The Brief

Every time Jennifer Farrell got close to her brother, he slipped through her fingers.

As she walked the railroad tracks on the border of San Lorenzo and Hayward last month, searching for signs of her homeless younger sibling, she thought she caught a glimpse of him on a discarded mattress. But it turned out to be someone else.

Store clerks in a nearby strip mall and the groundskeeper at a local park all knew her brother. They told Farrell they’d seen him recently lying on the sidewalk outside a Jack in the Box. Another time, he was walking down the street, dragging a blanket behind him. He was spotted outside a church just that morning, someone said.

But he remained a phantom. Everywhere Farrell looked, it seemed like her brother had just left.

Farrell wasn’t supposed to have to do this anymore. Last Christmas Eve, she’d jumped at the chance to get her 59-year-old brother, who has been homeless off and on since 2017 and struggles with schizophrenia and meth use, into a new program called CARE Court. It was supposed to help people like him stabilize their mental health and get off the streets.

For a short time, it did. Her brother moved into a converted hotel in Oakland in late April, Farrell said, but five months later, he fled the hotel and disappeared.

“We’re coming up on a year (since he enrolled in CARE Court),” Farrell said. “And we are nowhere…we’re probably in the same place we were when I filed. And maybe even worse off.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced CARE Court in 2022 in part as a way to bring people with serious mental illnesses off of California’s streets. He continues to tout it as part of his homelessness strategy, as recently as this month in a news release.

But data from the state and counties, as well as interviews with service providers, CARE Court participants and their family members, highlight the ways in which the program is struggling to help homeless Californians.

More than two years after the program first launched, most people starting the CARE Court process aren’t homeless, and those who are homeless aren’t always getting what they need most: housing.

To assess the program, CalMatters requested housing information from California’s 25 largest counties, as well as all of the ones that first launched the program. Of the 2,362 CARE Court petitions filed in those counties, fewer than a third were for people who were homeless.

When asked how many people were housed through CARE Court, even the most successful counties reported just a few dozen.

Six of the counties polled by CalMatters either did not track housing status or total number of petitions, or did not disclose that data.

The state has not made detailed, up-to-date data about CARE Court performance public. Tracking housing status by county is difficult, as counties collect that data in different ways. Some count people as homeless if they are incarcerated or hospitalized, and some don’t. In some cases, counties don’t know the housing status of the client when a petition is filed. CalMatters asked each county included in this report for its most up-to-date CARE Court data, and most provided data through October or November. A handful only provided data that ended in August.

CARE Court began rolling out in California in October 2023 as a court-based treatment program for people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. People enter it through a petition, which can be filed by their family members, first responders or mental health clinicians. Almost all of the agreements are voluntary, and even court-ordered treatment plans can’t force compliance.

“You know what it’s like? It’s like the Wizard of Oz,” Rebekah Cooke said earlier this year, when her 36-old daughter was enrolled in CARE Court while living in a Marin County homeless encampment. “You go through all this and you think there’s hope at the end. And when you get to the end, you realize it’s all smoke and mirrors. And there’s really nothing at the end.”

CARE Court’s efforts to move her daughter indoors failed for eight months. Her daughter finally got housing that worked for her after leaving CARE Court.

How CARE Court functions varies greatly by location, and depends on how many and what kind of beds a county has available, and how it allocates housing resources.

“The most common unmet need for CARE participants was securing and maintaining permanent housing,” according to the most recent detailed state data on the program — more than a year old — which found 28% of people receiving CARE Court services were unhoused for at least part of the time they were in the program.

CARE Court has helped people in San Mateo County get mental health treatment, and moved some into housing, which is “fantastic,” said Ally Hoppis, clinical services manager for the county’s Behavioral Health and Recovery Services division. But, at least in her community, housing is not the main service CARE Court offers.

San Mateo County only has 15 beds prioritized for CARE Court participants. As of October, the county had received 81 CARE Court petitions. Most people in CARE Court who need housing still have to go through the regular routes of getting it. Sometimes, the county puts people up in a motel for a month or longer because there is no other option, an expensive solution.

“Is (CARE Court) fixing our homelessness problem for the seriously mentally ill? No, it’s not,” Hoppis said.

