The Brief

How many employees at the California State University system were accused of some kind of unwanted sexual conduct in recent years?

Surprisingly, it’s a question no one can answer with confidence even as Cal State, the nation’s largest four-year public university, grapples with the fallout from numerous high-profile cases of sexual harassment and abuse.

A key takeaway from two hard-hitting sets of reports released late last month is that the 23-campus system collects insufficient data.

In one of the reports, the California State Auditor wrote that Cal State lacks “meaningful analysis” to “identify and respond to concerning trends.” The auditor’s report, which was requested by state lawmakers, found that the data on the number of unwanted sexual conduct reports — such as sexual harassment, misconduct, stalking, assault and violence — filed against employees is “unreliable.”

Cozen O’Connor, a law firm the Cal State Chancellor’s Office hired last year to publish more than two dozen reports, wrote that “the current process for collecting data does not result in consistent, reliable data across the system.”

The two sets of reports revealed a huge discrepancy in how many Cal State employees at the 23 campuses were accused of some kind of improper sexual conduct — 1,246 across five years according to the audit and 452 in four academic years according to Cozen.

The reasons for the discrepancy range from imprecise data collection to the addition of new categories of unwanted sexual conduct in the most recent year. Both sets of reports also state campuses don’t use the same software to track improper sexual conduct and don’t log cases the same way.

Buying better software and training more staff to track these reports of unwanted conduct are some of the reasons Cal State estimates it’ll spend $25 million in 2024-25 and unknown sums going forward to adopt all the reports’ recommendations.

“We agree with and will implement the recommendations provided in the audit report, as well as those identified in the Cozen assessment,” wrote Jolene Koester, Cal State’s interim chancellor, to the state auditor.

The importance of good data

Collecting good data is a common watchword of victims’ advocates. Both sets of reports make clear why students and staff will be safer if campuses have a more accurate count of sexual harassment, misconduct, violence, stalking and assault cases.

Complaints against employees can lead to investigations, which may result in additional training, a reprimand or disciplinary action all the way to dismissal for those found to have violated Cal State policy.

But the campuses lack “a sufficient understanding of the volume” of sexual and gender-based harassment and violence, the Cozen systemwide report said. Nor can campuses spot trends in specific locations or academic programs, or even whether a single individual is the source of multiple complaints, the Cozen and audit reports noted.

Cozen added that “because the CSU is not tracking data across campuses, an employee who engages in conduct of concern at one CSU university can often seek employment at another CSU without the new university being aware of the misconduct.”

In multiple cases, the auditor’s report flagged issues with campuses that determined employees didn’t violate Cal State policy on unwanted sexual conduct. The auditor’s office wrote that it found “deficiencies that caused us to question the investigative determination about sexual harassment.”

Across U.S. higher education, sexual harassment and assault are rampant. According to a 2019 survey of 33 universities, including three in California, more than 40% of all students reported experiencing a form of sexual harassment since entering college, such as “inappropriate or offensive comments” about their bodies or sexual activities. A quarter of undergraduate women said they were victims of “nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force.”

Competing numbers and data problems

There are multiple reasons why the two sets of numbers of how many employees were accused of unwanted sexual conduct — 1,246 and 452 — are so different.

The first thing to know is that, according to Cozen and the state auditor, neither of their numbers is reliable. But they’re unreliable for different and overlapping reasons, ranging from the types of unwanted sexual conduct Cal State counted to which Cal State documents Cozen and the auditor relied on to finalize their tallies.

One major reason the auditor’s count of 1,246 reports filed against employees is much higher than Cozen’s is because it included more types of unwanted sexual conduct over a longer period of time — 2018 to 2022.

Cozen based its numbers on the official reports campuses submitted to the Cal State’s Chancellor’s Office between 2018-19 and 2021-22. Campuses included the number of reports filed against employees that were limited to several types of unwanted sexual conduct — assault, stalking, misconduct and dating or domestic violence — for the first three academic years in the data set.

