The Brief

Despite Superintendent Alberto Carvalho’s promise two years ago to settle the conflict, Los Angeles Unified continues denying millions of dollars in federal aid that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles argues it is owed for ongoing services to low-income students in Catholic schools. The archdiocese maintains that the district is diverting the money to bolster its students’ funding.

Both the California and the U.S. departments of education have chastised the district for breaking federal regulations in dealings with the archdiocese. Now, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ordered the district to turn over documents and data that it withheld.

That information, which should illuminate the district’s decisions, could either restart stalemated talks or lead the archdiocese to turn to the courts to order a settlement after seven years of fighting.

“We do not believe further litigation is necessary, and we can achieve equity for non-public school students,” said Paul Escala, the archdiocese’s superintendent of schools. “However, we will pursue all means to see that all students receive their legally entitled services.”

Title I rules for private schools

Congress requires that low-income students in private and public schools receive equivalent Title I funding to pay for counseling, tutoring, teacher aides, and learning specialists. The dispute with LAUSD concerns how much money should be allocated for the archdiocese’s schools and how to ensure the funding gets to the students.

Under Congress’s rules, private and religious schools do not receive Title I funding directly. Instead, districts determine the eligibility of private and religious schools within their borders, administer the funding, and provide the services directly or through vendors after consulting with the schools. Los Angeles Unified, until recently, hired the Title I staff and put them on its payroll (see Frequently Asked Questions by the California Department of Education).

The system worked amicably for years. Districts can choose from several ways to determine Title I eligibility, and LA Unified picked the fairest and most efficient method for the 100-plus schools within the archdiocese with low-income students, Escala said. The district used census data to determine the number of Title I-eligible students in an attendance area, then awarded a proportionate share of the money to archdiocese schools. Long Beach Unified uses the same method.

More paperwork, more confusion, less money

Then in 2018-19 and the following year, coinciding with the new administration of Superintendent Austin Beutner, the district chose another option for calculating private schools’ eligibility — student registrations for the federal school lunch program. Not only did this method require a lot more time, paperwork and verification by the schools, but the district changed the reporting rules several times with little notice and failed “to engage in timely and meaningful consultation,” the California Department of Education concluded in a 58-page report issued in June 2021 in response to a formal complaint by the archdiocese.

Los Angeles Unified’s Office of Inspector General removed hundreds of students’ eligibility after examining parents’ school lunch forms in the two dozen schools it chose to audit and failed to include any students from other schools it didn’t audit.

The result was to cut Title I funding to the archdiocese by more than 92%, from about $9.5 million in services 2017-18 for 102 schools to $767,000 for fewer than two dozen schools, according to Escala. In 2023-24, funding crept up to about $2 million for 43 schools. The district cut its total share allocated to private schools from between 2% and 2.6% of about $291 million to 0.5%, according to the California Department of Education.

‘Totally unreasonable’ demands

The state Department of Education harshly criticized the district. The timetable for demanding documentation was “totally unreasonable,” and the district “engaged in a pattern of arbitrary unilateral decisions” and failed to justify its decisions to the archdiocese, the report said.

In ignoring the archdiocese’s Public Records Act requests for documentation to justify the cuts, the district took a “hide-the-ball approach (that) breached both the spirit and the letter” of the law, the report said.

The spirit of Title I, as stated in the law’s preamble, Escala said, is to maximize participation. The intent of other options like surveys and free-lunch verification is for schools to prove they have higher proportions of low-income families than neighboring schools, he said.

LAUSD is doing the opposite, Escala said.

“The district’s using these other methods as a way of filtering and screening and reducing participation,” he said. “You’re extracting children you know qualify simply because a “t” wasn’t crossed or an “i” wasn’t dotted. It is beyond reproach, because they (LAUSD officials) don’t apply the same standard to their own schools.”

LAUSD had an obligation to give (the Archdiocese) the requested information. LAUSD’s hide-the-ball approach breached both the spirit and the letter of the duty to consult. — The California Department of Education in a June 2021 rulingLA Unified declined to comment on the state’s report, and last week, a spokesperson wrote in an email that “Los Angeles Unified does not typically comment on pending or ongoing litigation.”

