AB 1100 amends California Government Code section 13957.5 to change how the Victim Compensation Board (VCB) calculates and documents loss of income and loss of support claims. The bill enlarges the set of evidence the board must accept when wage records are thin or absent, adjusts eligibility tests for both victims and derivative claimants, and clarifies several calculation rules (including a minimum-wage proxy for lost earnings).
Practically, the measure increases the maximum total payable to derivative victims per crime, creates explicit rules for human trafficking victims and minors, and conditions the section’s operation on the availability of General Fund money and a backfill appropriation to the Restitution Fund. The changes matter to victim advocates, county programs, and the VCB because they lower documentary barriers for applicants while expanding the program’s fiscal exposure and administrative workload.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill rewrites parts of §13957.5 to (1) require the VCB to accept a broad list of corroborating income evidence beyond formal pay stubs, (2) set specific eligibility tests and time limits for loss‑of‑income and loss‑of‑support awards, and (3) raise the aggregate cap on payments to all derivative victims of a single crime.
Who It Affects
Direct and derivative victims applying to the VCB, victim service and human trafficking programs that supply corroborating evidence, the VCB’s claims processors, and California’s Restitution Fund/General Fund because of increased payment potential and verification duties.
Why It Matters
By lowering documentary barriers, the bill widens access for under‑documented victims (informal workers, trafficking survivors, minors) but shifts more fiscal and operational risk to state funds and the VCB’s administration. Practitioners should expect new verification workflows and tighter coordination with social‑service databases.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendment reorganizes and clarifies when and how the Victim Compensation Board may pay for loss of income and loss of support. For primary victims, the board can pay for income loss directly caused by the crime for up to five years after the offense, unless the victim is left disabled as defined in federal law, in which case longer payments are permitted.
For derivative claimants—parents, spouses, legal guardians, and other family members who suffer income loss because of the crime—the bill distinguishes short‑term hospital‑presence pay and bereavement‑related pay, with specific day limits depending on the claimant’s relationship to the victim.
The amendment adds a discrete set of rules for victims of deprivation of liberty under Penal Code §236.1 (human trafficking): the board may value the deprivation using California’s labor standards (hours up to 40/week) and may rely on non‑traditional evidence when official employment documentation is unavailable; payments under that trafficking provision are capped at $10,000 per year for a maximum of two years, and payments to minors are held until they reach 18. For minors injured in a crime, the bill also creates a narrowly confined future‑loss option calculated at 35 hours per week at the minimum wage in effect at the time of the crime for up to one year.Eligibility is clarified: an otherwise eligible adult victim or derivative claimant must be employed or receiving earned‑income benefits at the time of the crime, or have worked at least two weeks in the prior 12 months, or have earned at least $1,320 in either the tax year of the crime or the preceding tax year, or have had a job offer they could not start because of the crime.
When the claimant cannot document wages, the bill requires the VCB to accept a range of corroborating evidence—employer statements, bank deposit patterns, pay stubs or copies of checks, job offer letters, tax records, enrollment records from programs such as CalFresh and CalWORKs, EDD records, and other vendor verifications approved by the board.Finally, the amendment raises the aggregate ceiling that the board may pay to all derivative victims of a single crime and makes the section operative only if multiyear General Fund moneys are available and the Restitution Fund is backfilled by appropriation. That creates a statutory gate: the rules exist on the books but only take effect if the Legislature and Administration provide ongoing funding support.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill raises the total amount payable to all derivative victims of one crime from $70,000 to $170,000.
The VCB must adopt guidelines by July 1, 2025 to accept alternative income evidence, explicitly listing employer statements, bank deposit patterns, pay stubs/check copies, job offer letters, income tax records, EDD records, and CalFresh/CalWORKs/CHIP/enrollment verifications as acceptable corroboration.
For human trafficking (Pen. Code §236.1) the board may value deprivation‑of‑liberty losses using California wage law up to 40 hours/week and may award up to $10,000 per year for up to two years; if the claimant is a minor, payment is distributed when they turn 18.
General loss‑of‑income awards are limited to five years after the crime unless the victim becomes disabled under 42 U.S.C. §416(i); for under‑18 victims, future disability‑related earnings loss is capped at one year of 35 hours/week at the minimum wage in effect at the time of the crime.
The section becomes operative July 1, 2024 only if multiyear General Fund moneys are available to support ongoing augmentations and an appropriation backfills the Restitution Fund.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Primary victim loss‑of‑income: five‑year limit and disability exception
This subsection lets the board pay for a victim’s lost earnings directly caused by the crime, but caps payments at five years after the offense. The bill preserves an exception where the victim is disabled as that term is defined in federal law (42 U.S.C. §416(i)); in that case the five‑year ceiling does not apply. Practically, claims examiners must track the date of crime vs. award years and obtain sufficient medical or SSA‑standard disability documentation to justify payments beyond five years.
Adult derivative victims: hospital presence and bereavement payments
These clauses create two short‑term loss‑of‑income paths for adult derivatives. One covers an adult derivative who must be present at the hospital for treatment or the victim’s psychological well‑being; the bill caps reimbursement for that hospital‑presence income loss at the value of up to 30 days of wages. The other governs loss of income after a victim’s death and differentiates between close relatives (spouse, parent, household member, or legal guardian) who can receive up to 30 calendar days of pay and other derivative claimants who can receive up to 7 days within 90 days of death. The rules require a treating physician’s written certification for hospital presence and limit the payment window tightly, which concentrates payouts into an immediate bereavement/hospitalization period.
