Mariana Dale
explores and explains the forces that shape how and what kids learn from kindergarten to high school.
Published December 16, 2024 5:00 AM
What is the LAUSD school board and how do I put them to work for me?
(
Olivia Hughes
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Voters elected two new Los Angeles Unified board members and returned two incumbents to their seats in November. Now it’s time to hold them accountable.
Why it matters: More than 538,000 students attend traditional public and charter schools in Los Angeles Unified. The district is also the county’s second largest employer with more than 74,000 educators, administrators, and support staff on its payroll.
The board:
Hires, fires and evaluates the superintendent. While the school board sets policy, the superintendent manages day-to-day LAUSD operations. The current superintendent is Alberto Carvalho.
A recent decision: The board voted 5-2 in June to ban student cellphone and social media use during the school day amid rising concerns about the impact of the technologies on youth mental health. The new restrictions take effect in February.
More than 400,000 students attend traditional public and charter schools in Los Angeles Unified, the second-largest district in the nation. LAUSD runs the schools in several other cities in L.A. County, too, such as West Hollywood and South Gate.
The district is also the county’s second largest employer with more than 83,000 educators, administrators, substitutes and support staff on its payroll.
LAUSD doesn't fit neatly into "city" or "county" categories. Although it's enshrined in the L.A. City Charter, LAUSD operates independently of City Hall. That's why you elect school board members directly. That also makes L.A. the largest city in the country in which the mayor has no direct control over the school board.
What can the school board do?
School board members have a lot of power. Among other things, school board members:
Hire, fire and evaluate the superintendent. While the school board sets policy, the superintendent manages day-to-day LAUSD operations. The board placed current superintendent Alberto Carvalho on paid administrative leave and appointed Andres Chait, a longtime administrator, acting superintendent in February.
Early learning and care: Every 4-year-old in California is now eligible for free pre-kindergarten classes, or transitional kindergarten (also known as TK).
Advocating for immigrant and LGBTQ+ students: In August, the school district announced a slew of additional protections for immigrant students, and had previously announced more protections for LGBTQ+ staff, and families of students, as a response to the policies of the second Trump administration.
School Game Plan
Enter your email to follow School Game Plan and learn how to navigate and get involved in your child’s education.
How much money do school board members make?
A committee appointed by local politicians sets the salary and benefits for LAUSD board members.
As of July 2025, LAUSD school board members receive:
$52,000 if they have another source of employment income.
$130,000 if they do not have another source of employment income.
These salaries increase 1% annually through July 2027.
Before 2017, the board’s pay was based on starting teacher salaries at the time, about $45,000 a year.
The Los Angeles Unified School District Board on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024.
(
Mariana Dale
/
LAist
)
When do I want to bring something to the board’s attention?
San Fernando Valley mom Roxann Nazario has spent years advocating for her children’s education and on behalf of others in the community.
She said the first person to talk to about your child’s education is their teacher, but if you don’t feel like your question or problem is being addressed, reach out to the principal and other school staff. Then try the regional superintendents — find your region here and the contact information for who’s in charge here.
“There's a chain of command and you have to work your way all the way up,” Nazario said.
To contact the board member who represents your local school or neighborhood (more on how to find them below), you’ll likely first speak to someone who works for their office.
While there’s no guarantee that a board member can or will solve the problem at your individual school, board members LAist has interviewed often pride themselves on listening to and intervening at the local level.
If your goal is to draw wider public attention to an issue — or success — at your child’s school, you might consider attending a board meeting.
The board also has several committees. These meetings are an opportunity to learn more about specific topics and weigh in on policy development, but major decisions must be voted on by the full board.
This includes all board members and often previews upcoming policy decisions
Don’t miss a meeting
You can sign up to have board meeting agendas and other district news emailed to you.
There is an opportunity to speak directly to the board, and whoever may be watching the meeting, during public comment.
Nazario suggests you watch the livestream of a meeting or attend one in person to familiarize yourself with the order of business.
Speakers must pre-register and can comment by phone or in person. They are generally limited to two minutes.
“Don't be afraid to be emotional,” Nazario said. “Don't be afraid to stumble over your words. Like that just shows that you're human and you're not scripted… . You're a real parent just giving your story.”
While board members typically don’t answer questions or respond in the moment, they can dispatch members of their staff to meet with you about your comment. Speaking publicly can also help connect you to other parents, educators and journalists who may report on what you’ve shared.