Then, in 2021-22, the chancellor’s office began asking campuses for instances of reports against employees — and students — that included two more categories: “sexual exploitation” — a term that refers to sexual coercion, prostitution or recording sexual activity without consent — and a narrower definition of sexual harassment. That narrower definition includes “unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” and offering favors in exchange for sexual acts.

The Cozen reports published the same numbers that campuses sent to the chancellor’s office. But campuses also maintained physical and digital files on many other types of reports filed against employees that weren’t reflected in the tallies sent to the chancellor’s office — and by extension — weren’t reflected in Cozen’s figures.

The auditor’s office took a different approach. It reviewed all those physical and digital files and identified cases that alleged sexual assault, stalking, violence, exploitation, sexual harassment, and other unwelcome sexual conduct. It did this for five calendar years.

That’s how the auditor got to a much higher count than the Cozen reports — it just did the additional work of reviewing the raw data.

But even the auditor’s review of digital and physical files didn’t paint the full picture. In some cases, multiple complaints filed against an employee were counted as a single report. Other times, multiple complaints against a single employee were counted as multiple reports. Some campuses had incomplete case files, which may have affected the precision of the auditor’s counts.

“Because of these inconsistencies, we found the data to be unreliable for our purposes,” the auditor wrote.

Importantly, the Cozen and auditor reports had different goals. For example, lawmakers specifically asked the auditor to count how many employees were accused of unwanted sexual conduct. By design, the Cozen reports focused on how Cal State addresses discrimination, harassment, and retaliation according to its own policies and federal rules, wrote the lawyers who shepherded the project, Leslie Gomez and Gina Maisto Smith, in a detailed email response to CalMatters. Cozen produced roughly 1,600 pages of analysis and recommendations for all 23 campuses and the system in the reports, “an arduous task,” Gomez and Smith wrote.

The latest data from the Cal State campuses also shows how the number of reports against employees can jump when the system tracks more unwanted sexual conduct. Since 2021-22 was the first year that the chancellor’s office sought data from campuses about sexual harassment and exploitation — not just violence, stalking and assault — the number increased in Cozen’s set of reports.

That year there were 255 reports against employees, according to a CalMatters review of Cozen data for all 23 campuses. The year before, Cozen counted 56 reports and about 70 each in 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Cozen’s much higher count for 2021-22 is also similar to the auditor’s counts for the 2021 and 2022 calendar years — 193 and 285 reports alleging unwanted sexual conduct by employees, respectively.

“I think it obviously shows the need for the school to have been collecting this data all along,” said Shiwali Patel, who leads policy and litigation on gender-based harassment at the Washington D.C.-based National Women’s Law Center.

More reports of mistreatment likely

The Biden administration is expected to finalize changes to the federal law governing not just unwanted sexual conduct, but also gender-based discrimination. The predicted changes will expand the allegations colleges must respond to — which may increase the number of reports schools will eventually publish.

Gomez and Smith said that Cal State should compile annual reports that include all those data points.

The Biden rules will be the fifth major change since 2011 to federal rules about how colleges should handle violence and discrimination complaints on their campuses. The shifting rules amount to a legalistic whiplash for higher education that is also compounded by evolving state rules, including in California.

The Cozen report notes this constant change is taxing on schools, which must quickly adapt and hire or train more staff knowledgeable in the intricacies of discrimination and harassment prevention policies and enforcement.

In an official statement, Cal State said its count of complaints against employees included violence and assault — and not harassment or exploitation — because federal guidance in 2011 and 2013 emphasized those types of unwanted sexual conduct and not others.

Adding harassment and exploitation to the data collection in 2021-22 “was important to better understanding the frequency and nature of sexual harassment reports, and due to sexual exploitation being newly added to the CSU Nondiscrimination Policy,” wrote Amy Bentley-Smith, spokesperson for the Cal State Chancellor’s Office, in an email to CalMatters.

