documenting the basis for eligibility decisions. The board also reported that it provided refresher training to staff in May 2009. In its one-year response, the board reported that it has provided additional training sessions covering claim processing and eligibility determination, which includes training on evaluating information to determine eligibility and properly documenting the results. Additionally, the board reported that it completed its new procedure manual, which is accessible to staff on-line. (2010-406, p. 219)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #5 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that it complies with state regulations for notifying applicants, the board should modify its process for when it notifies applicants of decisions, or it should seek regulatory change.

1-Year Agency Response

The board agrees with our recommendation concerning notification of applicants of the board’s recommended decisions, and this change was incorporated into a proposed regulation package. In its one-year response, the board reported that the regulation changes were adopted in April 2009. (2010-406, p. 220)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #6 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board has accurate information to measure its success in meeting statutory deadlines for processing applications, it should correct the problems with the “accepted date” data field in CaRES.

1-Year Agency Response

The board concurs with the recommendation to correct the issues with the accepted date data field in CaRES, the board’s automated claims processing system. It was always envisioned that this data be correctly captured in CaRES, however the field is not yet operational. This will be corrected as part of the CaRES Optimization project which is set forth in the CaRES Optimization Charter. (2008-113, p. 70). In its one-year response, the board stated that it is continuing its effort to maximize its use of CaRES. The board stated that it has developed a corrective action plan that it uses for identifying issues that must be addressed and is tracking the progress of issues. Additionally, the board stated that it hired a database architect to identify structural problems and provide detailed recommendations on how to address these issues in CaRES. The board expects the architect’s final assessment and recommendations in December 2009. Further, the board stated that it established a CaRES Change Control Board to review and prioritize modifications and that this is an ongoing process. The board also reported that it is in the process of developing system documentation and dependency diagrams of CaRES. (2010-406, p. 222)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #7 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To improve its processing time for making decisions on applications and for paying bills, the board should identify the primary problems leading to delays and take action to resolve them. Additionally, it should consistently document its reasons for any delays in processing applications or bills.

1-Year Agency Response

In its 60-day response, the board identified two problems that led to delays in processing. The first was the lack of necessary information on applications that precludes the board from beginning to process the applications. The second was the untimely submission of information from providers regarding verification information and from law enforcement regarding crime reports. The board stated that it was developing an on-line application to deal with the problem regarding incomplete applications. The board also stated that it was developing a new procedure manual that would provide step-by-step instructions for staff to follow when verifying applications and bills, including time frames for follow-up. In its one-year response, the board reported that it has completed the on-line application design and testing and successfully piloted the application in four counties. The board stated that it is planning the rollout to the remaining counties in the second quarter of 2010. The board stated that it expects the on-line application to speed processing because it provides help to applicants so they can provide all the required information. Additionally, the board reported that it has completed the procedure manual. The procedure manual provides specific guidance for when and how often staff should follow up with verifying entities. (2010-406, p 220)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #8 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board processes appeals of denied applications within a reasonable time, it should establish written procedures and time frames.

1-Year Agency Response

In its six-month response, the board reported that it had completed the appeals chapter of its procedure manual. The procedure manual includes time frames for how long the intake and analysis processes for appeals are expected to take. (2010-406, p. 221)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #9 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To improve its success at obtaining requested information from verifying entities, the board should develop specific procedures for staff to use when following up with verifying entities, including appropriate time frames for following up as well as the number of attempts the staff should complete.

1-Year Agency Response

In its 60-day response, the board identified two problems that led to delays in processing. The first was the lack of necessary information on applications that precludes the board from beginning to process the applications. The second was the untimely submission of information from providers regarding verification information and from law enforcement regarding crime reports. The board stated that it was developing an on-line application to deal with the problem regarding incomplete applications. The board also stated that it was developing a new procedure manual that would provide step-by-step instructions for staff to follow when verifying applications and bills, including time frames for follow-up. In its one-year response, the board reported that it has completed the on-line application design and testing and successfully piloted the application in four counties. The board stated that it is planning the rollout to the remaining counties in the second quarter of 2010. The board stated that it expects the on-line application to speed processing because it provides help to applicants so they can provide all the required information. Additionally, the board reported that it has completed the procedure manual. The procedure manual provides specific guidance for when and how often staff should follow up with verifying entities. (2010-406, p. 220)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #10 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To improve its success at obtaining requested information from verifying entities, the board should continue its outreach efforts to communicate with verifying entities the importance of responding promptly to its requests for information.

1-Year Agency Response

In its six-month response, the board reported that it amended its provider and other outreach presentations to specifically emphasize the importance of returning crime reports and verification information in a timely manner. The board also reported that it has established and implemented new subpoena procedures for obtaining law enforcement reports. (2010-406, p. 220)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #11 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board complies with state law requiring the program to pay only amounts not covered by other reimbursement sources, the board should ensure that staff consistently verify and document their efforts to ensure that there are no other reimbursable sources.