Districts have a financial incentive to minimize private schools’ funding eligibility. The federal government awards the total Title I funding to districts, which determine how much should be allocated for services to private and religious school students. Lawyers for the archdiocese point out that the less money that districts award, the more Title I funding they can spend on their own students.

The district appears to understand this, said Kevin Troy, an attorney for the archdiocese, citing a Jan. 29, 2019, email from the principal auditor of the district’s Office of the Inspector General to the archdiocese, in which the auditor stated that the archdiocese “receives over $10 million of Title I funds from the LAUSD every year — money that could otherwise be allocated to LAUSD schools.”

“There’s a moral and ethical question on the table,” Escala said. “You (LA Unified) have got children in need, and you’re not serving them right,” he added, referring to students in archdiocese schools.

The impact on one high school

Mark Johnson, principal of Bishop Mora Salesian High School, has seen the effect of the cuts on students. Before the cutback, Title I paid for a reading intervention teacher and part-time aide who worked with 40 to 50 students weekly — about 1 out of 8 students at the all-boy, 400-student school in the low-income Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Although on the district’s payroll, the teacher fit in like any other staff member, building personal relationships with the students and collaborating with their teachers.

“She (the teacher) had her own classroom and was just a regular teacher as far as any of our kids knew,” he said. She would work with the lowest-performing students on basic reading comprehension skills. “If they were working on a tough piece of literature, she would help them break it down so that they could write an analytical paragraph or essay.”

Pulling out students also reduced the class size for the remaining students, he said. Now, there is only enough money for a two-day-a-week coach from a contractor who sees at most a dozen students a week.

“We’re serving kids who are significantly behind grade level and families that deal with poverty and all the things that come along with that,” Johnson said. “So this kind of antagonistic relationship that has developed (with the district) ultimately hurts kids.”

The California Department of Education gave the district 60 days from its June 2021 ruling to consult with the archdiocese to fix deficiencies pointed out in the report and then recalibrate the proportional share of Title I funding for archdiocese schools. It ordered the district to begin providing the increased services for 2020-21, the next school year.

Instead, the district appealed the decision to the U.S. Department of Education, which issued its own findings in November 2023. In his decision, Adam Schott, deputy assistant secretary for policy and programs, found that the district could justify reducing the eligibility count based on its analysis of parents’ forms. But by doing that, they cut the funding for the dozens of schools that the district did not audit. He credited the district with consulting with the archdiocese to an extent, but said the district’s overall approach in demanding documentation was “inconsistent and confusing.”

Schott also ruled that the district violated federal regulations by claiming it didn’t have to share data with the archdiocese on how much it spent on Title I services for students and how much was unspent at the end of each year.

In December 2021, the archdiocese sued the district in Los Angeles Superior Court for ignoring multiple requests under the state Public Records Act to turn over Title I spending records and other relevant information. The court held off ruling until the complaint process played out.

On July 16, Judge Curtis Kin ordered the district to turn over all relevant documents, emails and records to the archdiocese by Aug. 20 and to pay $82,141 to the diocese in attorneys’ fees.

An appeal to Superintendent Carvalho

Weeks after he started work as Los Angeles Unified superintendent in February 2022, Alberto Carvalho told EdSource he had familiarized himself with the case and added, “I’m going to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.” He declined to elaborate due to litigation.

“What I can tell you,” he added, “is that we need more objective, transparent tools by which we assess and fund this guaranteed federal entitlement that’s driven by poverty.”

Escala said he remains hopeful. “I believe that Superintendent Carvalho has the ability to direct his staff towards that outcome. I have a great degree of confidence that when brought to him, this can get adjudicated appropriately.”

I wanted to give you a heads-up about one low-cost event and a free perk to get on top of as we barrel into summer. The first is snagging tickets to the quite eclectic lineup happening at the America 250 concert at the Coliseum on July 4. Tickets, which benefit Giving 4th, are just $17.76 (natch). The show features performances from Chris Stapleton and The Smashing Pumpkins, and is hosted by Queen Latifah.

