The Brief

Few college students participate in the state’s CalFresh food program despite being eligible, according to a report published Tuesday by the University of California’s California Policy Lab.

The report, “Filling the Gap: CalFresh Eligibility Among University of California and California Community College Students,” is the first to link together datasets that provide estimates on the number of California college students who are eligible for CalFresh, the state’s food benefits program, in addition to their take-up rate — the share of students who are eligible and also participate in the program.

The report’s authors found that CalFresh eligibility and students’ subsequent enrollment in the program depended significantly on which institution of higher learning they attended, age, housing situation, and other factors. The school they were enrolled in was often connected to the level of outreach they received informing them of the food benefits program and whether they received a certain financial aid grant that made them eligible for CalFresh.

“California in the last few years has been increasingly focused on this channel of potential support for college students. It’s one of the pieces that students can paste together to put together a financial package that allows them to go to college,” said Jesse Rothstein, report co-author, about the CalFresh program.

CalFresh, once known as food stamps, is designed to provide money for groceries for California residents, making it a significant support program for low-income students. College students are typically eligible for CalFresh if they meet the regular rules that everyone, whether a student or not, must meet, in addition to at least one of more than a dozen exemptions. Understanding the long list of eligibility criteria specific to students has long been seen as a significant barrier for students, according to the report.

“But because CalFresh is run by a different agency — it’s not part of the education system — I think it’s hard for students to navigate,” said Rothstein, Carmel P. Friesen Professor of Public Policy and Economics at UC Berkeley and the faculty director of the California Policy Lab’s UC Berkeley site.

The data for the report was collected by the UC’s California Policy Lab from four institutions: California Community College Chancellor’s Office, University of California Office of the President, California Department of Social Services and California Student Aid Commission.

In gathering data from these four agencies, the authors developed a database connecting college enrollment numbers, monthly CalFresh participation records, and annual federal financial aid (FAFSA) details.

The data points to differences in eligibility and take-up rates between students in the California community colleges and the UC campuses as well as which students actually enroll to receive the benefits if they are eligible.

Data from the fall of 2019, the semester immediately prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, provides one of the clearest examples. During that time, the data showed a significant discrepancy between students who were eligible for CalFresh versus those who applied to receive the food aid — and further disparities depending on whether students were enrolled in a community college or a UC.

They found that 19% of community college students, 31% of UC undergraduates and 6% of UC graduate students were likely eligible for CalFresh. Yet just 30% of eligible community college students, 22% of eligible UC undergraduates, and 29% of eligible UC graduate students actually enrolled to receive CalFresh benefits.

The authors suggest a few reasons for the discrepancies.

First, UC students are less likely to live at home with their parents, increasing their chances of being eligible for CalFresh.

Second, students in the community colleges are overall less likely to be eligible for CalFresh. This is because “the version of the Cal Grant given to UC students qualifies many of them for CalFresh eligibility, but the version given to CCC students does not,” per the report’s authors.

And, finally, the UC has increased outreach efforts to enroll more eligible students into basic needs programs like CalFresh. This would explain, the authors wrote, why the take-up rate among UC undergraduates has increased substantially since 2017, while the same rate among community college students has declined.

The authors note that they can only provide data estimates in the report because the multiple eligibility determination factors may be captured inaccurately, although errors were likely insignificant and “our estimates are a good approximation of the share of students who would be found eligible under individualized determinations.”

A deeper look into data from the fall of 2019 highlights important details, including:

• The Central Coast’s UC Santa Barbara had the third-highest eligibility rate at 36% but the highest take-up rate at 37%
• Of the community college regions statewide, the Central Valley had both the highest eligibility rate at 23% and the highest take-up rate at 38%, while the Bay Area had the lowest eligibility rate at 12% and the lowest take-up rate at 22%
• Black and Latino students were more likely to be eligible than white or Asian peers regardless of the institution attended
• When it came to actually enrolling in CalFresh, Black and Latino students were more likely to do so if attending a UC, but Latino students were less likely to enroll in the program if attending a community college
• Students over the age of 23 had higher take-up rates than those 23 years and younger at both institutions

Some of those details were expected given the history of outreach out of certain institutions. Santa Barbara County and UC Santa Barbara, for example, have long worked toward smoothing out the process for students to both determine their CalFresh eligibility and to apply for the program.

