The Brief

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has allocated $2.7 billion in response to the L.A. wildfires, but some survivors say the agency’s support has fallen short of expectations.

According to an LAist analysis of FEMA data, the agency has covered a smaller portion of damage costs in response to the L.A. fires than was seen at this point after other recent natural disasters.

Assistance to eligible survivors has covered an average of about 7% of the damage costs FEMA assessed to their properties so far, less than one third of the proportion covered after the California fires in 2017 or 2018, or the 2023 Hawaii fires.

Eligible survivors of the L.A. fires have gotten an average of around $4,100 in direct FEMA assistance so far — average damage costs assessed by the agency are over $55,000 for those same survivors.

Experts who spoke to LAist cautioned against comparing disasters, but the complicated application process for receiving FEMA assistance has slowed the response here and frustrated some L.A. residents who are trying to decide whether to rebuild or relocate, often requiring them to make multiple appeals after claims that were denied for procedural reasons.

When Furmencio Quiroz’s Altadena home was destroyed in the Eaton Fire, he expected FEMA to help with some of the rebuilding costs not covered by his family’s insurance. After six months and multiple appeals of his application, Quiroz says he thinks the rebuilding process has gone slower than government officials promised.

" It feels like time is flying, and we're nowhere," Quiroz told LAist.

Rebuilding the family home

Quiroz grew up in the Altadena house before living there with his wife and six children, together with his parents and his brother’s family.

Then the Eaton Fire destroyed everything, Quiroz said.

"At first you're like, wow, like you can't even process it." Quiroz said about losing his family’s home. "Then you just start thinking about every little memory you had."

He said his father is a retired construction worker, and while they had insurance on the house they had never filed a claim until the fire. His father would always take care of any repairs himself.

But the insurance they had wasn’t nearly enough to cover the costs of rebuilding, Quiroz said.

After initially receiving a few thousand dollars from FEMA for essential items and temporary housing, Quiroz said his family applied for help with rebuilding costs.

According to FEMA policy, survivors who apply through the Individuals and Households Program (IHP) can receive up to $43,600 for housing assistance and another $43,600 to go toward other needs like child care, medical expenses, transportation or replacing damaged personal property.

Quiroz thought he would be eligible for housing assistance, but FEMA denied his family’s application. He said FEMA told him he was not eligible because he had already received an insurance payment.

"I've appealed the case about three times, because we're underinsured," Quiroz said. Even getting the maximum insurance payment under his policy still covered less than half of the expected rebuilding costs, he added.

FEMA can not duplicate benefits from insurance or other programs that are provided to applicants for the same purpose, according to federal law, but FEMA updated its policy in 2024 to expand eligibility for survivors whose insurance did not cover the cost of damages to their homes or property.

Quiroz said that on top of the costs of rebuilding he also has to find a permanent place where his family can afford to stay while making mortgage payments on the house that burned down.

In the meantime, he has been commuting from an Airbnb in Pomona to his job as a mechanic in Downey. He said he can’t seem to get straightforward answers about FEMA’s process or why he was denied assistance.

He's been going to a disaster recovery center in Altadena and calling FEMA, but he said he has gotten "a different answer every time" he has asked for clarification.

FEMA representatives did not respond to LAist's request for comment.

Navigating a bureaucratic "labyrinth" 

To get assistance, disaster survivors like Quiroz often have to navigate a complicated process that is fragmented across many agencies and programs, according to Chris Currie, director of homeland security and justice at the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, a non-partisan federal watchdog agency that examines how federal funds are spent.

"None of those programs were ever really designed to work together in concert, which makes for a very frustrating recovery process for survivors," Currie told LAist.

The GAO reports to congress and federal agencies, and keeps a list of programs across the federal government that they assess to be high risk, or most in need of reform.

Delivery of federal disaster assistance was recently added to that list, joining issues like federal oversight of food safety and contract management at the Department of Defense.

"I don't think anyone at FEMA tried to design these programs to be difficult and time consuming," Currie said. But rules put in place over the years to avoid fraud and abuse have inadvertently created a complex "labyrinth" for survivors to navigate, he added.