Nor is it making a noticeable dent on the streets of Los Angeles County, said John Maceri, chief executive of The People Concern, one of the county’s largest social service providers. His organization has referred about 10 people to CARE Court — either people who are living on the street, or people who live in interim housing but are struggling and need more help. Only four of those people were enrolled.

“The reality has been that some of the folks that we have referred have not been accepted into CARE Court,” Maceri said, “and the few that have, we haven’t seen the results in terms of the promise of support that was there, or that we thought would be there.”

The court can dismiss a CARE Court petition for a variety of reasons, including the person not meeting the strict eligibility criteria (participants must be diagnosed with schizophrenia or a similar psychotic disorder).

Housing is an “extremely important” part of CARE Court, and the program’s ability to offer it in some cases makes it different from other mental health interventions, said Corrin Buchanan, undersecretary for the California Health and Human Services Agency, which oversees the program.

CARE Court doesn’t come with specific funds for housing, a concern counties raised early on, but the state has provided more than $1 billion for Behavioral Health Bridge Housing – temporary homes for people with mental health needs. State law requires CARE Court participants be “prioritized” for that housing, but it’s not exclusively for them.

Starting Jan. 1, Medi-Cal will cover temporary rent support that could also help CARE Court participants, Buchanan said.

“I think there’s a lot of hope that we’ll continue to be able to make sure that this is a meaningful part of what can be made available,” Buchanan said.

Though it’s hardly a widespread solution to homelessness, CARE Court has succeeded in helping some individuals get off the street.

When outreach workers found him last winter, J.M. was sleeping on blankets under an awning in Oakland’s Jack London Square, with no tent to protect him from the elements. A foot injury had left him unable to walk, and he wore multiple pairs of pants and socks in an attempt to compress the limb and alleviate his symptoms.

CalMatters is using J.M.’s initials to protect his privacy.

The water at Jack London Square where J.M., who prefers to use his initials for privacy, walks almost daily for exercise and because he enjoys looking at the San Francisco Bay in Oakland, on Dec. 1, 2025. He received housing support through CARE Court and now lives within walking distance of Jack London.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters/CatchLight

)

J.M., who prefers to use his initials for privacy, looks through his bedroom window at a transitional home provided through CARE Court in Oakland on Dec. 1, 2025.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters/CatchLight

)

A year later, J.M. lives at a hotel in downtown Oakland that was converted into temporary housing with mental health services. J.M. received medical care for his foot, and now regularly walks the half mile from his room to the Jack London Square waterfront, where he enjoys the sea air and waves lapping against the dock.

He feels better about himself, J.M. said, and he’s making plans for his future. He’s looking into finding work as a janitor. He wants to quit smoking cigarettes and get his GED diploma.

“Mentally and physically, I feel good,” he said.

Matching people to the right housing: A difficult puzzle 

CARE Court participants can enter into a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan, both of which, according to state law, “may” include behavioral health care, medications, a housing plan and other supportive services on an as-needed basis.

But in a state where affordable housing is in short supply, the housing part can be difficult. Behavioral Health Bridge Housing – the only housing required to be set aside for CARE Court – isn’t always a good fit for those clients.

In San Mateo County, that money funds 15 beds on one floor of a new behavioral health facility in Redwood City. The rooms are clean and private, but the campus is remote, said Brian Fraser, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, who represents CARE Court participants. It’s in a wooded area four miles from downtown and only one city bus stops there twice a day.

For clients who can’t get a bed there, need something more central, or aren’t comfortable with the institutional feel, most of the other options are shelters where they’d have to share rooms, Fraser said. But if someone’s mental health struggles are severe enough to land them in CARE Court, chances are slim that they’d do well in a room with strangers, he said.

“There are times where there is no option for certain clients,” Fraser said. “And it’s frustrating.”

Monterey County’s 55 Behavioral Health Bridge Housing apartments have served “very few if any” people in CARE Court, as CARE Court participants tend to need more services than bridge housing can provide, said Melanie Rhodes, the county’s behavioral health director.

In other counties, no bridge housing is available. Santa Cruz County’s first project using those state funds isn’t set to open until next year.

In Marin County, Shaylee Koontz spent almost the entire eight months she was enrolled in CARE Court either sleeping at a homeless encampment in a park in Fairfax, or in the hospital. Though she and the county have differing views on how her time in the program ended, and whether it was ultimately successful, two facts are clear: the interventions CARE Court offered failed multiple times, and she remained outside for months.