Other details, such as the low take-up rates in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, highlight the potential need for additional outreach in regions with increasingly high housing and cost of living expenses. Among community college students in Los Angeles, just 4% of the population were both eligible and participating in CalFresh during the fall of 2019. That number is 3% during the same timeframe in the Bay Area.

The development of a new dataset

The report included data from millions of students who attended UC and community college campuses between the 2010-11 and 2021-22 school years. While the report’s authors were largely focused on the most recent data, they included previous years’ data that was consistent across the four agencies they had data sharing agreements with — and this happened to take them as far back as the 2010-11 school year.

The bulk of the project took about four years to complete, according to Rothstein, who noted that this project took “longer than most” he’s worked on in his career. The team first needed to execute data sharing agreements between each of the institutions included in the report and then clean it up to ensure accuracy.

“It’s really beyond the ability of the individual agencies to do this kind of project,” said Rothstein.“It just takes too long and requires too much collaboration between agencies.”

Notably missing from the institutions that shared their data was California State University, which is the nation’s largest four-year public university system.

The CSU “was more reluctant” to share their data, said Rothstein, and his team decided to move forward without that system’s information. He noted that his team plans to work on another edition of the report in which they hope to be able to include CSU data.

“Our hope is that by kind of developing long-term relationships with the agencies we can build the trust that’s required to do this kind of project,” said Rothstein. “We can also build the kind of specialized knowledge of the individual data sets that makes it possible.”

Shifting control of L.A. city homelessness spending away from the agency long entrusted with it to a department in city government could take a year and a half, city officials said Wednesday.

Bringing that spending in house was one of several options discussed by city councilmembers during a meeting of their housing and homelessness committee. Another option they’re considering is having the money be managed by the county, which started setting up a homelessness department about a year ago.

The city directs roughly $300 million per year to the L.A. Homeless Services Authority. L.A. County supervisors voted last April to withdraw funding for the agency, citing ongoing problems with the agency's oversight of homelessness funds. Now 10 months later, city officials are debating what to do with the troubled agency.

Just after Wednesday’s discussion ended, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ office released a statement urging the council not to withdraw funding from LAHSA without a plan in place.

“Withdrawing from LAHSA too quickly, without a plan and without the capacity, will no doubt cause unintended consequences that will leave more Angelenos to die on our streets,” Bass said in her statement. “What we need is a serious, thoughtful transition plan — the last thing we need is a new department and more bureaucracy.”

What’s on the table?

A staff report presented to the homelessness committee last April included several paths forward. Those options are:

• not changing anything major
• keeping the city money at LAHSA but beefing up city oversight
• shifting the funding from LAHSA to direct city control
• shifting the city’s funding from LAHSA to the county homelessness department to administer it

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who sits on the council’s housing and homelessness committee, said he’d be open to having the county handle the city’s homelessness spending if the county doesn’t charge the city for overhead costs.

 ”If they're doing that, then I might be willing to say, 'OK, let's give them some of our money.' … That's going help our programs and give us a more efficient route,” Blumenfield said. “We also need to get down to brass tacks and understand what it means financially.”

Currently, about 3.6% of the city’s spending through LAHSA goes to administration costs, according to LAHSA’s budget. That rate is 8% for the county’s funds at LAHSA, which will be pulled from the agency July 1 and shifted to the new county department.

Councilmember Tim McOsker said he was leaning toward working with the county on a limited number of programs, like interim housing.

City officials said they currently lack staff dedicated to advising them on homelessness policy and setting up the infrastructure to potentially take on direct oversight of the spending.