Hear it from a parent
This summer middle school parent Lyra Kilston read an LAist story about the possibility of a student cellphone ban in LAUSD.
“Phones and social media and mental health and all of that stuff is almost an obsessive topic for certain parents with kids this age,” Kilston said. ”I felt kind of galvanized by the fact that this was being discussed.”
For the first time, she signed up to speak during public comment to express her support for the ban.
“It kind of felt like most of the board members' minds had probably been made up before they came to that meeting,” Kilston said. “But it still felt valuable to be contributing to the conversation.”
Kilston said the experience also helped her better understand who leads the district.
“Seeing all of these people in the process of doing their job made it more real to me,” Kilston said.
Her message for other parents?
“ It was a lot easier than I would have thought to actually voice my opinion to the board.”
Who is on the school board?
Board members are elected to four-year terms (with a maximum of three full terms), and represent different geographical areas.
The board also streams its meetings online, and offers American Sign Language and Spanish interpretation.
Community members can also request interpretation in other languages by contacting the Board Secretariat at secretariat@lausd.net or (213) 241-7002.
Parking in downtown L.A. can be an adventure. We made a map, below, of district-sanctioned and unofficial lots in the area.
What challenges does the district face?
Balancing LAUSD’s budget: The board has adopted spending plans for the past two years that rely on billions of dollars in reserves to close the gap between expenses and revenue. School leaders say without change, the district could deplete its reserves within a few years. In February, a divided board approved the elimination of more than 650 jobs as part of a plan to cut spending. Decisions about more layoffs and school closures could be on the horizon.
Continuing academic improvement: LAUSD students have achieved notable gains on California's standardized math and reading tests in recent years. Scores rose above pre-pandemic levels in the 2024-2025 school year, outpacing state growth, but the reality remains the majority of students do not meet benchmark scores for any subject. Among the most vocal parents are those of students with disabilities, who say schools failed to meet their children’s needs during distance learning.
Shoring up enrollment: The district’s enrollment has declined for more than two decades. There are also fewer immigrant students attending L.A. schools in the wake of the Trump Administration’s widespread immigration arrests. California uses attendance to set school funding levels— over time fewer students means a smaller multiplier for state funding.
Mental health: In various surveys and reporting, many students say their mental health suffered far more than their transcripts during the pandemic, and schools have struggled to hire enough school counselors and social workers. The school board will have to figure out how to maintain and grow mental health support for students.
Green schools: The majority of LAUSD schools lack cool, shaded places for students to play and learn outdoors. The district has allocated tens of millions of dollars to cool campuses in recent years and estimates it could cost up to $3 billion and take decades, to reach its greening goals.
What if my child attends a charter school?
Charter School 101
Who’s in charge? An independent nonprofit organization with an un-elected board. Some charter schools are affiliated with public districts.
Who funds them? Taxpayers. Charter schools are publicly funded.
Is there tuition? No.
What makes them different from regular public schools? Charter schools are exempt from many laws that govern public education.
The LAUSD board’s influence on charter schools varies and in many cases, charters have boards separate from the district.
Affiliated charter schools are those operated by the district and the LAUSD board’s decisions influence their operations in a similar way to a traditional public school.
Independent charter schools are run by a separate, nonprofit organization. And day-to-day operations are overseen by a separate board, often appointed by the school’s founders or nonprofit leaders.
They might decide on everything from curriculum to hiring and student discipline.
“ The district doesn't generally have any control over any of those local decisions, provided that those decisions are not unlawful or discriminatory,” said Ricardo Soto, chief advocacy officer and general counsel for the California Charter Schools Association.
Charter school operators oversee a much smaller staff and student body than many public school districts.
“It's much more accessible for parents or for guardians of children to attend those board meetings and to get involved," Soto said. “Charter schools are really dependent on their school communities for anything to happen.”
Find out who is on the board, when they meet and how to contact them on your school’s website or by asking your child’s teacher.
Jill Replogle
covers public corruption, debates over our voting system, culture war battles — and more.
Published April 28, 2026 12:30 AM
Protesters hold signs during an "ICE Out of OC" rally at Home Depot in Garden Grove on Aug. 19, 2025.