Loss of support for dependents: duration and age limit
This provision authorizes payments to persons who were legally dependent on the victim at the time of the crime for lost support. An adult dependent may receive loss‑of‑support payments for up to five years after the crime; payments for minor dependents stop when the child turns 18. The subsection effectively constrains long‑term dependency awards to a maximum five‑year window while protecting minors only until majority.
Human trafficking / deprivation of liberty: valuation and paperwork flexibility
When the qualifying crime is deprivation of liberty under Penal Code §236.1, the board may calculate compensation using the value of the victim’s labor under California law for the hours worked (up to 40 hours per week). The bill directs the board to accept non‑traditional corroboration if formal employment records are unavailable and caps compensation under this trafficking provision at $10,000 per year for a maximum of two years. For minors, the bill requires payment to be distributed when the minor turns 18, which affects timing and trust‑like handling of funds.
Minor future‑loss, eligibility thresholds, and wage calculation
The amendment creates a narrowly tailored future‑loss option for victims who were minors at the time of the crime: up to one year of lost future earnings calculated at 35 hours per week at the minimum wage in effect when the crime occurred. It also codifies claimant eligibility tests: to qualify for income loss the claimant must have been employed or receiving earned‑income benefits at the time of the crime, or must have worked at least two weeks in the prior 12 months, or must have earned at least $1,320 in the applicable tax year, or must have had a job offer they could not begin due to the crime. For calculation, loss is ordinarily the greater of actual loss or wages equal to 35 hours/week at the applicable minimum wage, except that under‑18 victims’ loss is based on actual loss.
Aggregate cap and funding/operative condition
The bill raises the total aggregate cap payable to all derivative victims from $70,000 to $170,000 per crime. It also conditions the section’s operation on a fiscal test: the provision takes effect only if multiyear General Fund moneys are available beginning in 2024–25 and if an appropriation is made to backfill the Restitution Fund. That creates a dependency on budgetary action before expanded benefits become payable.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Underdocumented victims (informal, gig, or cash‑paid workers): the expanded list of acceptable corroborating evidence (bank deposits, program enrollment, employer statements, tax records) lowers the documentation barrier and increases successful claim potential.
- Human‑trafficking survivors: the trafficking clause lets the board value unpaid labor under California wage standards, provides a dedicated cap structure, and allows nontraditional corroboration—practical relief where formal employment records are absent.
- Minor victims and their families: minors gain a defined future‑loss option (35 hrs/week at minimum wage for up to one year) and minors’ trafficking payments are preserved for distribution at age 18, protecting long‑term financial interests.
- Derivative claimants (parents, spouses, guardians): higher aggregate per‑crime limits and explicit short‑term hospital/death benefits expand the financial relief available to family members who lose income because of the crime.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Restitution Fund and General Fund: the increased per‑crime derivative cap and broader eligibility increase potential payouts, putting pressure on the Restitution Fund and requiring a legislative backfill or ongoing appropriations.
- Victim Compensation Board (VCB): the board must adopt new guidelines, process a wider range of corroborating materials, and build verification workflows for social‑service databases and vendor attestations, increasing administrative burden.
- Employers and verification vendors: employers may receive more requests for statements and job‑offer confirmations; private vendors contracted for employment verification may see expanded reliance and demand.
- County and social‑service agencies (CalFresh, CalWORKs, EDD): these agencies and their data systems could see more formal requests to verify enrollment or earnings information, requiring interagency coordination and potential resource strain.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is access versus integrity: the bill lowers documentary barriers so victims without formal pay records can receive compensation, but doing so increases fiscal exposure and makes program integrity and verification substantially harder—forcing policy makers to choose between broader immediate access and stricter safeguards that limit payments.
The bill intentionally widens the universe of acceptable income evidence to reach claimants who lack standard paperwork, but that approach forces two difficult trade‑offs. First, accepting bank deposits, enrollment records, and vendor verifications increases the program’s vulnerability to false claims and places heavier investigative demands on the VCB; staff must now evaluate qualitative corroboration rather than relying primarily on payroll documentation.
Second, the higher per‑crime payout cap for derivative victims and multiple new payment categories (hospital presence, bereavement, trafficking valuation, minor future loss) expand fiscal exposure at a time when the section’s operation itself is conditioned on the availability of multiyear General Fund moneys and a Restitution Fund backfill. That makes the statute simultaneously more generous on paper and more contingent in practice.
The statutory text also contains drafting and sequencing oddities that create implementation work: cross‑references to paragraph numbers were rewritten and left with duplicated or misnumbered parentheses, the bill references a guideline adoption date of July 1, 2025 but earlier text (left in the source) still cites a 2020 deadline, and several calculation references alternate between "actual loss" and a minimum‑wage proxy. Those inconsistencies will force the VCB to interpret legislative intent in rulemaking or invite legal challenges that could delay benefits.
Finally, expanding acceptable corroboration shifts the site of verification from employers to social programs and vendors, which raises privacy and data‑sharing questions that the bill does not address (no standards for consent, redaction, or verification accuracy are provided).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.