1-Year Agency Response

In its 60-day response, the board reported that its training presentation now includes stronger emphasis on reimbursement sources. In its one-year response, the board states that it provided reimbursement training for staff in 2009 and plans to offer it again in February 2010. The board also reported that its new procedure manual is now complete.(2010-406, p. 220)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #12 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

The board should consistently maintain documentation of its formal approval of applications and bills.

1-Year Agency Response

The board reported that its fiscal division is now responsible for documentation of its formal approval of applications and bills. (2010-406, p. 221)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #13 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that it maximizes its use of CaRES, the board should develop goals, objectives, and benchmarks related to the functions it carries out under CaRES that will allow it to measure its progress in providing prompt, high quality service.

1-Year Agency Response

In its six-month response, the board reported that it implemented monitoring tools to measure key performance indicators of CaRES system health and that the measures are tracked on a daily basis to provide real time and trend information on CaRES performance. Additionally, the board reported that it completed the data dictionary for CaRES. (2010-406, p. 222)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #14 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that it maximizes its use of CaRES, the board should continue identifying and correcting problems with the system as they arise.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2011

As with any system the "identifying and correcting problems with the system as they arise" is ongoing. The Board has a process in place for all CaRES users to report problems or issues with CaRES. All problems are reported to the IT Helpdesk either by phone or email. This applies to both board headquarters staff and Joint Powers staff throughout the state. A document (Reporting_CaRES_Issues) is available to users as a guide to providing IT with complete information about the problem. All problems are entered by the IT Helpdesk staff into a tracking system (Numara's Track IT!) and immediately routed to a manager for assignment to the appropriate resource. On a weekly basis the manager reviews the list of open issues with the Board CIO and reports on each issues progress/resolution. Based on the available data in Track-IT, we are seeing a downward trend in the number of problems or issues reported with CaRES. In 08-09, the number of reported issues were 2,693, in 09-10, it was 2,324 and for 10-11 (through November 30th), 574 issues have been reported with a year end estimate of 1,378. (2010-041, p. 139).

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #15 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that it maximizes its use of CaRES, the board should seek input from and work with relevant parties, such as assistance centers and JP units, to resolve issues with the transition.

1-Year Agency Response

In its one-year response, the board stated that it is continuing its effort to maximize its use of CaRES. The board stated that it has developed a corrective action plan that it uses for identifying issues that must be addressed and is tracking the progress of issues. Additionally, the board stated that it hired a database architect to identify structural problems and provide detailed recommendations on how to address these issues in CaRES. The board expects the architect’s final assessment and recommendations in December 2009. Further, the board stated that it established a CaRES Change Control Board to review and prioritize modifications and that this is an ongoing process. The board also reported that it is in the process of developing system documentation and dependency diagrams of CaRES. Finally, the board reported that it continues to work closely with JP office staff to resolve CaRES issues as they arise. The board stated that it conducts regular conference calls with county JP offices and problems relative to CaRES are communicated and tracked in a bi-weekly operational meeting. The board also stated that it actively solicits feedback from a cross-section of representatives relative to CaRES performance problems. (2010-406, p. 222)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #16 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that it maximizes its use of CaRES, the board should develop and maintain system documentation sufficient to allow the board to address modifications and questions about the system more efficiently and effectively.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2012

To ensure that the use of CaRES is maximized, the board developed and maintains system documentation that allows the board to address modifications and questions about the system more efficiently and effectively.

During the Discovery and Validation Phase of the current CaRES Modification project, the CaRES Modification team documented the technical and business artifacts because existing CaRES documentation was limited and/or outdated. This was necessary to thoroughly understand the inner-workings of CaRES system as well as the business processes that involved interaction with the system. This process was also critical to identifying feasible options to meeting the CaRES Modification Project key objectives. The documentation is substantial and too burdensome to provide; however, it is available in the board office for review. (2011-041, p. 168)

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #17 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To increase the number of applicants who work through assistance centers, the board should emphasize the advantages of doing so whenever possible.

1-Year Agency Response

As stated in its one-year follow-up response, the board emphasizes the advantages of victims working with their local victim assistance centers on its website, in its brochures and at outreach events. Further, the board has increased the number of non-JP counties served by its existing 21 JP offices (20 counties and one city) from 23 in 2008 to 27 in 2010. In addition, to keep services local, and provide the fastest, most efficient service to applicants, applications received at headquarters are transferred to the JP whose office handles the county where the crime occurred is now its standard process. The ultimate result of these actions is that local JPs process eligibility and losses for most applications generated by crimes in 47 of the 58 California counties. (2010-041, p. 139)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #18 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board effectively manages the program workload and can report useful workload data, it should develop written procedures for its management of workload.