“There are no dedicated policy staff on homelessness in the city [government],” said John Wickham, a legislative analyst official at the city who presented the staff report of options to the committee Wednesday.

Additional accountability

The statement from Bass’ office encouraged the city council to develop a “thoughtful transition plan” before shifting funds away from LAHSA.

The statement touted a new Homelessness Bureau the city created for the budget that started last July to focus on “oversight, accountability and results” to the city’s homelessness spending.

But city officials noted at Wednesday’s committee meeting that no one has been hired yet at the bureau, nine months after the council approved its funding.

“We have not hired a single person for the bureau yet,” said committee chair Nithya Raman, who championed the bureau a year ago. “We need more capacity to be able to manage this work at the city and to make sure that every dollar is working well. We just do. We're not staffed to be able to handle that right now.”

Limited time for discussion

Wednesday’s discussion didn’t start until just before 4 p.m., following two hours of discourse on other items at the meeting and lasted about 45 minutes.

“It's getting very late,” Raman said around 3:45 p.m., before the committee began talking about the possible funding shift from LAHSA.

It’s been two years since Councilmember Monica Rodriguez introduced the item that was up for discussion Wednesday, with the staff report of options delivered almost a year ago. She told councilmembers Wednesday that they’ve been wasting precious time and need to be decisive.

 ”In the 316 days since this report was issued, we are finally here engaging in this conversation,” Rodriguez said. She recently criticized Raman, the committee’s chair, for not scheduling the discussion sooner.

“ No longer can we afford indecision in making decisive actions around how we change this system. We must act. We must act now,” she said.  ”We still have a broken and dysfunctional system without a singular entity directing our work around homelessness.”

Raman has said she plans to hold one more discussion — expected to be March 18 — before the committee decides next steps. From there, it will be up to the full city council to decide. The committee’s recommendations are influential, as the panel’s five members are one-third of the full council and most of what it would take to form a deciding majority on the council.

No written agreement

Officials also noted Wednesday that under their current approach, there’s no written agreement laying out what LAHSA and the city’s responsibilities are. They said one is in the works.

“What I've seen in my short period is that … if we didn't ink it, nobody could think it and then they get away with not doing the work,” said Councilmember Heather Hutt. “I think we need to be more intentional about identifying roles.”

LAHSA is in ‘crisis,’ CEO says

LAHSA was created by the city and county in 1993 to oversee homeless services. It’s governed by a CEO who reports to a commission of 10 members. Half of the members are appointed by the mayor and the other half by each of the five county supervisors. Bass also serves on the commission, having appointed herself in fall 2023.

While it’s long-faced criticism, it’s been under particularly close scrutiny for more than a year.

An audit and court-ordered review found it failed to properly track its spending and whether services were being provided.

LAHSA also has been facing criticism more recently for months-long delays in paying tens of millions of dollars to reimburse service providers — a problem officials vowed to fix nearly two years ago. Several providers recently told LAist they've had had to dip into reserves or take on debt.

While addressing the commission that oversees the organization last Friday, CEO Gita O’Neill said LAHSA was “in crisis. And I say this not as a criticism to any of our really hardworking staff. They've built what they were asked to build.”

O'Neill added of LAHSA staff that “morale is very low.”

More than a year-and-a-half after promising to provide up to 40 free carts to eligible street vendors, Long Beach hasn’t even made it halfway to that goal and now plans to cut funding for the program.

As of late February, Long Beach had supplied 11 free carts, with six more applicants waiting for final approvals. Health officials say this is because out of the 123 applicants, the vast majority haven’t completed all the steps necessary.

Long Beach originally allocated $429,500 for the free-cart program, but the City Council recently approved reducing that by $200,201, citing “low participation” and the need to balance a city budget that’s facing deficits.

Applications are still open for vendors seeking a free cart, but city officials are reviewing “the application process and overall program,” Health Department spokesperson Jennifer Ann Gonzalez wrote in an email.

Vendors, for their part, say the process was plagued by delays and complications.

