The Brief

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California’s community colleges have been battling fraudulent students for years, trying to prevent scammers from stealing financial aid money.

Recent data shows the colleges’ efforts finally may be working.

Last spring, CalMatters reported that colleges were seeing unprecedented reports of fraud, with scammers stealing millions more dollars of student aid than in any previous period, according to reports submitted by colleges to California’s Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

Now fewer scammers are bypassing colleges’ vetting systems, according to monthly reports, and school administrators say they’re better, though still not perfect, at detecting and preventing fraud.

After CalMatters reported on the rise in fraud last year, Republican U.S. Congress members called for a federal investigation, a Democratic state legislator launched a state audit and later, California’s Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office approved a new ID verification policy for students. Colleges now are more vigilant about policing fraud, said Jory Hadsell, an executive in technology initiatives for the chancellor’s office, who pointed to better filtering practices and new software to detect fraud.

Between January and March 2025, scammers stole nearly $5.6 million in federal student aid and over $900,000 in state aid. By comparison, this spring colleges have reported losing just under $1.5 million in federal student aid and about $330,000 in state aid to fraudsters.

Last spring was “really the peak,” Hadsell said. He said he anticipates the end-of-year total in 2026 to be “significantly lower” than last year.

Even in the worst months, such as last spring, the money distributed to scammers is less than 1% of the total financial aid distributed to community college students in California. Students use the money to help pay for tuition, books and the cost of daily living expenses, such as rent, transportation and food.

But any fraud, however small, is unacceptable, said Chris Ferguson, executive vice chancellor of finance and strategic initiatives. “The ultimate goal for our system is zero.”

Some anti-fraud policies have been slow to take effect. The California Community Colleges Board of Governors voted nearly a year ago to require ID verification for all students, but only about 50% of college students are doing it as of this month. Hadsell said the delays arose in part because of complications verifying information of students under 18 years old, who represent a growing demographic for the community colleges. He said ID verification, which is currently optional, will become mandatory on July 1.

The board also voted to “explore” the option of charging students an application fee of no more than $10, but with the rates of fraud declining and other solutions that seem to work, the chancellor’s office is no longer pursuing that option, Ferguson said.

After blaming California officials, the U.S. Department of Education, which shares responsibility for administering federal aid and detecting fraud, said it would implement a “screening process” for applicants. It was supposed to take effect last fall but didn’t launch until last month, according to press releases from the department and statements from the California Student Aid Commission. CalMatters reached out to the U.S. Education Department five times over the last 12 months, seeking clarification, but the department has refused to respond to questions about delays with the screening process.

When more than a third of college applicants are fake

After classes suddenly moved online during the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office saw an increase in financial aid fraud on their application portal, CCCApply, which is used by nearly every student as the first step in applying to community college.

In 2021, the chancellor’s office suspected roughly 20% of applicants were fraudulent.

The estimate was higher in January 2024, around 25%. Last spring, it was 34%, though some schools saw much higher rates.

After they apply through CCCApply, students get filtered locally at their college of choice. In the Los Rios Community College District, which represents Sacramento, college officials suspected 64% of local applications from January to March 2025 were fraudulent. And that was after the state already vetted them through its portal, said Gabe Ross, a spokesperson for the district. The San Diego and Los Angeles community college districts also reported spikes in the number of fraudulent applications around the same time.

CalMatters reached out to the five largest community college districts for an interview. The Rancho Santiago Community College District, which includes parts of Orange County, did not provide sufficient data to draw conclusions about trends in fraud. The State Center Community College District, which represents schools in Fresno and Madera counties, did not respond to CalMatters’ questions.

Monthly data reports to the chancellor’s office show that once detected, most scammers who applied to community colleges were then caught and kicked out before they could apply for financial aid, but some succeeded.

This year, both Sacramento and San Diego community colleges say they’re seeing fewer attempts at fraud and are getting better at stopping those who try. The San Diego Community College District is now manually screening for fraudulent applications twice a week and is finalizing a contract with a company to help improve its detection software.

CCCApply has improved its filtering process, which helped reduce fraud attempts at Sacramento area colleges, said Ross. “When we talked about such a complex dynamic challenge, it's always hard to identify what's the one thing that sort of moved the needle. The truth is that we needed support from the feds, we needed support from the (chancellor’s) office, and we needed to invest in tools locally.”

This spring, he said the district flagged about 12% of college applications as suspect.

Using AI to detect AI 

Measuring fraud is, by definition, imprecise. If a scammer is truly successful, colleges have no way to identify that fraud.

For a long time, administrators assumed bots enrolling in online classes were responsible for most fraudulent attempts. Yet teachers, students and financial aid administrators say some of the scams are more sophisticated now and are coming from real people impersonating students. Many fraudulent applications to Los Angeles’ community colleges have real names, dates of birth, and addresses that are likely “leaked or stolen,” said Nicole Albo-Lopez, the deputy chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District.

