The Brief

A new survey paints a difficult but optimistic picture of California’s youth.

About 94% of young people in the state said they experience regular mental health challenges — up from 87% in 2023, with one-third reporting their mental health as “fair” or “poor,” according to a new report by Blue Shield of California and Children Now.

The survey polled 750 young people age 14 to 25 between April and June of this year across California. Other key findings include:

• About 98% who reported poor mental health are youth of color 
• 25% of those reporting poor mental health are LGBTQ+
• Top stressors include gun violence, housing affordability, discrimination and climate change
• More than a third say they felt too embarrassed to seek professional help

Top stressors

Young people pointed to socioeconomic issues as weighing on their mental health, according to the survey, with 87% concerned with the cost of housing, 84% worried about the price of groceries and 73% citing the ability to find a good job as a top concern. About 85% cited concerns about gun violence, and 78% cited climate change and racism as top issues.

Youths in Los Angeles, where communities faced devastating wildfires and ongoing immigration raids, reported the highest levels of poor mental health in the state. About 90% of L.A. youths cited housing affordability as a top issue, with 85% citing both climate change and discrimination against immigrants as key stressors.

At a recent student mental health conference in San Diego called Wellness Together, school leaders and student mental health professionals discussed the survey. Nicole Stelter, director of behavioral health at Blue Shield of California, said the results can be a tool for parents and schools to better treat mental health among young people.

“The data shows youth are deeply affected by the world around them, from climate anxiety and safety to social media pressures,” said Stelter. “It’s more important than ever that clinicians, educators, policymakers and caring adults listen to what our youth are saying and treat this seriously for what it is — a youth mental health crisis.”

Social media’s positive and negative effects

More than half of the young people in the survey said they spend more than four hours a day on social media, and most said there were trade-offs to being online. More than 40% said social media was beneficial to their mental health, with nearly 90% saying social media helped them stay connected to others.

Parents should know that social media is not “all doom and gloom,” Stelter said. It was a lifeline for young people who missed out on key social-emotional development during the pandemic, she said, and that reliance is likely reflected in the new data.

But social media can also seem like “a safer way” to connect for students who never really made it out of their physical isolation, she said.

“There can be some good validation on social media, where kids feel, ‘I’m not the only one that feels this way,’ but sometimes that validation is not enough,” said Stelter. “Most of that co-development and growth happens in real-world friendships.”

Nearly a third of young people said that social media was harmful to their mental health. Also, about 1 in 3 said they have been cyberbullied on social media, and about 7 in 10 said that social media contributed to a negative body image.

Stelter pointed to young people’s exposure to graphic videos on social media, such as the recent recorded murder of conservative speaker Charlie Kirk. When young people repeatedly witness traumatic events online, from school shootings to climate disasters, the psychological toll can be more pronounced, she said.

At the conference, experts addressed the role of social media platforms on youth mental health.

“Companies are preying on our young people for profit,” said Lishaun Francis, director of behavioral health at Children Now, who conducted the survey with Blue Shield. “There is an algorithm that knows exactly how old your child is and targets them with content that makes them feel bad about themselves.”

Francis described one student she worked with who kept seeing advertisements for Pilates classes, which the student felt targeted her insecurities about body image, despite muting certain harmful content.

Parents tend to look at social media in terms of restricting how much time young people are on it. But Willough Jenkins, a child psychiatrist and clinical professor of psychiatry at UC San Diego, said parents should ask children, “How do screens make you feel?” to help recognize unhealthy attachments to social media on their own.

“If you notice they’re staying up late, or are more anxious after they use screens, pulling away from real-world friendships, more irritable, or they’re saying they’re depressed or anxious — please take that seriously,” Jenkins said. “Children start to make that connection to how they’re emotionally responding to their use of screens, and that’s where we can help them to make changes to these behaviors.”

Barriers and hope persist

More than a third of young people in the survey who wanted professional help for their mental health care said that feeling “embarrassed” was the main reason they did not seek it. More than a fifth said they could not afford mental health care and did not know where to find help.

As barriers to care persist, students can still find some meaningful support in each other, especially in service to their communities, Stelter said.

“If you are into beach cleanup, go do that. If you are into volunteering at a pet shelter or animal shelter, do that,” Stelter said. “You will meet people there who have that common interest and common purpose.”

About two-thirds of young people said they were optimistic about the future, engaging in efforts like exercise and hobbies to protect their mental health, and advocating for change. About 99% of those concerned about climate change, for example, said they were taking pro-climate action themselves.

“[Young people] are not passive. They want to be in the driver’s seat for their future, and they’re clearly taking action,” Francis 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.