Anita McCoy, who sells pastrami and hot dogs through her business Lucky Bee, said it took roughly eight months to receive a cart that was worth about $17,500. She was grateful but said it took countless emails and phone calls to the Health Department to finally get the finished product.

“I had to be diligent in my pursuit,” McCoy said.

De’Mon Tyndell, who runs The Quesadilla Calling, received his cart roughly a year after applying.

At one point, after months of email exchanges and “doing applications on applications,” Tyndell told city staff, “I don’t even want to do this anymore.”

Although he has the cart, Tyndell said he doesn’t use it for his various pop-ups throughout the week because the roughly 800-pound mobile kitchen is not “user friendly” to transport.

De’Mon Tyndell says the free cart he received from the city hasn’t been practical to use.

(

Thomas R. Cordova.

/

Long Beach Post

)

Moving it requires a trailer with a winch because the cart’s built-in wheels are too small for it to be towed around, Tyndell said.

As a result, the cart has been sitting in storage for the past six months while he uses a flattop grill and tables he can easily load in his van.

The free cart program was aimed at small-time entrepreneurs who needed help complying with new rules the city drafted on street vending. To qualify, applicants needed to live in Long Beach, have no more than two full-time employees and operate only one cart. If approved, they could receive one of four types: fruit carts, grilled food carts, tamale carts and ice cream carts.

But many people trying to run a low-margin business don’t have time for a complicated application process.

For McCoy, selling pastramis and hot dogs from a corner in North Long Beach is just one of her side businesses. That means she doesn’t have to be out every day to bring in enough cash to sustain her operation. That flexibility gave her the time to pursue the free cart with a sense of urgency.

“I was begging them [to give me a cart] because I knew the program was going to be cut,” McCoy said.

Meanwhile, since early last year, the city has begun penalizing street vendors who don’t comply with its rules.

Health Department officials say it’s a necessary step to prevent food-borne illness caused by vendors who haven’t gone through a health inspection.

From early last year through Feb. 23, city staff seized and discarded food from 72 vendors and issued 103 administrative citations against vendors without an active business license. In 71 cases, they’ve also impounded street vendors’ equipment.

Penalties for the citations range from $100 to $500, depending on how many times a vendor has been cited.

Enforcement is carried out based on complaints. The Health Department says its staff first tries to educate vendors on how to comply, then they issue a notice of violation and finally an administrative citation. If vendors don’t heed that citation, a team responds to discard food and impound equipment.

Starting in 2022, California banned cities from outlawing street vendors altogether, but municipalities are still allowed to regulate when, where and how they can sell for health and safety reasons.

Since Long Beach adopted its rules, the city has received 358 applications from vendors seeking a business license to operate legally. As of Feb. 23, the city has granted just 55 (15.4%).

Rather than risk being cited, Tyndell limits his selling to pop-ups at farmers markets, outside bars and various events around the city where he can more easily get permits. Recently, he got a spot selling inside Good Times Billiards — a pool hall in Lakewood — and hopes to add a second location inside another pool hall on Broadway in Alamitos Beach.

That business is awaiting city approval, but Tyndell said he aims to open by the end of the month. There, he says, he’ll finally use his free cart to serve up gourmet quesadillas.

A Vietnam War memorial that became a symbol of government corruption was torn down Wednesday in Fountain Valley.

Former Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do had awarded $1 million in taxpayer dollars for the memorial in 2023 — to a nonprofit where his daughter, Rhiannon Do, was an officer.

The project was never completed.

When LAist visited the memorial last year, it was unfinished and cracked. And an architect who visited the site with LAist estimated that the monument cost a fraction of the taxpayer money awarded to build it.

Do is currently serving a five-year prison sentence in Arizona after admitting to directing money to several nonprofit groups and businesses that then funneled some of that money back to himself and family members for personal gain. LAist has been investigating the alleged corruption since 2023.