Koontz entered into CARE Court last December, after her mother, Cooke, filed a petition on her behalf. Koontz said CARE Court workers used to stop by her encampment and check on her periodically. They’d offer her small things, such as rides to the food bank, she said.

“They were helpful to a degree,” Koontz said. “And then it was hard to get a hold of them after a while…They kind of stopped taking my phone calls.”

While Koontz was in CARE Court, the county referred her to residential mental health crisis and substance use treatment programs three times, said Todd Schirmer, director of the county’s Behavioral Health and Recovery Services. She never lasted longer than three days in any of the programs.

It appears the very mental health symptoms that qualified Koontz for CARE Court in the first place also made it hard for her to succeed there. During one stay, the treatment center said she failed to follow the rules. Another time, it appears they asked her to leave following an unspecified “incident.”

“We recognize that recovery is not always a straight line and that periods of progress and setback are a normal part of healing,” Schirmer said in an email. “Our system is designed to stay connected during these moments, adjust supports as needed, and continue offering options that reflect each person’s goals, preferences, and needs.”

Koontz left CARE Court in August. Koontz and her mother said she was kicked out, while the county said she left voluntarily. She was referred to another county program.

Shaylee Koontz, 36, in San Rafael, on Oct. 27, 2025. Koontz’s mother helped her get into CARE Court, but she exited the program before getting stable housing.

(

Photo by Florence Middleton for CatchLight/CalMatters

/

Photo by Florence Middleton for CatchLight/CalMatters

)

Shortly after, as the city planned to clear her encampment and displace her and her friends, Koontz decided she’d had enough. She was drinking too much, she said, and wanted to get sober and move indoors. She got a motel room for the night, and then she moved into a rehab facility.

Now, Koontz is living in a women’s sober living house, and doing well. She’s no longer drinking, she recently finished writing a fantasy screenplay, and she plans to start taking college classes for a film degree next year.

“I do feel good,” Koontz said. “I feel much better.”

A golden ticket to housing in Alameda County

On the other side of the bay, Alameda County had, as of August, moved 38 CARE Court participants into temporary or permanent housing out of 41 petitions it received for people who were homeless.

Alameda County has 200 interim beds, 40 beds in board-and-care homes and six medical respite beds for CARE Court clients and others with mental health needs, plus additional money to help people with rent in private-market units. If nothing is immediately available, the county can put CARE Court clients up temporarily in a motel.

In Alameda County, people accepted into CARE Court essentially get a golden ticket that allows them to jump the housing line, said Stephanie Regular, an attorney with the county public defender’s office, which represents CARE Court participants. Without CARE Court, people wait an average of six months to get into Behavioral Health Bridge Housing, according to the county. The longest wait was a year and a half.

“We can go out to clients and say, ‘We can offer you housing,’” Regular said. “That’s huge to these clients, and life-changing, and a reason for them to want to participate.”

But as is common when working with high-needs homeless clients, just because someone moves into a room, doesn’t mean they stay there. Eddie’s Place, a converted hotel in Oakland, offers transitional housing for up to two years with private rooms and bathrooms, meals, nurses, and other social services to people struggling with their mental health or substance use. The property has about 30 beds funded by the state money that prioritizes CARE Court clients.

So far, only about six people have moved into Eddie’s Place through CARE Court. None of them are still there, said Meg O’Neill, director of transitional housing programs for Cardea Health, which runs the facility.

CARE Court clients tend to do well there for a few weeks, but then their medical needs, substance use or mental health symptoms become too acute even for the nurses and social services Eddie’s Place offers, and they end up back in the hospital, she said. Or, they choose to leave and go back to the street. In some cases, O’Neill doesn’t know where they went.

“What’s been hard there is just seeing folks come to us and then not stay,” O’Neill said. “I didn’t really anticipate that, but in hindsight, it does make sense.”

Why aren’t more homeless Californians accessing CARE Court?

In Los Angeles County, most people who started the CARE Court process already had housing. As of October, fewer than a quarter of the 629 petitions filed there were for people who were homeless.