The GAO has pointed to the need to simplify the process for years, but Currie said that hasn’t translated to system-wide progress that's needed.

The Trump administration created the FEMA Review Council in January, and Currie is optimistic this could spark more significant reform.

"I think everyone is waiting for the results of this FEMA Council to come out, to provide the framework and the instructions on what specifically is gonna change," Currie said.

President Donald Trump threatened to "phase out" the agency last month, but the administration’s stance toward the agency has since softened, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem telling NBC News on Sunday that the president now wants to see the agency "remade."

FEMA’s response to other recent disasters

LAist analyzed public data to see how FEMA’s response to the L.A. wildfires compares with other natural disasters in recent years and found some notable differences.

According to monthly FEMA reports and estimates of total damage costs, overall financial support allocated by the agency in response to the fires has covered a much smaller portion of damage costs than seen six months after hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024.

Currie said there could be a number of reasons for differences in FEMA funding provided after natural disasters, like the types or concentration of damage.

"The scale of the destruction in Helene dwarfs [the L.A. fires], but the concentration of damage in L.A. was horrific. " Currie said. "So the cost you're going to see just to deploy across a massive geographic region in Helene is gonna be way, way higher than L.A."

The largest amount of money from FEMA goes to state and local governments in what the agency calls public assistance for things like repairing public buildings and debris cleanup, Currie told LAist.

Currie said debris cleanup is a key first step toward recovery, and that FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and leaders at state and local levels worked very quickly to clear debris compared to other large-scale natural disasters.

LAist also looked into differences in direct assistance to individuals and found that so far FEMA has covered a much smaller portion of assessed damage costs after the L.A. fires than were covered after the 2024 hurricanes, though the agency assessed that damage costs for L.A. fire survivors were higher.

This gap affects survivors like Quiroz who believe they should be eligible for more assistance and have experienced denial letters or process delays.

Currie told LAist that applications are often denied by FEMA initially for technical reasons, but they may still be eligible when they have completed more of the process.

"It can just be a very long, difficult process that requires a lot of back and forth between a survivor and FEMA or other government agencies," Currie said.

Quiroz, who has missed work from his job and is currently waiting to hear back from FEMA, said his family still plans on rebuilding but isn’t counting on more support from the agency.

"We had hope . . that they were gonna help us out," Quiroz said, "but it seems like it's not gonna be that way."

Long term recovery

Local agencies and organizations have been working to cover some of the gap in support left after insurance and FEMA assistance.

Jorge Anaya, an emergency management coordinator at the L.A. County Office of Emergency Management, told LAist that the county previously provided assistance to disaster victims of up to $18,000 through the Household Relief Grant program and has kept a comprehensive list of other existing resources for residents.

 "As we approach long-term recovery, there is existing aid," Anaya said, "However, it starts becoming a whole-of-community response, not just a whole-of-government response."

He said the county has partnered with the L.A. Region Community Recovery Organization, or LARCRO, to help people get continued assistance.

"It’s important for us to recognize that FEMA is in no way meant to make people whole with their funding," said Jenni Campbell, the executive director of LARCRO. "The community is responsible for recovery in the long term."

LARCRO is a nonprofit that was organized after the Woolsey Fire in 2018. Campbell said they work closely with FEMA and lead the recovery arm of Emergency Network Los Angeles, or ENLA, which includes other nonprofits involved in disaster response like American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and 211 LA County.

She told LAist that direct assistance from FEMA is just one part of what FEMA refers to as "the sequence of delivery," which also includes insurance, loans from the Small Business Administration and long term recovery groups.

LARCRO and ENLA have been organizing long term recovery groups to support the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena areas, bringing together nonprofit organizations, disaster case managers and community leaders to support survivors who won’t be able to recover on their own.

Those groups will soon start holding weekly meetings, but Campbell said community organizations like hers have been involved in supporting survivors since the beginning of the recovery process.

Quiroz told LAist he has gotten support from local churches to help buy food and from 211 LA County, which provided his family with Airbnbs like the one they're staying in now.

Campbell said LARCRO has connected with more than 5,000 people affected by the fires to coordinate disaster case management, and that disaster victims can learn more on their website.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.