(
Allen J. Schaben
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Most Orange County residents favor offering undocumented residents a pathway to legal status rather than blanket deportation, according to a new poll from the University of California, Irvine School of Social Ecology. But that’s not true for a majority of Republicans (54%) who favor deportation, the poll found.
Some other major takeaways:
The majority of respondents agreed that violent criminals should automatically be deported, and that immigrants who are U.S. veterans should never be deported.
While 62% of respondents said they disapproved of President Trump’s handling of immigration issues, a smaller margin, 55% disapproved of his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Why it matters: Orange County is considered “purple” because the county’s two million voters are nearly evenly split, with one-third each registered as Republican or Democrat, and another third registered as No Party Preference or with a smaller political party.
“No matter which party you are, you have to find a way to appeal to independents,” said Jon Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology.
Read on… for more on what the poll found in Orange County.
Most Orange County residents favor offering undocumented residents a pathway to legal status rather than blanket deportation, according to a new poll from the University of California, Irvine School of Social Ecology. But that’s not true for a majority of Republicans (54%), who favor deportation, the poll found.
Jon Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology, said the poll demonstrates the stark difference in public opinion on immigration between Republicans on one side, and Democrats and independents on the other.
“ Majorities are very much in favor of immigration, paths to legal citizenship, and are hesitant to use the enforcement power too strongly," Gould said of the poll results. “It’s surprising in a purple county that we’re seeing both a strong majority one way, and a cleavage where one of the political parties [Republican] is off by itself compared to independents and Democrats.”
Orange County is considered “purple” because the county’s 2 million voters are nearly evenly split, with one-third each registered as Republican or Democrat, and another third registered as No Party Preference or with a smaller political party.
There was agreement across political parties on some issues, Gold said. The majority of respondents agreed that violent criminals should automatically be deported, and that immigrants who are U.S. veterans should never be deported.
UC Irvine School of Social Ecology polled 1,200 Orange County adults on immigration issues in March 2026.
(
Courtesy UC Irvine School of Social Ecology
/
LAist
)
Gould also said the poll of some 1,200 adults demonstrates the nuanced opinions that most residents have on the subject of immigration. For example, a majority of all respondents (61%) support limiting immigration from countries the government deems dangerous or unstable.
Results of the UC Irvine poll on immigration show agreement across party lines on some nuanced questions.
(
Courtesy: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology
/
LAist
)
Some other key takeaways:
While 62% of respondents said they disapproved of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration issues, a smaller margin, 55%, disapproved of his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
A majority said immigration fills essential low-wage jobs (76%) and enhances civic life (67%). A plurality also said immigration strains public services (48%).
Only small percentages of all respondents said they supported automatic deportation for immigrants convicted of non-violent crimes (23%), unemployed immigrants (16%), recent arrivals (11%), and non-English speakers (10%).
On the question of ICE, 73% of Republicans said they supported the agency’s actions, whereas 67% of Democrats and 40% of independents said the agency should be abolished.
Implications for the upcoming elections and immigration reform
Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement has taken a heavy toll in Orange County. Some families have lost breadwinners to deportation, while others have sought to limit their exposure by quitting jobs and staying indoors. Spending in the county decreased by about one-quarter of a percent immediately after enforcement ramped up last year, according to a separate UC Irvine study. That led to a $4.5 million decline in sales tax over an eight-week period, the study found.
Students protest ICE on Jan. 27, 2026 in front of Anaheim City Hall.
(
Jill Replogle
/
LAist
)
A growing number of cities, plus the county itself, have set aside funds to support immigrant residents with basic needs and legal services.
This support reflects what Gould called a “sea change” in public opinion since 1994, when two-thirds of Orange County voters cast ballots in favor of excluding undocumented immigrants from public education and other public services. That ballot initiative, Proposition 187, was ultimately found to be unconstitutional and never went into effect.
Gould said the majority of respondents’ positive views on immigration in the recent poll shows how much the county has changed. It’s also a reflection of the vast demographic shifts that have occurred in the county in recent decades as a result of immigration and refugee arrivals from countries like Vietnam.
Nearly 40% of residents polled said both of their parents were born in another country; 82% of Asians polled said both parents were born in another country.
Slightly more than one-third of respondents said they personally knew someone who is undocumented.