In San Diego, Victor DeVore, dean of student services, said the college district only requires ID verification for students flagged as fraudulent. At that point they must prove their identity, either in person or through Zoom. Once, a potentially fraudulent student appeared on Zoom and presented a valid-looking ID that matched their face, but DeVore’s team noticed that the student’s IP address was odd. “One minute they’re logging in from Nairobi, the next minute they'll be logging in from Virginia,” he said, adding that the use of AI, virtual private networks (VPNs) or other technology has made fraud harder to detect.

Students’ personal data is supposed to be private, but school districts and education technology companies are frequently hacked. Last week, Canvas — one of the go-to learning platforms for California’s community colleges, University of California and California State University campuses — went offline temporarily due to a major hack. Its parent company, Instructure, said last week that it reached an agreement with the hackers to relinquish students’ data.

The state has turned to AI to fight fraud. Last summer, the state chancellor’s office negotiated a multimillion dollar contract with N2N Services Inc., enabling any college in the state to access the company’s software at a discounted rate. The software uses AI to detect potentially fraudulent applicants. Colleges are not required to use it, and so far, only about two-thirds do. Some districts, such as the Los Angeles Community College District, use a different fraud detection software, known as Socure.

Colleges and the state chancellor’s office continue to face political pressure and scrutiny of their approach to fraud. Last month, the U.S. Education Department said it had prevented more than $171 million in fraud in California after implementing a new policy regarding ID verification. Hadsell, with the state chancellor’s office, said the federal policy had no impact on California’s colleges. “They issued some interim guidance last year that basically said you should at least have a Zoom call with students and have them show an ID when you're approving their aid. And those were things that were already happening. It was not, you know, some new thing at least for most of our colleges.”

Kiran Kodithala, the CEO of N2N, which collects its own data on fraud at community colleges, said the education department’s claim makes no sense.

“I don’t see how $171 million in fraud in California can occur,” he said. “There’s no basis for those numbers. We’re not seeing anything remotely close.” Kodithala estimates that N2N has prevented over $34 million in fraud since last summer, though his platform is not yet in use by all of California's 116 community colleges.

Collecting more precise data may take months or years. U.S. Representative Young Kim, who represents parts of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, launched the effort for a federal investigation last spring, but her office could not provide any updates or confirm that an investigation was in fact underway. At the state level, the Legislature last year approved conducting an audit of how California’s community colleges handled fraud but the findings won’t be released until this summer.

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

Landlords in Los Angeles County will soon be allowed to raise rents by more than 10% from their baseline before the January 2025 fires.

A vote by the county’s Board of Supervisors that could have extended a ban on post-fire price gouging for another month failed on Tuesday. Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis voted in favor, but Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained.

As a result, the long-standing countywide prohibition on rent gouging will expire May 29. The milestone comes more than 16 months after the L.A. County fires destroyed thousands of homes and plunged families into a hectic rental market.

Arguments for and against keeping post-fire rent limits

In her motion to keep the rules in place through June 27, Horvath argued the ban should be preserved because about two-thirds of fire survivors are still in temporary housing.

Horvath wrote that many families “have run out of financial displacement coverage from their insurance companies, which reinforces the need to continue price gouging restrictions, to protect these homeowners from drastic price increases.”

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Horvath said she was "deeply disappointed" that most of her colleagues abstained from the vote.

"We continue hearing from residents who are struggling to recover financially and stay housed as they rebuild," she said.

Landlord groups have been pushing county leaders for months to end the rent gouging ban. During public comment in Tuesday’s meeting, Jesus Rojas with the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles said the rules have long outlived the post-fire emergency.

“They are wrongfully being used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the entire county,” Rojas said. “This must stop, and it must stop now.”

How the rules have worked so far 

In March, the county ended post-fire price gouging restrictions on hotels, because survey data found that few displaced families were still staying in temporary motel rooms. Horvath argued the rent-gouging ban should be continued until the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs could deliver further data on resident displacement and the rental market.

The rules have banned landlords from raising rents by more than 10% from advertised pre-fire levels. They also prohibited rents exceeding 200% of fair market value, as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on previously unlisted properties.

Tenant advocates found thousands of likely violations

Following the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires, prosecutors filed a handful of misdemeanor charges against landlords and real estate agents accused of violating the price gouging rules.

In the days after the fires, LAist spoke with one agent who encouraged her client to raise the rent on a Bel Air home nearly 86% from a previous 2024 listing.

The agent, Fiora Aston with Compass, said at the time, “I've never seen anything like this. People are desperate. There’s so many families without a house.”

The listing was later taken down. But tenant advocates with a group called The Rent Brigade started compiling data on other listings that appeared to violate price-gouging laws. By January 2026, the group reported finding 18,360 listings featuring likely violations.

Homelessness has decreased in Orange County, according to data released this week from the county’s point in time count conducted in January.