If you’d rather get away from the crowds, make sure to secure your free California State Parks Pass before July 6.

Licorice Pizza has your music picks for the weekend, starting with Kid Cudi and Big Boi at the Crypto.com Arena, Natalia Lafourcade at the Dolby, Gia Margaret at Sid The Cat, Sekou at the Troubadour, electroclash veteran Green Velvet at Exchange L.A., and if you feel like getting sexed up, Color Me Badd at Stage Red in Fontana — all on Friday.

Saturday A$AP Rocky is at the Forum; Kaleo and Dawes are at the Novo; Dillstradamus (aka Dillon Francis and Flosstradamus) play the Palladium; Pomplamoose is at Pacific Electric; “Summer of Soul” with Jeffrey Osborne, Sheila E. and more is at Cerritos Center for the Performing Arts; and the Freestyle Festival with Lisa Lisa, Stevie B and more is at the Toyota Arena.

Finally, there’s “A Roots Picnic Experience: A Great Night in Hip-Hop,” with the Roots and all-stars like Nas, T.I., Bun B and De La Soul at the Hollywood Bowl.

Elsewhere on LAist, you can keep up with all the World Cup action, read up on the Cat Zine Fest in Long Beach, and take our survey to let us know how to make LAist even better.

Events

New York City Ballet

Through Sunday, June 28 
Dorothy Chandler Pavilion 
135 N. Grand Ave., Downtown L.A. 
COST: FROM $44; MORE INFO

(

Courtesy The Music Center

)

What a treat. The New York City Ballet is here for just a few days, so don’t miss their first L.A. performance in more than 20 years. There are two different programs, featuring classic pieces from George Balanchine and New York City Ballet Co-Founding Choreographer Jerome Robbins, plus more contemporary works by Ulysses Dove, Justin Peck, Tiler Peck, Gianna Reisen and Christopher Wheeldon. The programs feature recorded music and live performances by the New York City Ballet Orchestra.

16th Annual Day of the Ancestors: Festival of Masks

Sunday, June 28, 12 p.m. 
4343 Leimert Blvd., Leimert Park 
COST: FREE; MORE INFO 

(

LA Commons

/

Eventbrite

)

And ...

CicLAvia

Leimert Park to Expo Park
COST: FREE; MORE INFO 

(

Courtesy CicLAvia

)

Sunday is a big day in Leimert Park! Head to the heart of the newly designated Historic South L.A. Black Cultural District for both the 16th Annual Day of the Ancestors: Festival of Masks and the car-free CicLAvia that will run from Leimert Park to Expo Park down Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. The Festival of Masks features a libation ceremony and procession, plus dance and musical performances. CicLAvia has meetup hubs for the neighborhood (come say hi to LAist staff at the Leimert Park hub!), water stations, and much more. Check out local neighborhood gems on the map and explore Leimert Park this weekend.

QWERTY: A Typewriter Festival

Saturday, June 27, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. 
The International Printing Museum
315 West Torrance Blvd., Carson
COST: $12; MORE INFO 

(

Laura Rivera

/

Unsplash

)

Clickity clack, it’s time for the QWERTY Typewriter Festival. Did you know that Carson is home to the International Printing Museum? A must-visit for all the writerly nerds among us, myself included. And also Tom Hanks. It’s National Typewriter Day, and the museum is celebrating with a Type-In, where you can type on vintage typewriters, write your own story, see unusual typewriters and maybe even take home your own analog writing device.

Good Boy and Friends wine and food fest 

Saturday, June 27, 5 p.m. to 12 a.m.
Francois Ghebaly + Night Gallery Campus
2288-2308 E. 16th St., Arts District
COST: FROM $35; MORE INFO 

Good Boy and Friends are back for their fifth year — this time in a bigger venue — for their “new-school wine and food fest.” More than 60 wineries; favorite restaurants like LaSorted’s, Mr. Jong and Canyon Coffee; art galleries; DJs and more will be on hand with good eats, good tastes, space to dance and more. Plus, this year also features a non-alcoholic ticket with pours from a variety of NA vendors, not just water and Diet Coke for the designated drivers, and a special (free, ticketed) dog area so you can bring your pup.