1-Year Agency Response

In its one-year response, the board reported that it had developed an inventory monitoring system that identified minimum and maximum workload that is acceptable at each processing center and steps to take if any of the centers are outside of the normal processing parameters. The board stated that program managers meet periodically to discuss the workload and transfer work between centers using established transfer criteria. Additionally, the board stated that its JP offices and headquarters staff are monitoring the number of applications and bills processed and beginning in early November 2009, management meet weekly to evaluate the inventory and production across the entire program. (2010-406, p. 223)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #19 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board effectively manages the program workload and can report useful workload data, it should implement the reporting function in CaRES as soon as possible.

1-Year Agency Response

The board reported in its one-year response that CaRES is now capable of and is producing reports as needed. (2010-406, p. 223)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #20 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board effectively manages the program workload and can report useful workload data, it should establish benchmarks and performance measures to evaluate whether it is effectively managing its workload.

1-Year Agency Response

In its one-year response, the board reported that it had developed an inventory monitoring system that identified minimum and maximum workload that is acceptable at each processing center and steps to take if any of the centers are outside of the normal processing parameters. The board stated that program managers meet periodically to discuss the workload and transfer work between centers using established transfer criteria. Additionally, the board stated that its JP offices and headquarters staff are monitoring the number of applications and bills processed and beginning in early November 2009, management meet weekly to evaluate the inventory and production across the entire program. (2010-406, p. 223)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #21 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board effectively manages the program workload and can report useful workload data, it should review the applications and bills converted to CaRES from VOX that are showing excessively lengthy processing periods and determine whether problems with the data exist or whether the board has significant time processing problems.

1-Year Agency Response

With respect to applications and bills converted from VOX to CaRES, the board will perform a review to determine why the processing times appear to be unusually lengthy. (2008-113, p. 71). In its one-year response, the board reported that it had developed an inventory monitoring system that identified minimum and maximum workload that is acceptable at each processing center and steps to take if any of the centers are outside of the normal processing parameters. The board stated that program managers meet periodically to discuss the workload and transfer work between centers using established transfer criteria. Additionally, the board stated that its JP offices and headquarters staff are monitoring the number of applications and bills processed and beginning in early November 2009, management meet weekly to evaluate the inventory and production across the entire program. The board also reported that CaRES is now capable of and is producing reports as needed. (2010-406, p. 223)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #22 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board appropriately carries out its outreach efforts, it should establish a comprehensive outreach plan that prioritizes its efforts and appropriately focuses on those in need of program services. As part of its planning efforts, the board should seek input from key stakeholders such as assistance centers, JP units, and other advocacy groups and associations to gain insight regarding underserved and vulnerable populations.

1-Year Agency Response

In its six-month response, the board reported that it completed its Comprehensive Communication and Outreach Plan and had begun implementation. According to the board, the final plan was developed in partnership with the directors of the county victim witness assistance programs and JP units throughout the State, considered many demographic and crime statistics, and was shared with a variety of victim advocacy groups and other stakeholders. (2010-406, p. 224)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #23 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board appropriately carries out its outreach efforts, it should consider demographic and crime statistics information when developing outreach strategies.

1-Year Agency Response

In its six-month response, the board reported that it completed its Comprehensive Communication and Outreach Plan and had begun implementation. According to the board, the final plan was developed in partnership with the directors of the county victim witness assistance programs and JP units throughout the State, considered many demographic and crime statistics, and was shared with a variety of victim advocacy groups and other stakeholders. (2010-406, p. 224)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #24 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board appropriately carries out its outreach efforts, it should use information from applicants regarding how they heard about the program as part of its overall efforts to measure outreach effectiveness.

1-Year Agency Response

In its one-year response, the board reported that its Comprehensive Communication and Outreach Plan identifies the use of 10 existing metrics and the development of additional metrics that are and will be used to establish benchmark awareness levels, prioritize projects, target underserved and hard-to-reach populations, and evaluate the effectiveness of overall outreach efforts. The board also reported that to more definitively measure its success in achieving outreach goals, it is in the process of establishing a baseline from which it may accurately measure goals. The board stated that it has developed the methodology to perform a survey to establish a baseline and plans to execute the survey by late 2009. Additionally, the board reported one of the metrics in its plan is an evaluation of applicants responses to how they heard about the program and that it is using the responses to focus and evaluate research efforts. (2010-406, p. 224)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #25 To: Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, California

To ensure that the board appropriately carries out its outreach efforts, it should specifically budget for and report actual outreach expenses.

1-Year Agency Response

The board reported that it had established an outreach budget for fiscal years 200809 and 200910, incorporating all the elements of the Comprehensive Communication and Outreach Plan. (2010-406, p. 224)

  • Response Date: December 2009

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


All Recommendations in 2008-113

Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.