She provided other possible reasons for an increase in reports that year. One is that students and staff returned to campus as the pandemic subsided. Another is the set of high-profile cases of unwanted sexual conduct at Cal State that prompted more people to come forward with their own complaints.

If Cozen’s “recommendations are implemented with fidelity, we expect that campuses will have more effective practices and systems, and therefore, more reliable data,” wrote the Cozen lawyers to CalMatters.

But better data can only capture what’s reported.

At colleges and universities, “most incidents are not reported,” Patel said. And too often she hears of schools refusing to investigate a student’s or employee’s unwanted sexual conduct complaint. Or campuses might punish alleged victims because they violated school policy, such as drinking, disregarding the harassment or assault complaint.

A culture of intimidation may also prevent victims from filing complaints, especially if the alleged suspect holds considerable sway in a niche academic discipline. That’s according to Maha Ibrahim, a senior attorney who represents people alleging harassment, assault and gender-based discrimination at California-based Equal Opportunity Advocates.

If a student or employee is being abused by someone “who has power in that small space,” then the student or employee can lose their ability to complete their research, Ibrahim said. “We see that kind of reticence and under-reporting a lot.”

Paradoxically, Patel thinks “when we see more numbers reported, that’s actually a good sign,” because it shows more “victims feel comfortable coming forward.” It also means the school may take the steps to educate or discipline someone who’s harming students or staff, she added.

Both the Cozen and audit reports proposed dozens of recommendations, including better data collection. The auditor wrote that Cal State’s central office should collect and analyze unwanted sexual conduct reports from all campuses no later than July 2024. The point is to “identify any concerning patterns or trends, such as those involving repeat subjects, particular academic departments, or specific student or employee populations,” the auditor wrote.

But other data overhauls may take more time. The audit said Cal State should require every campus to use the same software to track unwanted sexual conduct and ensure all campuses are logging the cases the same way. The auditor states that should be done by July 2026.

A year after the deadly Los Angeles County fires, California’s property insurance market remains problematic; survivors are suing insurers over delayed or denied claims; and most of the state’s policyholders are likely to see their premiums rise.

Seven in 10 L.A. fire survivors have yet to return home, some in part because of insurance claim delays, according to a new survey released this week by Department of Angels, a nonprofit group that was formed after the fires.

The survey also found that 4 in 10 insurance policyholders have experienced insurability issues, such as huge premium increases and dropped coverage, although state law mandates a one-year moratorium on insurers canceling or not renewing customers’ policies after the governor declares a state of emergency. Those with homes that did not burn down but are still standing are especially likely to have seen big increases in their premiums, according to the survey of 2,443 adults from Nov. 18 to Dec. 2, 2025.

Insurance premiums for everyone, not just fire survivors, were already expected to rise under new rules by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. The commissioner, under pressure to improve availability of insurance in the state, last January implemented a plan that aims for quicker rate reviews and allows insurers to use catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs in setting their rates. The plan took effect just days before the L.A. fires.

Now the response to the fires could also lead to even higher insurance premiums across the board, said Amy Bach, executive director of consumer advocacy group United Policyholders.

“I advocate for disaster survivors, but also for the entire community of policyholders,” Bach said. “For every ‘Eliminate the List’ bill, for every improvement we make to prevent post-disaster trauma around under-insurance, there’s a cost.” She said such actions will have ramifications for both insurance affordability and availability.

“Eliminate the List,” which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law last year, requires insurance companies to pay 60% of personal property coverage limits, up to $350,000, to policyholders who experience a total loss without requiring them to submit a detailed inventory for at least 100 days.

Still, Bach knows that such mandates are necessary to improve survivors’ experiences after a fire, and lawmakers are introducing new bills to address their concerns. Her own group released a survey in November, reporting policyholder complaints that included insurer communication delays, claims payment delays and being assigned multiple claims adjusters.