Do was also ordered to pay $878,230.80 in restitution for his role in the bribery scheme that saw millions in taxpayer dollars diverted from feeding needy seniors, leading authorities to label him a “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who now represents Do’s former district, which includes the memorial site, said it would have been too expensive to repair or relocate it.

“Let’s restart and do it right,” she said at the time.

Go deeper ...

Here's a look at some of LAist's coverage of one of the biggest corruption scandals in Orange County history:

LAist investigates: Andrew Do corruption scandal
Ex-Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do is ordered to pay $878,230.80 in restitution
'Robin Hood in reverse.' O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do resigns and will plead guilty to bribery conspiracy charge
Former OC Supervisor Andrew Do turns himself in, begins 5-year federal prison term
6 questions we still have after disgraced former OC Supervisor Andrew Do’s sentencing
A quiet retreat for the judge married to disgraced OC politician Andrew Do

How to watchdog your local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention. Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The Orange County Board of Supervisors meets on alternating Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. at 400 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana. You can check out the O.C. Board of Supervisors full calendar here.
• Learn how to submit a public comment to the O.C. Board of Supervisors.

Low-polling Democratic candidates for governor of California struck a defiant tone Tuesday in the face of mounting pressure from party leaders to drop out before a key deadline this week.

With nine major Democrats still vying for the state’s top job, party insiders have fretted for weeks about a splintered primary vote that could result in the two leading Republicans — commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — finishing first and second in the June 2 primary and ensuring a GOP victor in November.

In an open letter to campaigns published Tuesday, California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks called that scenario implausible but “not impossible” and urged Democratic candidates to make an honest assessment of their chances before Friday — the deadline to file and officially appear on the ballot in June.

“If you do not have a viable path to make it to the general election, do not file to place your name on the ballot for the primary election,” Hicks wrote.

But candidates who have been mired in single digits for months, including state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee, showed no immediate signs of heading toward the exits.

At the Alameda County Registrar of Voters office in Oakland, Yee filed the paperwork to officially place her name on the ballot.

“When I was signing the declaration of candidacy, my hands were shaking because I just thought about my mother, who is 102, and how within a generation she’s able to see her daughter do this,” Yee told KQED. “We’re undergoing a process of constant assessment, and every time we do that, we just see that this is still a wide-open race.”

Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, accused the state party of “essentially telling every candidate of color in the race for governor to drop out.”

“Aren’t we supposed to be the party who embraces democracy — a party of, by and for the people?” Thurmond said in a video posted to social media. “Well, the establishment might not be, but our campaign is, and that’s why we’re in this race to win it.”

Hicks did not call on any specific candidates to leave the race but asked those who continue their campaigns beyond this week to “be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate on or before April 15 if your campaign cannot show meaningful progress toward winning the primary election in the coming weeks.”

The chair’s plea comes weeks after Democratic delegates failed to agree on an endorsement at the state party convention in San Francisco.

Since then, polling in the race has been largely static, with investor Tom Steyer (who has spent tens of millions of dollars on television ads) being the only Democrat to see significant traction in recent surveys.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Rep. Katie Porter and Steyer were the top polling Democrats in polls released last month by Emerson College and the Public Policy Institute of California.

Below that trio is a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls that includes Thurmond and Yee, along with former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Assemblymember Ian Calderon.

Meanwhile, Hilton and Bianco have faced little competition for the Republican primary vote.

Jon Slavet, a GOP tech entrepreneur who was polling at around 1%, suspended his campaign Tuesday.

“The last few months have been a gift,” said Slavet, in a video posted on social media. “It’s also shown me that building a winning coalition, brick by brick, will take time.”

With Slavet out of the field, a primary election simulator created by Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., put the chances of a Republican vs. Republican general election at roughly 25%.

In his letter, Hicks said a Bianco-Hilton general election would not only upend Democratic leadership of state government but also depress Democratic turnout in the California congressional districts the party is hoping to flip in November.

“The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our Nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025,” Hicks wrote. “We simply can’t let that happen.”