Culver City Rock and Mineral: Fiesta of Gems Show

Saturday and Sunday, June 27 and 28 
Veterans Memorial Auditorium
4117 Overland Ave., Culver City
COST: FREE; MORE INFO 

(

Dan Farrell

/

Unsplash

)

I had no idea people liked rocks so much until I went to the Joshua Tree Rock and Gem show with a rockhound friend and learned that some people REALLY like rocks. If that’s you, head to the free Culver City Fiesta of Gems show and find your next rare wavellite or blue cap tourmaline.

Chef Sheldon Simeon x LaSorted’s 

Friday, June 26, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 
La Sorted’s
984 N. Broadway, Chinatown 
COST: FROM $7; MORE INFO 

Grab the latest collab pie at LaSorted’s Chinatown location, “The Loco Moco” from the legendary Chef Sheldon Simeon (@chefwonder). A Top Chef fan-favorite, owner of Tin Roof and “culinary ambassador of Maui,” Sheldon will be on hand for a one-night-only ticketed party to celebrate his new cookbook, Ohana Style. Seven dollars gets you a slice, $25 gets you a pie, $40 gets you a slice and the book.

GenX Storytelling Series: Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Sunday, June 28, 4:30 p.m.
The Wicked Wolf
2332 Pacific Ave., Long Beach 
COST: $5; MORE INFO

(

Courtesy The Wicked Wolf

)

Share your best story about ditching school at this storytelling event celebrating the 40th anniversary of the 1986 classic, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Hosted by Jamie Sims Coakley, the series will feature other favorite GenX movies with themed sharing (or oversharing as the case may be!) throughout the summer, including favorite concert stories (Spinal Tap, July 19) and favorite summer romances (Dirty Dancing, August 16).

Citing LAist’s unearthing of misconduct findings about top elected officials, Orange County’s grand jury is urging reforms that would allow elected officials to more easily be removed from office for misconduct.

The panel also recommended mandating regular audits or performance reviews of elected officials, in a report released this month.

Grand jurors pointed to two formerly confidential county HR investigations LAist brought to light last year through public records requests.

One found O.C. assessor Claude Parrish violated gender discrimination and retaliation policies and harassed a subordinate over her medical disability. The other found O.C. treasurer-tax collector Shari Freidenrich threw office keys at a subordinate out of anger, likely violating workplace violence policies. A secretary who witnessed it quit her job the same day as a result, the county investigation found.

Orange County Assessor Claude Parrish speaks at a county Board of Supervisors meeting in March 2023.

(

Screenshot of county meeting video

)

“The public, and in some cases even individual [county] supervisors, did not learn the full details until media outlets obtained the reports through public records requests,” the grand jury wrote.

“These episodes underscore a structural reality: Even when serious misconduct is documented, the board has no substantive authority to take corrective action, discipline an elected official or remove them from office,” the panel continued.

“Without meaningful measures for intervention, problems can persist unchecked, leaving the county vulnerable to operational failures, ethical breaches and the erosion of public trust,” the report states, adding that independently elected offices act with “impunity.”

Parrish and Freidenrich both were re-elected by wide margins in this month’s primary. Their seats typically draw little attention during re-elections, where they appear on ballots as the incumbent.

Under current law, elected officials can only be removed if they’re convicted of a crime involving their official duties, are recalled by voters or vacate their office, the grand jury wrote.

What the grand jury wants to happen

The grand jurors recommended supervisors put key reforms on the ballot for voters to change county law. Those reforms, if passed, would let the Board of Supervisors:

• Remove an elected official for cause by a four-fifths vote
• Convert an elected office to an appointed position
• Merge two elected offices — like assessor and clerk‑recorder — into one elected position

For the removal recommendation, they pointed to existing laws in San Bernardino and San Mateo counties. Last year, San Mateo County voters “approved a charter amendment authorizing their Board of Supervisors to remove the elected sheriff for cause by a four-fifths vote,” the grand jury wrote. Removing the sheriff “requires notice, investigation, a hearing and formal findings,” the report states.