The numbers are down 13.5% compared to 2024, when the last point in time count took place, according to Doug Becht, director of Orange County’s Office of Care Coordination. The office leads the county's efforts to address homelessness. In total, 6,321 people were counted as living outdoors, in vehicles or in shelters across the county.

During the last count in 2024, there was a spike of around 28% in the number of unhoused people, with around 7,300 people experiencing homelessness at the time.

The latest data was shared on Monday during a press briefing.

What the results show

 Becht said there was a 37% decrease in veterans experiencing homelessness as well as a 20% decrease in young people aged between 18 and 24 experiencing homelessness.

The latest point in time results also show that family homelessness has decreased.

In contrast, older adults in the county are experiencing higher rates of housing challenges. The number of seniors experiencing homelessness increased 1.5% compared to the last count, Becht said.

Southern cities in the county saw the largest decrease in homelessness while the central region 15.5% reduction. Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest and Mission Viejo all saw drops in people experiencing homelessness. In north Orange County, homelessness decreased by about 7.5%.

Becht said the survey also revealed that the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness — defined as an extended period or several episodes of homelessness — is rising within the county’s shelter system but decreasing on the streets.

He attributed that “to the ongoing housing shortage” that is causing people to stay in shelters longer. Around 3,200 of the county’s total unhoused population live in shelters, according to the data.

And when people stay in shelters longer, there’s not enough beds available for those who are on the streets, he said.

Over 50% of the people surveyed said they were experiencing homelessness because of financial reasons like losing a job and the lack of affordable housing options.

Why the count matters

The point in time count — a census mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to take place during the last 10 days of January — secures federal funding toward addressing homelessness. State and county officials use those funds to assess what programs and services are needed on the ground.

Point in time counts are widely viewed as undercounts by experts and don’t capture the full scope of homelessness — volunteers helping with the count can easily miss people, for example.

Becht said the count helps county staff engage with people experiencing homelessness. Once they have a person on the radar, it allows outreach teams to go back out and try to get them off the streets and into temporary housing.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Californians would have to take a four-hour course with live-fire training to buy a gun if a bill advancing through the Legislature gets signed into law.

Senate Bill 948, by Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín, also would require gun owners moving to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms within 180 days of their arrival. Beginning in 2028, obtaining that certificate would require completing the training.

It’s the latest effort by California Democrats to add more restrictions on firearm ownership in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. However, it’s hardly certain the bill will become law. A similar measure died in the Legislature last year.

This year’s proposal advanced from the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday on a party-line vote with Republicans opposed. Committee members offered no comment on the measure and did not take any public testimony, which is typical for that committee.

But in March, when an earlier version of the bill would have required eight hours of training, Arreguín told the Senate Public Safety Committee the proposed training requirements would reduce gun violence and prevent accidental shootings.

“Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm-related incidents, especially those involving children,” he said. “By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe.”

Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the Brady Campaign, told the committee there were more than 69,000 shootings resulting in death or requiring urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Around one in three of those shootings were accidental, she said. Many involved children.

Gun rights advocates said the bill would be challenged in court if it becomes law.

Adam Wilson of Gun Owners of California called the proposed requirements “an insurmountable barrier to exercising a constitutional right.”

Clay Kimberling, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said that’s especially true for the estimated 115,000 gun owners who move to California each year.

“Whether they move into the state on a new job, a new military assignment, or family obligations such as helping a sick or elderly family member, lawful firearm owners would now have to search out an instructor, pay for the class … and take eight hours out of their day … for simply wanting to continue to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a new state,” Kimberling said.

That original version of the bill also would have required new California arrivals to register firearms and take the course within 60 days.

Will the bill make it to Newsom?

Under current law, Californians are required to pass a written test and pay $25 to obtain a five-year firearm safety certificate to purchase a gun, but no formal training course is required.

Licensed hunters are required to take a mandatory hunting-safety course and aren’t required to get a certificate when buying rifles or shotguns. Also exempt are those who’ve obtained a concealed weapons permit, which is issued after 16 hours of mandatory training that includes live-fire at a gun range.

Those exemptions would still apply.

For everyone else, the proposed four hours of training would include coursework on state and federal gun laws, secure firearm storage, safe handling, the dangers of guns, use-of-force laws, how to sell firearms legally and conflict resolution. The live-fire portion of the course would need to last at least an hour.

Second Amendment groups say paying a Department of Justice-certified firearms instructor would add at least $400 to the cost of buying a firearm. Applicants also would have to pay for ammunition, gun rentals and range fees. Fees and firearms taxes already can add more than $100 to the cost of a firearm in California.

The training requirements would take effect July 1, 2028.

Until then, beginning on Jan. 1, gun owners moving to the state would be required to pass the current written test and register their firearms with the Department of Justice within 180 days.

Violating the proposed law would be a misdemeanor.

The bill now moves to the full Senate. It will then have to advance through the Assembly by this summer if Gov. Gavin Newsom is to sign it. He hasn’t taken a position on the legislation.

Last year, a bill with eight-hour training requirements died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

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