That could partly be because, at least initially, most CARE Court petitions have been filed by family members, and people who still have strong family connections may be less likely to wind up on the street.

In many cases, CARE Court participants aren’t technically homeless, but they would likely end up on the street without the program’s intervention, said Martin Jones, Jr., who oversees CARE Court programs for Los Angeles County. As of October, 54 CARE Court participants in his county had moved into interim housing.

“I would say that, yes, the majority of our folks have not been unhoused,” he said, “however, their current living situation, especially with their families, is very fragile.”

C.M., who prefers to not use her name, sits in her bedroom at a transitional home provided through CARE Court after receiving treatment for schizophrenia in Oakland on Dec. 1, 2025. She now lives in a single-occupancy room and is preparing to begin classes at Chabot College in January.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters/Catchlight

)

That was the case for C.M., a CARE Court participant in Alameda County. She asked to be referred to using her initials over fears that being associated with schizophrenia would hurt her chances of getting a job.

The 55-year-old experiences bouts of hearing voices and other delusions when she’s under extreme stress, and she lost her job because of an episode in 2022. After that, she received disability payments and drove for Lyft, but it wasn’t enough to pay the rent for her San Leandro apartment. Then, she said, her Lyft app started glitching, cutting off that income. Soon she spiraled back into psychosis, and the city’s mental health crisis team started showing up at her home. After one of those visits, an EMT filed a CARE Court petition.

Now, she has her own room in a large Victorian house in West Oakland, where a nonprofit provides mental health services. She’s planning on going back to school next month for construction management.

"I initially was all suspicious of CARE Court,” C.M. said. “But I really couldn't have gotten any luckier, given the circumstances. I was about to be homeless. They made sure I didn't spend one day on the streets."

Fall leaves rest on the sidewalk outside the transitional home in Oakland where C.M., who prefers to use her initials for privacy, lives through CARE Court on Dec. 1, 2025.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters/CatchLight

)

C.M., who prefers to use her initials for privacy, now lives in the single-occupancy room and is preparing to begin classes at Chabot College in January.

(

Florence Middleton

/

CalMatters/CatchLight

)

In the Central Valley’s Stanislaus County, CARE Court is mostly serving unhoused people. Of the 102 petitions the county received as of the end of October, 60% were for people who were homeless. Almost 70% of the CARE agreements filed were for homeless participants.

It’s hard to know for sure, but that may be because when CARE Court launched, the county focused on teaching first responders and homeless outreach workers about the program and getting them on board, said Behavioral Health Director Ruben Imperial.

“We’ve had real intentional effort around the homeless population,” he said.

When first responders and outreach workers weren’t filing petitions because the process was too complicated and time consuming, Imperial’s department made a change: Now, those workers can refer homeless clients to the county, which will file the CARE Court petition on their behalf.

Back in Alameda County earlier this month, Farrell got the call she’d been waiting for. Her brother’s CARE Court caseworker found him just half a mile from where she’d been searching. He was hospitalized on a temporary mental health hold. But Farrell knew he could be out of the hospital, and back on the street, at any time.

She hopes this will be what it takes to get her brother out of CARE Court and into a conservatorship that forces him into treatment. But at his last CARE Court hearing, to which her brother didn’t show up, the county said they’re still trying to convince him to accept help.

“OK, fine,” Farrell said in an interview later. “But we’ve been doing this process for almost a year. So when do we take it up a step?”

This story was reported with support from the Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism. It was produced jointly by CalMatters & CatchLight as part of our mental health initiative.

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

LAist reports on local issues for — and with — communities across Southern California, but chances are most readers have never spoken with a journalist before. Your stories and experiences power our reporting, so it’s important that people know what to expect when they speak with a reporter.

That’s what this guide is for.

Below are some tips from our newsroom on what to keep in mind when talking to a journalist.

Remember: You are the expert on your own life

Tell the story you want to tell about yourself.

Be honest. Truthfulness and facts are central to journalistic ethics.

Also know your worth. Reporters come to you for a reason. They may be intimidating because they have a mic or a camera, but you have a perspective they need. Media outlets also want to expand their audiences, and that includes you.

Common questions

How can I get a journalist’s attention?

Contact reporters by social media or send them a personal email — at LAist, contact information is available on our staff page. If you meet a reporter, get their business card. It will usually have a direct phone number to talk with them.

