The Brief

California counties are reporting decreases in homelessness, suggesting the state is finally making progress in solving one of its most difficult and persistent problems.

But even as Gov. Gavin Newsom and local officials are celebrating, the money that made those wins possible is at risk of evaporating.

President Donald Trump’s administration this month tried to block organizations that don’t support its social agenda from accessing federal homeless housing funds — causing experts in the field to worry that politically liberal California could find itself blacklisted from crucial dollars.

Cuts to state homelessness funding are also on the horizon, and some local jurisdictions are pulling back funds as they struggle with their own budget deficits. That has counties, nonprofits and industry experts worried California’s homeless counts will soon go right back up.

“I do think that we’re doing something right,” Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said of the recent decreases. “That all may come to a crashing end with a lot of concerns with what’s happening at the federal level, federal policy changing and funding cuts happening.”

Of the 29 places in California that reported an official homeless census this year, more than half saw a decrease compared to 2024, according to an analysis of point-in-time counts by the Hub for Urban Initiatives. That includes drops of about a quarter in Contra Costa and Sonoma counties, 20% in Santa Cruz County, 16% in Ventura County and 14% in Merced County.

San Diego and Los Angeles counties each saw a decrease of less than 10%. For LA County, this marks the second year in a row that homelessness is down.

But funding worries loom like a black cloud over those promising results. As purse strings tighten, service providers will have to cut staff, programs and bed capacity, meaning they can help fewer homeless people. For years, California cities, counties and nonprofits have been pushing the Newsom administration to provide an ongoing source of homeless funding, so service providers can plan ahead without worrying each year about how much money they’ll get.

Some organizations already are feeling the squeeze.

From December through July, Union Station Homeless Services in Los Angeles County turned away 700 families who needed housing, said CEO Katie Hill.

“We just don’t have anything available for them,” Hill said.

The county cut housing vouchers as the city and county struggled with financial fallout from recent wildfires, falling property tax revenues and increasing legal payouts.

Other organizations are closing their doors for good. Downtown Streets Team, which helps unhoused residents in 16 California cities find housing while earning money cleaning up local streets, plans to close next month after two decades of service.

“The financial and political environment we operate in has shifted dramatically in recent months,” CEO Julie Gardner said in an emailed statement. “During this time, (Downtown Streets Team) lost several significant contracts and grants, creating a multi-million-dollar loss in overall funding. When combined with other factors, including rapidly rising operational costs, these losses made it impossible to continue running the organization in a financially sustainable way.”

‘I just don’t think we’re going to see that funding’

Congress in 2023 appropriated $75 million for something called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which was supposed to help support the construction of new homeless housing. Former President Joe Biden’s administration started the application process for those grants in 2024. When Trump took the helm in 2025, his administration re-started the process with new criteria, making applicants apply again.

Then, at the start of September, the Trump administration made everyone apply a third time — with a very different set of criteria seeming to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” strategies to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

Applicants had to attest that they don’t deny the “sex binary in humans or promote the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic.” They had to promise not to distribute drug paraphernalia or allow the use of drugs on their property.

Applicants also had to attest that they operate in a city, county or state that cooperates with federal immigration enforcement. Newsom has resisted Trump’s immigration crackdown at a state level, and recently signed a set of bills intended to further check ICE.

And applicants were required to operate in a city, county or state that prohibits public camping and enforces that rule. That one could be an easier lift: Arrests and citations for camping-related activities have soared in some California cities over the past year, after the U.S. Supreme Court gave cities more leeway to crack down, and Newsom encouraged cities to ban camping. But two recent statewide attempts to ban homeless camps from near schools and other areas fell flat.

The new funding rules were a major blow to Contra Costa County-based Hope Solutions, which was initially selected to receive $5.5 million to build 15 tiny homes for homeless 18-24-year-olds in Pittsburg. After staff spent at least 100 hours completing the project proposal, they learned this month that they’d no longer qualify because of the new criteria. The Pittsburg Police Department says it does not participate in immigration enforcement. In addition, the new program rules specify the money must go to buildings that serve elderly residents — an about-face that takes Hope Solutions’ youth project out of the running.

“It felt like a gut punch,” said CEO Deanne Pearn, “and really disheartening to know that we had spent so much time and asked so much of our county partners and others, and that that time could have been spent elsewhere.”

The camp where a person experiencing homelessness lives on a hillside above U.S. Route 50 in Sacramento, on Oct. 25, 2024.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Hope Solutions is still moving forward with the project, which Pearn hopes the organization can fund with its own financial reserves. But that means the nonprofit won’t have that money for its next project.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness recently sued the Trump administration over the new grant conditions, claiming that all projects in California and three dozen other states would be ineligible for funds. Earlier this month, a federal judge sided with the Alliance, and temporarily barred the federal government from distributing those funds.

Now, that $75 million is frozen as the case moves forward.