The Department of Angels survey found that customers of State Farm and the last-resort FAIR Plan — the two largest insurers in California — were the most dissatisfied with their insurers’ response. California’s insurance department is investigating State Farm’s response to the fires, and has taken legal action against the FAIR Plan over its response as well, especially to smoke-damage claims. Those insurers, along with other companies, are also facing policyholder lawsuits.

“Our customer feedback reflects a different experience than what is being reported,” said Tom Hartmann, a State Farm spokesperson, in an email. “We’re supporting more than 13,500 customers affected by the wildfires, more than any other carrier, and have already paid over $5 billion to help them recover.”

Sam Strgacich, left, and his wife Rossana Valverde, right, examine soot damage at their home in Pasadena on April 26, 2025.

(

Joel Angel Juarez

/

CalMatters

)

“We’ve paid almost $200,000 out of pocket to repair our home because of the FAIR Plan’s blanket denials of our remediation,” said Angela Giacchetti, a spokesperson for the Department of Angels who worked on the survey. She’s also a fire survivor whose Altadena home did not burn down but was badly damaged.

“While we are unable to comment on individual policyholders' claims, the California FAIR Plan does not direct where policyholders reside,” said Hilary McLean, a spokesperson for the plan. “The FAIR Plan evaluates every claim on its own merits and pays all covered claims up to the individual policy limits.”

The FAIR Plan said in a press release this week that it has handled about 5,400 claims and paid almost $3.5 billion to policyholders. It also said it “has taken steps to enhance its ability to serve policyholders” by securing a line of credit and reinsurance, helped by a $750 million catastrophe bond made possible by a new law allowing the FAIR Plan to get bond financing through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association says insurance companies have paid $22.4 billion of the expected $40 billion in total claims from the L.A. fires.

The Department of Angels survey also found 79% of survivors are facing financial hardships, with more Black, Asian and Latino survivors falling behind on their rent or mortgage payments. In addition, 40% of those surveyed said they were very dissatisfied with the local, state and federal response to their needs.

Newsom said Tuesday that he is working with state lawmakers, the banking industry and others on new loans for rebuilding, and that the state will expand eligibility for the CalAssist Mortgage Fund. The governor’s office did not respond to CalMatters’ questions about whether he plans to propose any aid for renters who survived the fires, and about what else he is doing to continue to press the federal government for long-term disaster funding.

“This report says exactly what we’ve been hearing,” said Michael Soller, spokesperson for the insurance department. “Wildfire survivors want action and they want results.” He said the issues in the survey are top priorities for the department, and among other things pointed to a task force on smoke damage that the department has convened.

A bill sponsored by Lara and introduced by newly appointed Senate Insurance Committee Chair Steve Padilla, the Democrat from San Diego, late Tuesday would require insurance companies to submit to the state their disaster-recovery plans related to handling claims; double penalties for violations of fair claims practices during an emergency; expand upfront claims payments; give policyholders status updates within five days whenever their adjuster is replaced; and more.

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

By the end of January, students will have returned to two of the three public school campuses burned in the Palisades Fire one year prior, though their classrooms are temporary.

Palisades Charter High School students are scheduled to return to their campus Jan. 27. They’ve been in a refurbished Santa Monica department store since April.

“ I am just overwhelmed with gratitude for the constant support that has been shown for our school and for our families, our teachers, all of our administrators and staff,” said Principal Pamela Magee at a press conference Tuesday with Los Angeles Unified leaders. Pali High is an independent charter high school located on district property.

In June, the LAUSD Board approved a $604 million plan to rebuild the high school, as well as two burned district elementary schools— Marquez and Palisades.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the three campuses’ new buildings will open in 2028— shaving two years off of the original 5-year timeline.

“ These projects will come in on time or ahead of schedule,” Carvalho said. “These projects will come in at or below budget, and these projects will honor the resilience, the determination, the courage and yes, the suffering and the sacrifice of the community of the Palisades.”

