The Brief

The number of people in Los Angeles County who participated in the first year of a program aimed at providing court-led treatment plans for people who live with serious mental illness remains far below initial state projections, according to data from county mental health authorities.

Known as CARE Court, the new program was promised as an innovative approach to bringing thousands of Californians living with untreated serious mental illness under the care of mental health professionals.

But numbers from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health show the county received about 16% of the petitions it was projected to get during the first six months of the program. From December of last year through mid-November, 308 petitions were filed in L.A. Superior Court, authorities said.

The petition numbers from Orange and Riverside counties are similarly low compared to estimates of how many people in those areas are potentially eligible for CARE Court.

“It’s been very frustrating to watch the slow pace of petitions by anyone other than family members,” Lisa Dailey, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a group that advocates for policies that benefit people living with serious mental illness, told LAist. Still, Dailey has hope for the program and thinks it deserves more effort.

Some critics see the paltry engagement as indicative of a failed policy. But supporters say the program needs more time and effort from county behavioral health departments.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who championed the new approach, said he’s proud to see “early achievements,” including some 1,400 people throughout the state who were connected to CARE Courts or county services directly.

In March 2022, Governor Newsom spoke with local mental health service providers and officials about CARE Court. The discussion was held at a facility in South L.A. that’s a temporary home to about 30 people who are getting treatment for mental health or substance use struggles.

(

Robert Garrova / LAist

)

State officials estimated before the program’s launch that it could help between 7,000 -12,000 Californians a year.

Slow progress 

CARE Court allows family members, behavioral health workers, first responders and others to ask a court — by way of a petition — to step in with a voluntary care plan for someone living with serious mental illness, like schizophrenia. If the plan fails, the person could be hospitalized or referred to a conservatorship.

Between Dec. 1, 2023 and Nov. 20, there were 308 petitions filed in Los Angeles County, far below the roughly 1,900 state officials projected for the first six months of the program. Of those, 28 participants signed on to agreements and four moved forward to the stage in which they were expected to receive a CARE Plan, ordered by the Superior Court.

Some experts say that progress has been slow, particularly in a county where thousands of people living with serious mental illness sleep on the streets every night.

The 2024 Point-In-Time count found that 24% of unhoused people over the age of 18 self-reported that they live with a serious mental illness, according to the Los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority, which conducts the annual count.

Martin Jones, a program manager with the L.A. County Department of Mental Health, said there are about 70 county staffers working on CARE Court. He said working with human beings — gaining their trust and establishing a rapport — takes time and that just physically getting someone to court can take multiple staffers.

“I think that we’ve seen a lot of success from individuals who we’ve been told if CARE had not intervened this person would have died on the streets,” Jones said. “How do you really calculate the value of those kinds of stories? And I believe that it’s incalculable.”

Jones said he expected the first wave of L.A. County CARE Court graduations to happen early next year.

‘A very narrow niche’

For Alex V. Barnard, author of the book Conservatorship: Inside California’s System of Coercion and Care for Mental Illness, the lackluster CARE Court numbers were all too predictable.

“It was clear from the beginning that this was a program that would be very hard to access, and would serve a very narrow niche,” Barnard wrote in an email to LAist.

Eligibility criteria for CARE Court state that a participant must be diagnosed with a psychotic spectrum disorder, like schizophrenia. Bipolar disorder is not included. The criteria also say that the participant can’t be in ongoing treatment.

Barnard said he predicts that CARE Court will remain a small piece of the mental health treatment landscape, overshadowed by what was known as Senate Bill 43, a new state law that expands the criteria for involuntary treatment.

The measure, signed by Newsom in October 2023, changed state law to allow people living with a serious mental illness or severe substance use disorder who are unable to provide for their personal safety or medical care to be deemed “gravely disabled” and held against their will.

Barnard also questions whether the multi-million dollar investment in CARE Court might have been better spent on beds and services, which the county is severely lacking.

“It's really not clear why you need a court to get mental health departments to provide mental health care to individuals with mental health challenges, though, versus fixing issues around financing and prioritization within that system,” he said.

‘A policy failure’ 

Eve Garrow, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said funding directed towards CARE Court should instead be going to community-based care. The low participation numbers are evidence to her that the effort is not working.

“I think by any measure, I would say the CARE Act to date is a policy failure,” Garrow said. “It’s used precious resources — public funds — to fund a court system that is not even being used.”

In 2022, 40 groups — including JusticeLA, Disability Rights California and ACLU California Action — signed a letter saying the program would strip “people with mental health disabilities of their right to make their own decisions about their lives.”

Garrow said she believed CARE Court was the wrong response to a very real problem: “Which is people with serious mental health disabilities -- many of whom are unhoused -- living without access to the care and services they need,” she said.

In her experience, Garrow said, most people who are offered quality mental health care will accept it voluntarily.

More time 

Still, other mental health policy watchers are sticking by CARE Court, even if its initial expansion has been sluggish.

Dr. Susan Partovi, a family physician who does street outreach with the L.A. Centers for Alcohol and Drug Abuse, said the low participation may be partly because the Department of Mental Health needs to make more people aware of CARE Court and who it might help.

“I think they really need to be advertising this on a regular basis, because it’s hard to remember,” Partovi said, adding that the underwhelming numbers were a reminder for her that she could be filing more petitions.

According to the L.A. County Department of Mental Health, just 10 petitions came from provider networks.

Dailey, with the Treatment Advocacy Center, said county efforts have been partly to blame for what she sees as “unfortunate” numbers in the program’s first year. Jones, with the Department of Mental Health, said the county was now making a push to train more first responders on how to file petitions and when they might be appropriate. Only 22 of L.A. County’s 308 petitions were filed by the county Department of Mental Health.

The overwhelming majority came from family members.

“If there was no need for it, you wouldn’t see this initial rush from family members to try to get people into care,” Dailey said.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

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