Will all my words be published?

Probably not. Journalists are often working with a limited word count or air time. They will likely use one short sound bite or quote from you. It’s also possible they will not use your interview at all. Reporters and their editors decide what will get published.

Can I see a copy of the story before it's published?

Probably not. It is against journalistic ethics to have sources review a story before it’s published. Imagine if a journalist were to do a piece about government corruption. You wouldn’t want the government agency to review the story and edit it. Editors review stories for accuracy.

When will the story be published?

It depends on the type of story. Some stories are short and may air on the radio or be published online the same day you talk to the reporter. Other times a reporter might work on a story for several weeks or months. It’s OK to follow up with the reporter who talked to you and ask when the story might be done and ask them to let you know where you can read or hear it.

Can I speak with a fact-checker?

You are welcome to ask reporters about their fact-checking process or how they make sure a story is accurate. Not all outlets have fact-checkers. If the story is an investigative story or a long-form or magazine format, designated fact-checkers are more common. At LAist, reporters and editors are responsible for verifying information.

What if I am asked about something that makes me feel uncomfortable?

Your story is your own and during an interview you have full control over what you say to a reporter. Answer questions in any way that makes you feel most comfortable, and you can always decline to answer a question.

What do I do if a reporter asks me about my immigration status?

You don't have to disclose your immigration status to a reporter. If it's directly relevant to the story, a trustworthy reporter will explain that and also tell you how they'd handle the information. You can decline to answer.

• More on how LAist handles this topic

How do I determine if the newsroom I'm speaking with has a specific point of view?

It's a great question and relates directly to media literacy — meaning how well you can spot misinformation, disinformation and bias. The reality is that we all have points of view. Here are some tools to check on where a publication falls across the political spectrum:

• FAIR's (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), which describes itself as a "progressive media watchdog group" has this media literacy guide.
• PEW Research Center, which describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan nonadvocacy organization, has information on sources most popular with different political perspectives
• You should be able to find information on who funds the work on the site (corporations, individual owners, subscribers, members and so on).
• You can also check out this interactive chart tracking media outlets across the political spectrum (note that you may need a paid version to search smaller outlets). Ad Fontes Media, which describes itself as a "public benefit corporation" which they said means they are "a for-profit business with a stated public mission," has been publishing its analysis since 2018.

Is everything I say usable in a story?

You can come to an agreement with reporters ahead of the conversation about how your words can be used:

• “On the record”: This means that everything you say in your conversation with the journalist can be quoted, published and attributed back to you. By default, you should assume any exchange you have with a journalist is on the record unless you mutually agree otherwise. 
• “On background”: This means that you are sharing information with a journalist that can be referenced in a story, but is not directly attributed to you. 
• “Off the record”: This means that you are sharing information that is not for publication. People may share experiences or tips off the record if they want the journalist to be aware of the information but don’t want it mentioned in a story. Remember that “off the record” only counts if both you and the journalist agree to it. 

It's worth noting that different newsrooms may use these terms slightly differently. You should confirm with the reporter that you have as shared understanding of the meaning.

Do I need to pay to be in a news story? Can I get paid?

No and no. You will not pay or get paid to be in a news story because this is against journalistic ethics. Anyone who receives payment for a story could be swayed to bend the truth.

What if the reporter gets my story wrong?

If you feel that the reporter misrepresented your story, you can ask for a correction or an update to clarify a point. Reporters want to get the story right and they don't want to incorrect or misleading information to go unchecked. That said, corrections deal with information that is factually incorrect, so you should be ready to explain what was wrong and why. Under California law, you have 20 days to demand a correction and the publisher has to respond within a set period of time.

• More on California civil defamation claims and the definition of defamation.

How can I prepare for an interview?

Think about the main points you want to get across in your interview. What are the most critical things for the reporter to know? Some people like to organize their thoughts into three major points. If you are not used to telling your story, you may want to have a friend ask you some questions to practice. Depending on the story, a reporter may also ask if you have any pictures to share that they can use to help tell the story.

Get involved with LAist

Ask LAist reporters questions

You can reach out to LAist reporters through the contact information listed on their bios. All our editorial staff, including the teams reporting, editing and producing news, are listed here.