The grand jury also suggested that county supervisors:

• Adopt a policy requiring regular audits or performance reviews of elected officials
• Implement more robust public reporting of audits into departments under elected officials
• Publicly report actions taken to correct problems that have been found under elected offices

‘Why do we need to elect a clerk-recorder?’ 

Mike Moodian, a public policy professor at Chapman University, says it could make sense to have the lesser-known countywide elected positions — assessor, treasurer-tax collector and clerk-recorder — be appointed rather than elected.

Most voters, he said, are not aware of the candidates and tend to elect incumbents in a landslide vote. He wonders if the public would be better served if those positions were instead appointed positions selected and overseen by higher-profile elected officials — like county supervisors — who are more visible and, thus, accountable to voters, he said.

“ Why do we need to elect a clerk-recorder?” Moodian said.

As for removal powers, Moodian said it’s a thorny issue. It could provide accountability, but it could also become fraught if four of five county supervisors want to wrongfully remove a colleague for political reasons.

“It's a classic governance dilemma,” he said. “How do you preserve democratic independence [of elected officials], but also how do you ensure accountability when something goes wrong?”

“If serious misconduct or mismanagement occurs, do voters have to wait years for the next election? Because let's face it, the recall process — that can be very costly and ... very difficult.”

What comes next

Ultimately, it will be up to county supervisors to decide whether to put removal powers on the ballot, unless citizens gather signatures from 95,694 registered O.C. voters.

By law, the supervisors will have to issue a public response to the grand jury report, describing whether or not they’ll implement the recommendations.

LAist contacted all five county supervisors for comment on the recommendations. Two got back.

Supervisor Katrina Foley said she doesn’t support allowing elected officials to remove other elected officials — pointing to existing provisions that remove elected officials convicted of crimes in office.

“Short of removing budgetary authority or having more oversight and monitoring, I don't think that elected officials should be given the power to remove other elected officials. That is the job of the voters,” Foley said.

Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug. 27, 2024.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

That power should not be given to elected officials, she added, because it “definitely will get abused.”

The audit and performance evaluation suggestion is also problematic, she added, because having subordinates of elected officials evaluate their bosses would be fraught because they wouldn’t want to risk losing their job.

“How are you gonna have an objective evaluation?,” she asked. “I just don't see that working in elected spaces.”

In a statement, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he shares the grand jury’s “concern regarding misconduct in office and the ability to provide the Board with additional levers needed to address misconduct by elected officials.”

“Unfortunately, the recommendation to give the Board of Supervisors authority to remove an elected official can undermine the will of the voters and may open the door for politically motivated removals and abuse,” he added.

Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug. 27, 2024.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

Through a spokesperson, he declined to say what additional levers he believes the board should have to address elected official misconduct.

The other three supervisors — Doug Chaffee, Don Wagner and Janet Nguyen — didn’t respond to messages for comment.

A long history of corruption and ethics breaches

The grand jury compiled a list of misconduct by 17 county elected officials in O.C. stretching back to the 1970s, up to last year’s sentencing of former Supervisor Andrew Do for a corruption scheme LAist uncovered.

“Taken together, these episodes form a collection of political missteps that amount to a documented pattern of governance failure. Orange County’s history shows that unethical behavior and corruption are neither rare nor random, but cyclical,” the grand jury wrote.

“Each decade brings a new set of names, but the underlying dynamics remain stubbornly the same,” the jurors added.

“When institutions lack durable safeguards, the electorate suffers the consequences. Government integrity cannot depend on the character of individual elected officials alone,” the report continues.

“It requires systematic guardrails, meaningful checks and balances, independent oversight bodies with real authority, institutional transparency, financial controls, enforceable ethics standards, and active citizen engagement through the ballot box.”

What is a grand jury?

Under state law, each county has grand juries that decide whether to indict defendants in criminal cases and conduct civil watchdog investigations of local government agencies.

The civil grand jury duties include ensuring local governments are governed honestly and efficiently and that tax dollars are managed efficiently.

In most California counties, there are separate grand juries for criminal matters and civil watchdog reviews.