Gould thinks the results of the polling bode well for the prospects for immigration reform — despite decades of failure in Washington to strike a deal between Republicans and Democrats. The shift in public opinion might not lead to change in policy yet, Gould said, “but politicians generally follow where the wind’s blowing.”
“At a time where we're being led to believe that immigration pits people against one another, it's intractable, these battles will go on forever," he said. "I actually think what we're seeing in the data here is that there is a supermajority support for a number of policies on immigration. There is actually potentially a solution here.”
Cato Hernández
covers judicial races during election season.
Published April 27, 2026 5:05 PM
Judge Robert Draper
(
Cato Hernandez
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Draper, who is up for reelection in June, is facing accusations of violating ethics rules. A hearing began Monday with the state commission that oversees judicial complaints. The judge says some of the allegations are false, while some are true but missing context.
What are the allegations: Among the allegations, Draper is accused of making statements about race in court that weren’t pertinent to the case, and sending inappropriate photos to colleagues.
Why it matters: Superior Court judges oversee courtroom proceedings and trials across L.A. County. These cases cover everything having to do with state and local laws, including family law, such as child custody and divorces, landlord and tenant cases, and small claims.
Why now: Eleven candidates — of which Draper is one — are vying for your vote on June 2. You can learn more in our Voter Game Plan.
What's next: It's expected the hearing will continue for at least two weeks, but a decision may not come until after the election.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
By Isaiah Murtaugh and Christopher Damien | The LA Local
Published April 27, 2026 1:30 PM
Digital billboard on Market Street in Inglewood, part of a collaboration with Wow Media.
(
Isaiah Murtaugh
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.
The backstory: In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals.
Opposition to the initiative: WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability. CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.
Jacque Langston was driving down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood when he came face-to-face with an odd sight: sea creatures floating across one of the city’s new, spiraling digital billboards.
“Why am I looking at jellyfish? That has nothing to do with me,” said Langston, an Inglewood native. For Langston, the video billboards that have come to dominate stretches of Inglewood’s major roads are a square peg in a round hole.
“The city has never been touched like that,” Langston said. “Now you’ve got a mini-Vegas.”
A digital billboard is seen on La Cienega Blvd. at Florence Ave. in Inglewood on April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.
(
Dania Maxwell
/
The LA Local
)
Video billboards have proliferated in Inglewood in recent years, targeting the influx of people driving into the city for concerts and sporting events at SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum.
Last summer, though, they became a flashpoint for a series of lawsuits that revealed fractures in the once-close relationship between the city and its major entertainment venues. The various parties are now fighting over lucrative advertising territory as major international sporting events approach.
That legal drama — reported last week by The LA Local — also threatens to undo the contract that underpins SoFi Stadium’s financial relationship with the city.
Langston and other Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.
Meanwhile, the bright LED video screens have divided local opinion.
Vanessa Cowan, an Inglewood resident, said the gleaming screens are a sign of progress in the city. “I like them,” she said. “It has a different look.”
A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Avenue in Inglewood on April 18, in Los Angeles.
(
Dania Maxwell
/
The LA Local
)
Khnum Alexander, owner of Swank Men’s Fashion on Manchester, called the billboards “monstrosities” and said advertising on the screens is too expensive for small businesses like his. He also questioned the new, twisting screens that billboard company WOW Media has recently begun to install in groups of three across the city.
“Do we really need more?” he asked.
Down the street from Alexander’s menswear store, EZ Will Driving School owner Will McDaniel felt differently.
“I’m all for it,” McDaniel said. “People are afraid of change. Change to them feels awkward.”
If city leaders have their way, the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative won’t make it to voters this fall.
“What is packaged as an initiative by and for Inglewood residents appears to be a product of avaricious puppeteering by a billionaire developer,” lawyers retained by the city wrote in a March 4 court complaint filed in an attempt to block the initiative.
That developer, the city’s lawyers contend, was SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke. Attorneys later amended the complaint to include Intuit Dome owner Steve Ballmer.
“Voter suppression”
In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals.
“Public spaces belong to people, not billboard companies,” Roberts wrote, adding advertising should instead prioritize public safety messaging, such as emergency alerts, not advertising for profit.
“Inglewood should not be for sale to billboard companies for decades at a time — especially when such arrangements permanently alter the character of our beautiful city and erase the legacy of those who fought to preserve our neighborhoods,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts did not respond to a request for comment. When The LA Local reached out to her lawyer, a veteran campaign spokesperson responded.