How else you can be a part of LAist's reporting

Aside from contacting journalists directly, you can share your story with LAist through short surveys and meeting us in person. Learn more here.

This guide was originally written by former LAist early childhood producer Stefanie Ritoper, with contributions from Mariana Dale. Cato Hernández and David Rodriguez also contributed to this guide. 

File this under things that could only happen in L.A.

Paradise Dynasty, the Singapore-based chain known for its signature eight-flavor xiao long bao, has teamed up with Burritos La Palma — the SoCal burrito institution whose birria de res recipe traces back over 45 years — to create a limited-edition birria soup dumpling. The Birria XLB will be available starting Monday (May 11) for a limited time at Paradise Dynasty locations.

I've eaten my weight in both soup dumplings and burritos, so naturally, I'm a fan of both.

Paradise Dynasty has been on a steady ascent as a major player in L.A.'s dumpling scene, with locations at South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and The Americana at Brand in Glendale.

Meanwhile, Burritos La Palma — known for its simple, savory burritos and finely crafted flour tortillas — has been capturing hearts and stomachs since Alberto Bañuelos opened the first eatery in L.A. in 2012. It’s since grown to several spots across L.A. and Orange County, earning a Michelin Bib Gourmand award in 2024 for its high-quality, Zacatecan-style handmade flour tortilla burritos at an affordable price.

How the collab came together

So what exactly is a birria soup dumpling? A delicate wrapper, lightly packed with tender birria de res — slow-braised beef stewed in chilies and spices — juicy, savory and gone in one bite.

It all began with a call from Paradise Dynasty, when Jason Kuo, district manager for Paradise Dynasty USA, reached out to Bañuelos, calling it, simply, a perfect match between the two dishes.

Kuo said the idea came straight from the community.

"When we started asking guests and people around us what flavor they would want to see in a soup dumpling, birria kept coming up again and again — it was very clear. If we're going to do birria, it has to be done right. Burritos La Palma was the first name that came to mind."

Bañuelos was "beyond thrilled" to have been approached.

"We come from a small town in Mexico, and to be able to elevate to the level of Paradise Dynasty and that culinary perfection, I can't even really put it into words," he said.

It took months of R&D to get the right consistency. Bañuelos said the process required dialing down the moisture and upping the spice potency and landed on serving a fresh red salsa with thin slivers of serrano peppers alongside — a riff on the black vinegar and pickled ginger traditionally served with soup dumplings.

The Birria XLB's juicy interior is part of what makes it work — the dish is served with a fresh, tomato-based salsa and slivers of serrano pepper in place of the traditional black vinegar and pickled ginger.

(

Katrina Frederick

/

Courtesy Paradise Dynasty

)

How it tastes

I got a chance to try the dumplings ahead of the public launch and was struck by how well the combination worked. The juicy nature of birria is almost turbocharged in dumpling form, its savory, herbaceous flavors fully encapsulated in the thin skin, creating an exceptional texture in every bite. The dish hits even harder when dipped in the light tomato-based salsa — a rush of freshness that cuts through the richness, with a spike of heat from fresh serrano. (Feel free to skip the peppers if spice isn't your thing.)

But what's most impressive is how organic it all feels. This isn't fusion for fusion's sake — it's a natural meeting of two dishes that are deeply embedded in the Southern California diet, each playing to the other's strengths.

It feels like a logical meeting of the minds — birria and soup dumplings have both been part of L.A.'s culinary zeitgeist for the better part of a decade, and it makes sense that these worlds should collide.

When asked whether a collaboration like this could happen anywhere else, Bañuelos was quick: "It has to start in L.A. You just can't compete."

Where to try it

Nine Democratic House members from California are demanding information about how the Trump administration is treating unaccompanied migrant children who are pregnant and in federal custody. They’ve signed a letter, along with 39 other House Democrats, to Trump officials expressing their concern that the girls are not receiving adequate medical care or access to abortion.

The letter comes in the wake of an investigation by the California and Texas Newsrooms, public media collaboratives in those states. LAist is part of The California Newsroom.

The joint investigation found that the federal government is detaining pregnant migrant girls in a single group home in South Texas. Doctors and reproductive-health experts interviewed for the investigation said prenatal care is severely limited in that region.

