A casualta compensation fund has ordered to change the course

Ruby Marihalar had no money to pay for his son’s funeral after he was stabbed to death in September 2012. Like thousands of Californians every year, she turned to a state agency for helping to support the survivors of crime.

Thehe California’s victim’s compensation board It collects restitution and provides financial assistance for the cost of recovering crimes, such as funeral expenses, loss of income and mental health services of survivors, eligible and their families.

He denied Marihalar’s request twice without meeting her at all.

“They didn’t pick up a damn finger to help me,” she said. “I didn’t get hearing.

According to the California Act, the Compensation Council is obliged to propose personally evidence to people like Marihalar, who disputes a refused application. But for more than a decade, a recent court order has been said that the agency refers to an invalid regulation that allows it to limit the hearing to a written record. The compensation Council is now struggling to comply with the law as it works through thousands of appeals.

In a recent request to the legislature and governor Gavin New, the agency asked to spend an additional $ 4.4 million in order to comply with the order and quickly process their appeals.

California created the first of its kind program to compensate for the victims 60 years ago. Today, it is controlled by three members: State Controller Malia Cohen; Contra Costa Diana Becton District Attorney; And a representative of the Newsom cabinet, the secretary of the government operations Amy Tong. The agency receives the bigger part of its funding through fines for restitution, federal subsidies and the General Fund.

During the last state budget year, the compensation Council approved 31,114 applications. He denied 9 326 applications – approximately one quarter of all candidates. The agency declined to answer how much approved applications were the first time. CalMatters filed a request to the Public Recording Act to receive the information.

The survivors and defenders have long expressed concern about the strict criteria and discretion of the compensation advice that they believe have locked up and revived people who were injured by violence. A report from 2022 of the Non -Profit Organization Alliance Alliance California found that approximately 70% of the 700 survivors surveyed did not know why they were denied compensation.

“This is really something like a model of an insurance agency,” says Gena Castro Rodriguez, an assistant at the University of California in San Francisco, who is the author of the study. “They use the statutes and regulations as reasons why they exclude or limit whom they give money.”

The number of appeals has increased by nearly 200% since 2019 – from approximately 1200 to 3500 per year. On average, appeals take 325 days to complete – which “far exceeds” the six -month processing time required by law. This is according to the recent request of the agency’s budget, which will allow the compensation Council to hire 17 employees in its appellate department.

“Without additional staff (the compensation council) will not remain unable to fulfill its legal obligations, leaving the victims of crimes waiting in the limb to decide whether they will receive services they desperately need,” the Council for compensation in the January request wrote.

In a statement to Calmatters, the compensation Council said it did not comment on the budget proposed and “wants to clarify that the victims of crime are our focus every day.”

The statement continued: “(The Compensation Council) is committed to providing financial assistance to the victims of crime to help them restore their lives.”

The Compensation Council relies on a written record

Delanie Green, a clinical leader at the UC Berkeley policy advocacy clinic, said it was not clear whether the increase in staff would help survivors easily access better resources.

“In general, access to victim compensation is very, very difficult,” she said. “I hope this begins to signal some changes that reproduce the needs of the survivors.”

Jonathan Raven of the California Association of District Attorneys said it was worrying to hear that survivors had a challenging time to work with the compensation council.

The agency “will have to comply – and this is the important thing – to comply with the law that serves best for our victims,” ​​he said.

Previously, the compensation Council was supported by a regulation “which allows the greater part of the appeal of the written record”, as request. But all this changed in August 2024, when the judge of the Supreme Court of the Alameda County Frank Roche found that the regulation was “contrary to the Statute and thus invalid.”

The decision ended approximately a three -year court battle. In 2021, mothers against the murder, a non -profit organization, which advocated victims of crimes and their families, filed a case against the compensation Council, claiming that “he resisted and doubled, continuing to refuse his right to the right to the hearing.”

“They use this regulation to make themselves easier,” she said in an interview with Calmatters. “This is such a dumb abuse of power.”

“They miss the whole story”

According to the court reports in the Mothers against the Murder, Marihalar was one of the first people to be refused a personal hearing.

On September 30, 2012, her son, junior Marihalar and friend, arrived at a bar in San Jose. Shortly thereafter, according to court documents, two men provoked Marihalar and sparked him in battle.

Originally in mixed martial arts, Marihalar was “disciplined and trained to move away from a challenge to fight,” according to court documents. In an attempt to avoid men, he left the bar across the door, but the court documents said they were again confronted in the parking lot where he was fatally stabbed.

In February 2013, the Council of Compensation wrote that it denied the help of Ruby Marihalar, because “(her) son consciously and willing to come out of a bar with the intention of fighting a suspect, which led to the death of the son (hers).” His decision is based on the recommendation of the Silicon Valley Conference on Community and Justice, a non -profit organization that was agreed by the Compensation Council, according to the court documents.

“My son did not contribute to his murder,” Marihalar wrote in attracting the recommendation. “How a reasonable person can know that his life will be forcibly taken.

The compensation council again refused his application for compensation without offering her a hearing in person.

Without paying for her son’s funeral, Marihalar borrowed money from her family and friends and was forced to sell her motorcycle – one of the last remaining possessions she had from him.

“It broke my heart even more,” she said.

After his 28 -year -old death, Marihalar said she had received phone calls from people that Jr. had met while driving her motorcycle across the country. She described it as a great hero and a stand man.

“Sweet as a pie,” she said.

The compensation Council eventually canceled its refusal, but only after a prosecutor of Santa Clara district intervened and objected to his decision, according to the court documents. Later, the agency recovered Marihalar with $ 5,000 – only one -third of what she spent on the funeral.

Looking back to his two -year correspondence with the board, Marihalar said that the opportunity to appear for a hearing to a personal hearing would allow the agency to see what he was going through, not just reviewing the documents.

“The whole story is missing without taking the time to listen to the victims,” ​​she said.

While she views the court order as “long overdue”, she is careful that the compensation council should receive more money.

“Will they stick it in their pockets?” she said.

Kayla Mihalovic is California local news.