John Shallman has been a consultant in Southern California politics for decades and formerly worked for the Clippers when they moved to the Intuit Dome.
He is now working with Roberts to get the anti-billboard initiative on the ballot; their website and campaign are called Inglewood Not for Sale.
He said he’s never seen a city sue one of its residents over an idea they’re attempting to put before voters.
“It’s voter suppression,” Shallman told The LA Local. “You can run a campaign against it, but trying to stop it from getting in front of citizens at all, that’s a big red flag. We’re all about voter empowerment. They’re the public’s streets, parks and medians. They control how they’re used and how they’re sold.”
Inglewood Mayor James Butts did not return a request for comment. The city’s lawyers argued in court filings that the initiative shouldn’t be allowed to go before voters because it would unconstitutionally restrict speech, lay out illegal zoning guidelines and hurt the city’s contract with WOW Media, the company that controls many of Inglewood’s billboards.
Shallman believes that the Inglewood City Council cut a bad deal in April 2025 with WOW Media when the city approved a 20-year contract, which can be extended for decades. “It’s sort of biblical in its length of time,” he said. “The city decided that the profit of one company is far more important than the residents who will have to live with these billboards.”
The campaign has already collected several thousand signatures, Shallman said.
Shallman dismissed the city’s accusations that the coalition he works with does not authentically represent Inglewood’s residents. Though Roberts’ name is on the initiative, the filing fee was paid for by Gerard McCallum II, a longtime associate of Hollywood Park.
Shallman said the initiative is raising money from all sorts of supporters, including those tied to the Rams and Clippers professional sports teams.
“You’re talking about an insignificant sum of money that pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that will be spent to sue this Inglewood resident,” Shallman said of the filing fee.
Inglewood’s November election could be packed
WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability.
CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.
“The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents. We trust the people of Inglewood to see the stadium owner billionaire’s scam for exactly what it is,” Krantz wrote.
Krantz and Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability are also backing a pair of initiatives that could have a big impact on stadiums’ bottom line: The initiatives seek to remove admissions tax caps for large venues and limit how much some parking lots can charge during major events.
Longtime Mayor Butts is also up for reelection in November, as are Councilmembers Gloria Gray and Alex Padilla and a few school board members.
Wherever the votes land, Inglewood’s rapid transformation doesn’t appear to be slowing down.
“Times are changing around here,” said Rick Todd, who sat at a table on Manchester Boulevard on Thursday, selling jugs of soursop tea. Up the street, a video billboard flicked between an Inglewood police recruitment poster and an ad for “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” “This goes along with it.”
A homeless encampment on first street across from city hall in downtown Los Angeles.
(
Chava Sanchez
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to help thousands of homeless Californians when he launched a new mental health court in 2023. So far, it has struggled to help the sickest, most vulnerable people, but a Southern California lawmaker is carrying two proposals this year that she hopes will fix gaps in the program.
About the bills: One bill would create a pathway for the most severely incapacitated people to go directly from Newsom’s voluntary mental health court into involuntary treatment in a hospital. The other would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer people to mental health court. Both bills recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite concerns from disability rights advocates that they would force more people into unwanted treatment.
The backstory: CARE Court launched in 2023 as a major piece of Newsom’s strategy to get people in the grip of psychosis off the streets. It allows family members of people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to refer them into the court-based program, where they can work with a judge, a public defender and a case worker on a plan for medication, therapy, housing, and whatever other help they may need. As of January, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. At its outset, the Newsom administration estimated between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would qualify for the program.
Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to help thousands of homeless Californians when he launched a new mental health court in 2023. So far, it has struggled to help the sickest, most vulnerable people, but a Southern California lawmaker is carrying two proposals this year that she hopes will fix gaps in the program.
Both bills reopen the debate among families and advocates over when it’s appropriate to put someone into mental health treatment without their consent.
One bill would create a pathway for the most severely incapacitated people to go directly from Newsom’s voluntary mental health court into involuntary treatment in a hospital. The other would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer people to mental health court. Both bills recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite concerns from disability rights advocates that they would force more people into unwanted treatment.
“While early implementation shows promise,” Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, said during a recent committee hearing, “barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve.”