In Orange County, both are combined into a single grand jury that serves for one year at a time, from the beginning of July to the end of the following June. Orange County’s grand jury has 19 members and several alternates who can step in if someone leaves.

The selection process starts with a committee of O.C. Superior Court judges reviewing applications and selecting about 90 people for further consideration. Those deemed qualified are invited to an interview before the committee, and those who advance undergo a background investigation by the Sheriff’s Department. The list is narrowed to 25 to 30 finalists, then 19 members of the grand jury are selected by lottery. The other finalists become the alternates.

Under compensation set by the Board of Supervisors, grand jurors are paid $50 per day plus reimbursement for miles driven.

Federal courts also have grand juries, which are separate from county grand juries and only handle criminal matters.

Drug overdose deaths in Los Angeles County dropped 6% in 2025 and have fallen nearly 30% since peaking in 2022, according to a report the Department of Public Health released Thursday.

L.A. County health officials said the recent trend shows county-funded substance abuse programs are working.

“Three consecutive years of fewer overdose deaths in L.A. County is proof that sustained investments in prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services saves lives,” said Barbara Ferrer, director of the county’s Department of Public Health.

The county’s progress tracks just behind a larger national trend. Across the U.S., overdose deaths dropped about 35% from their 2022 peak of 107,941 to an estimated 69,973 in 2025, according to the CDC.

The CDC credits a number of factors for the nationwide decline in drug-related deaths, including the distribution of naloxone — a medication used to reverse opioid overdoses — improved access to treatment and decreases in drug potency due to shifts in the illegal drug supply.

In L.A. County, the drug overdose crisis claimed 2,298 lives last year, with methamphetamine and fentanyl continuing to drive most of those deaths.

Fentanyl's role is major but shrinking. The synthetic opioid was a factor in 49% of the county's overdose deaths in 2025, down from 64% two years earlier. The 1,135 fentanyl-related deaths recorded last year marked a 10% decline from 2024.

Methamphetamine remained involved in roughly 61% of the county's overdose deaths in recent years. The synthetic stimulant contributed to 1,405 deaths in 2025, down 7% from the previous year.

L.A. County’s overdose strategy leans heavily on “harm reduction” — a public health approach that treats addiction as a health condition and focuses on keeping drug users alive rather than requiring abstinence. That includes distributing naloxone, fentanyl test strips and clean smoking supplies.

But aspects of the harm reduction approach have come under fire from the Trump administration, which argues they enable illegal drug use. In April, federal officials barred grant money from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) from paying for syringes, pipes or fentanyl test strips.

By the numbers

Drug overdose has been the leading cause of accidental deaths in Los Angeles County since 2017, when drug deaths outpaced those from motor vehicles and guns.

Drug overdose deaths peaked in L.A. County in 2022, with 3,220 deaths (or 30.8 per 100,000 population.)

They’ve declined in the three years since: down by 3% in 2023, 22% in 2024, and 6% last year, according to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That decline mirrors a trend seen across the country over the same period.

Fentanyl's recent decline follows a steep climb. Accidental fentanyl overdose and poisoning deaths in L.A. County rose from about 100 in 2016 to more than 2,000 in 2023, according to county data reports.

In 2022 and 2023, fentanyl surpassed methamphetamine as the most common drug listed as a cause of death in county medical examiner records. That trend began to reverse in 2024, when fentanyl overdose deaths fell 37%.

Disproportionate risks

L.A. County’s overdose crisis hits some communities harder than others. L.A. County neighborhoods where more than 30% of families live below the federal poverty level had overdose death rates nearly five times that of areas where less than 10% live below poverty level.

That disparity has increased steadily over the past decade. In 2016, the rate of overdose death was 1.6 times greater in poorer areas, compared to more affluent ones.

Black Angelenos disproportionately die of drug overdose. According to the county data, Black residents make up 7% of L.A. County’s population but accounted for 22% of drug overdose deaths last year.

Drug overdose remains the leading cause of death among L.A. County’s more than 72,000 unhoused residents, who are 46 times more likely to die from overdose than the general population, according to a separate recent county report.

In 2024, unhoused Angelenos accounted for 36% of all drug overdose fatalities in L.A. County.