The letter says the detention violates federal regulations because the children are “entitled to the full range of medical care, including reproductive health care.”

Rep. Gil Cisneros, who represents the central San Gabriel Valley, says he worries that pregnant migrants who are apprehended in California will be put at risk if they’re sent to a part of Texas that is short on obstetric care. Of particularly concern: High-risk pregnancies are common among minors.

“If they were in California," he said, "they would be able to have more choices of the type of health care that they would get when it comes to reproductive health care.”

Rep. Judy Chu, who represents the West San Gabriel Valley, wrote in a statement that “this administration is so intent on restricting abortion that it is using immigration detention as a tool to control these girls’ bodies.”

Mark Betancourt is a regular contributor to The California Newsroom. 

The U.S. Department of Education is investigating how the Los Angeles Unified School District responds to educators accused of sexual misconduct with students.

The department accuses the district of maintaining a policy that “automatically” reassigns teachers to other schools when they are accused of sexual misconduct with students and cites a 2024 agreement with the teachers union.

A Los Angeles Unified spokesperson wrote in a statement that it’s “not true” that staff being investigated for sexual misconduct are reassigned to other school sites.

“‘Reassignment’ typically means an employee is directed to remain at home and away from students and schools during an investigation,” the spokesperson wrote.

United Teachers Los Angeles called the DOE's accusations a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the district’s reassignment policy.

“[Employees] are not reassigned to another classroom or to any other setting where they would interact with students,” read a statement provided by the union. “This policy protects both students and staff and creates conditions for a thorough and appropriate investigation of allegations.”

What to expect from the federal investigation

The federal investigation, overseen by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, will assess whether the district’s policy violates Title IX, a law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.

Kimberly Richey, the assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a statement that Title IX requires schools to address claims of sexual misconduct in a “timely manner.”

“It is unconscionable that the district would simply ignore Title IX’s procedural requirements to protect teachers who cause life-changing harm to their kids,” Richey wrote. “The Trump administration will always fight to uphold the law, protect the safety of all students and restore common sense to our schools.”

The Trump administration also has recently targeted LAUSD's desegregation policy and transgender student protections.

Last year, the office failed to resolve any cases related to sexual harassment, sexual violence or racial harassment, according to a report released by Sen. Bernie Sanders in late April. Sanders is the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Education Committee.

In March 2025, the Trump administration pushed to cut over half of OCR’s nearly 600 staff members, which contributed to a growing backlog of cases. Those employees were placed on administrative leave pending the result of legal challenges, and many were later brought back.

The Education Department has also withheld records related to civil rights investigations, prompting a lawsuit from investigative nonprofit newsroom ProPublica.

What does LAUSD’s policy say? 

LAUSD protocol related to employee misconduct says administrators must remove accused employees from their classroom or worksite whenever there is a risk to the safety of students or staff.

The 110-page protocol document also lists several other requirements for allegations related to sexual misconduct, including contacting law enforcement and the agencies that license teachers.

“Los Angeles Unified takes all allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment with the utmost seriousness,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of every student and staff member in our care.” The statement also said the district follows Title IX procedures and continuously reviews its policies, training and reporting systems.

The UTLA settlement outlines several circumstances where an employee can be reassigned, including a law enforcement investigation of misconduct, sexual harassment of a student, behavior toward a student perceived to be motivated by a sexual interest and communicating with a student for non-school-related purposes.

School employees are “mandated reporters” who must, by law, notify local law enforcement or child welfare agencies of suspected child abuse or neglect. California Attorney General Rob Bonta reminded K-12 school district leaders in late April of their legal obligation to prevent sexual misconduct and protect students.

How prevalent is sexual misconduct in California schools?

There have been few comprehensive studies of sexual misconduct in schools. A 2004 report to the Department of Education estimated 1-in-10 students experiences sexual misconduct, ranging from inappropriate comments to physical abuse.

A new California law requires schools to train students and staff to recognize and report misconduct and write new policies on “appropriate behavior.” It also will create a new database of educators credibly accused of abuse.

More than 1,000 lawsuits related to sexual abuse that date to the 1940s have been filed against California school districts since the enactment of a 2019 law that gave victims a three-year window to sue.

LAUSD has authorized $750 million in bonds to pay for sexual misconduct settlements related to suits stemming from the law.