CARE Court launched in 2023 as a major piece of Newsom’s strategy to get people in the grip of psychosis off the streets. It allows family members of people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to refer them into the court-based program, where they can work with a judge, a public defender and a case worker on a plan for medication, therapy, housing, and whatever other help they may need.
But a CalMatters investigation found the program is falling short of expectations. As of January, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. At its outset, the Newsom administration estimated between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would qualify for the program.
Some families who attempted to use CARE Court to help their severely ill loved ones told CalMatters they were disappointed by the results. They thought a judge could order their family members into treatment. But that turned out not to be the case. If someone is too sick to realize they need treatment, CARE Court can’t help, which means that their case can be dismissed while the person continues to languish on the street.
That’s the problem Blakespear is attempting to tackle with Senate Bill 1016. It would allow anyone filing a CARE Court petition to request that a judge order a mental health assessment to determine if the subject of the petition is “gravely disabled” or a danger to themselves or others – if the subject can’t comply with voluntary treatment.
Depending on the results of the assessment, a judge could order that person into a conservatorship, which would likely mean a stay in a locked psychiatric facility and mandatory medication.
The idea is to create a formal bridge between voluntary treatment under CARE Court and involuntary treatment through a conservatorship.
Adding the specter of forced care will make people with mental illness less likely to accept help from CARE Court, Samuel Jain of Disability Rights California said during the committee hearing.
“SB 1016 adds an expensive, coercive and convoluted layer to CARE Court that will drive up costs and further erode the rights and trust of the Californians that our system is supposed to help,” he said.
An unhoused person secures their belongings on a bicycle near a homeless camp in north Sacramento on Jan. 26, 2026. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters
Family 'frustrated' by CARE Court
Jennifer Farrell, who filed a CARE Court petition in late 2024 for her brother in Alameda County, sees it differently. Farrell’s 59-year-old brother, who struggles with schizophrenia and meth use, had been homeless off and on since 2017. He was able to stay housed via CARE Court for a few months, but then he left his placement in September and disappeared into the streets.
It was clear he needed more help than CARE Court could provide, but the program had no way to elevate him to a higher level of care, Farrell said.
“I was really frustrated at that point,” she told CalMatters.
Farrell’s brother spent three months deteriorating on the street before a case worker found him in December. He was hospitalized on a temporary psychiatric hold and eventually placed on a conservatorship. He’s still in a locked facility, where he’s medicated and seems to be doing much better, Farrell said.
To Farrell, it’s “absurd” that there isn’t already a direct link between CARE Court and a conservatorship — a connection that she thinks could have saved her family some grief.
At CARE Court’s inception, Newsom said people who didn’t follow their CARE plans could be moved into a conservatorship. But Farrell and other families CalMatters spoke with said if their loved one couldn’t consent to treatment, there was no clear path forward.
Technically, CARE Court judges can order participants to follow mandatory “CARE plans” — something that happened just 32 times between late 2023 and January — but judges can’t force participants to comply.
Easier CARE Court petitions
Blakespear’s other bill, SB 989, addresses another CARE Court challenge: the low number of people participating.
Filing a CARE Court petition is a complicated, time-consuming process. Whoever is filing the request needs the person’s medical records. Then, they need to appear at the first court hearing — something overworked first responders don’t always have time to do.
That’s a key reason that people who work in public safety, such as firefighters and EMTs, say they don’t file CARE Court petitions, said Meagan Subers of California Professional Firefighters, who spoke in support of the bill at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
SB 989 would create a framework for first responders to refer clients directly to their county behavioral health department, which could then file a CARE Court petition on their behalf. The county would have 30 days to decide whether to file.
Some counties already make an effort to train and support their first responders in filing CARE Court petitions. Stanislaus County allows first responders to refer CARE Court clients directly to the county.
But that collaboration isn’t happening in a systematic way across the state, Subers said. This bill could help fix a broken system where first responders are constantly cycling people with severe mental illnesses in and out of emergency rooms, she said.
“When our members have to run these calls repeatedly on individuals and take them to the hospital, knowing that they’re going to have to respond to that person again, my members tell me that they feel helpless,” she said. “We see this pathway as another option for them.”
Blakespear’s bills follow a similar effort last year by Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana to make CARE Court more effective. His new law, which went into effect in January, expanded CARE Court to include people who experience psychosis as a result of bipolar disorder. The program initially was exclusively for people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other limited psychotic disorders.