About the costs and the design

The district plans to use money from the $9 billion bond voters approved in 2024 to help pay for the rebuild, but also anticipates some reimbursement from its insurer and FEMA.

District-contracted architects are finalizing their designs and plan to submit to the state for approval in the spring, said Chief Facilities Executive Krisztina Tokes. She said the plan is to rebuild with future environmental risks in mind.

“ From the earliest design stages, wildfire resiliency has been treated as a core requirement and not an add-on,” Tokes said. For example, using fire-resistant concrete blocks, installing enhanced air filtration systems and planting shade trees where they won’t hang over buildings.

Environmental testing preceded students’ return to the fire-impacted campuses. Director of the Office of Environmental Health and Safety Carlos Torres said the district continues to monitor air quality through its network of sensors and is developing a plan for periodic testing.

“We just can't just walk away,” Torres said.

Enrollment is down at all three schools compared to before the fires, but district leaders say they are confident families will return to the rebuilt campuses.

“I find it hard to believe that this community won't come back to its former glory,” said Board Member Nick Melvoin, who represents the Palisades. “We gave a lot of thought in an accelerated timeline to rebuilding for the next century.”

Marquez Charter Elementary

What’s the damage? The campus is a “total loss.” More than three dozen classrooms, administration buildings, the school’s auditorium and playground burned down.

How much has LAUSD budgeted to rebuild? $202.6 million

Where are the students? Students returned in September to portables covering about one-third of the campus. There’s also two playgrounds, a garden, library and shaded lunch area. Enrollment has dropped 60% compared to before the fire from 310 to 127 students.

What’s next? District-contracted architects are finalizing their designs and plan to submit to the state for approval in the spring.

Palisades Charter Elementary School teacher Ms. Davison talks with her students in their new classroom on the campus of Brentwood Elementary Science Magnet last year.

(

Brian van der Brug

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Palisades Charter Elementary

What’s the damage? About 70% of the campus was destroyed including 17 classrooms, the multipurpose room and play equipment.

How much has LAUSD budgeted to rebuild? $135 million

Where are the students? Students continue to share a campus with Brentwood Science Magnet. Enrollment has dropped 25% compared to before the fire from 410 to 307 students.

What’s next? District-contracted architects are finalizing their designs and plan to submit to the state for approval in the spring.

Palisades Charter High School, pictured in December 2025, is scheduled to reopen to students Jan. 27, 2026.

(

Kayla Bartkowski

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Palisades Charter High School

What’s the damage? About 30% of the campus was destroyed including 21 classrooms, storage facilities and the track and field.

How much has LAUSD budgeted to rebuild? $266 million

Where are the students? Students started the school year in a renovated Sears building in downtown Santa Monica. Enrollment has dropped 14% compared to before the fire, from 2,900 to 2,500 students.

What’s next? Classes will resume at the main campus Tues. Jan. 27 in a combination of surviving buildings and 30 new portable classrooms.

The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

The state’s Democrat governor, Tim Walz — who ran for vice president against Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024 — announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it’s a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were “seeking to take advantage of the crisis.”

On Monday, the New York Post reported that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited “concerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,” The Post reported.

Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president’s fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

“For too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

“Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office disputed Trump’s claim on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested “criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.”

Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime — and one LAist has investigated, leading to one of the largest such criminal cases in recent years against a California elected official, which surrounded meal funds.

When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program’s spending in California.

A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

That case, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

Potential impact on California families

The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

 ”It's very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,” said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives "at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

 ”It is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,” she added. “It would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.”

About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County — about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

“Any pause in funding for their cash benefits – which average $1000/month - would be devastating to these families,” said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations “very seriously.”

It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials say they’ve had success with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

“These threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,” said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

“Funding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating — resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.”

Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven’t gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

“The California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children — so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,” said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

“These funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.”

LAist Senior Reporter Elly Yu contributed to this report.