While the new conditions at issue in the lawsuit apply only to one specific federal homelessness grant, experts worry it’s an ominous sign for California. Service providers expect applications to open this fall for the main source of federal homelessness funding — the Continuum of Care Program — which funneled about $600 million to California counties in 2023.

If that application poses similar requirements, California could be in trouble.

“Personally, I just don’t think we’re going to see that funding,” said Hill, of Union Station Homeless Services in Los Angeles County.

In a separate lawsuit, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties sued the Trump administration over contracts that prevented recipients of federal homeless funds from using the money to promote “gender ideology,” “elective abortions” and “illegal immigration.” The counties won an early victory last month, when a judge temporarily blocked the administration from imposing those conditions.

Other federal cuts are looming, too. The Emergency Housing Vouchers program, which launched during the COVID-19 pandemic and now helps more than 15,000 Californians pay their rent, is expected to run out of money next year.

That’s not even counting the cuts to housing vouchers and other federal housing and homelessness programs Trump proposed in May, which are still being negotiated in Congress.

California turning a corner on homelessness

California appears to be decreasing its homeless population, according to the Hub for Urban Initiatives, a California organization that helps local communities shape their homelessness policy, apply for grants and survey their homeless populations.

The 29 California communities that counted and reported their homeless populations this year tallied a total of 131,209 people — a 4% decrease from what those same communities reported last year. That’s a significant step for a state where the homeless population has been stubbornly rising for years.

That data comes from the federally mandated homeless point-in-time count, where teams of volunteers count the unhoused people they see on the street on one night in January. The counts are imperfect, as volunteers can overlook people sleeping in out-of-the-way places, and different counties use different methods — while some places count every year, others count every other. Of the 44 “continuums of care” required to count in California (some small, rural communities combine multiple counties into one continuum of care), 14 didn’t count this year.

The federal housing department will release an official total for the state later this year.

Newsom trumpeted the initial decreases, taking credit for pouring money into homeless housing and other services. He’s not wrong.

Contra Costa County, which saw the state’s biggest drop in homelessness this year, attributes its success largely to the recent boost in state funding, said Christy Saxton, director of Health, Housing and Homeless Services for Contra Costa County. Over the past two years, the county increased its homeless shelter and housing capacity by more than a third.

A big piece of that was the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program, which Newsom launched in the 2019-20 budget year to fill what until then had been a void of state homelessness funds. For the past few years, that program gave cities and counties $1 billion each year.

Those funds support programs such as Contra Costa County’s Delta Landing temporary housing site in Pittsburg, which opened 172 units in 2021. Until then, that part of the county had about 20 beds for its unhoused residents, Saxton said.

But instead of making that state funding ongoing, Newsom’s administration opted to dole it out in one-time grants each year, leaving cities and counties continually guessing what next year’s budget will bring.

This year, that state program will get no new funding (because of the glacial pace at which the state distributes these funds, cities and counties have yet to receive money from the last round). Next year, the amount is set to shrink to $500 million.

“We are significantly concerned about the cuts that are coming,” Saxton said, “because it has taken an influx of money in order to see those decreases, and we need that to continue on now more than ever.”

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

A federal judge on Thursday ordered major changes to reported conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, granting a preliminary injunction that requires federal immigration officials provide people with clean drinking water and adequate medical care.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled that the detainees who brought the lawsuit “demonstrated they are likely to prevail” on their claims that conditions at the facility violate Fifth Amendment protections against inhumane conditions of confinement. While the case will continue to work its way through the courts, the judge issued the ruling now, finding that people being detained could suffer irreparable harm without court intervention.

The suit came after two deaths at the facility within weeks of each other last fall: Ismael Ayala-Uribe, a 39-year-old former DACA recipient, and 56-year-old Gabriel Garcia-Aviles. Both deaths are still under federal investigation as scrutiny over the conditions inside immigrant detention centers in the Trump administration continues to mount.

In their lawsuit, lawyers for the detainees said Adelanto violated ICE detention guidelines by failing to provide clean drinking water, nutritious meals, sanitation, access to medical care and medicine, as well as medical intake screening upon arrival at the facility. They also alleged violations of rules around recreation time outside, visitation time for family, daily headcount to ensure detainees are alive, and accommodations for people with disabilities.

In response, Sykes ordered 24-hour access to clean drinking water, meals with a sufficient number of calories, and access to soap and hygiene products free of charge. The injunction also requires the facility to be cleansed daily and for mold to be identified and removed. Detainees are to be provided blankets and temperature-appropriate clothing, as well as access to recreational yard time outside for at least four hours every day.

The order prevents Adelanto, which is located about 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles, from limiting family visitation during regular business hours, including removing time restrictions and physical contact, such as hugging or holding hands, with family members. It also says the facility can not cancel a visitation if a family member needs to use the restroom during the visit.

The majority of people being held in immigration detention centers in California have not been accused of committing crimes, only of civil immigration violations.

The court ordered Adelanto to perform at least two headcounts every day, once overnight and once during the day, to ensure detainees are present and not incapacitated. The court also ordered restrictions on sending detainees to isolation, barring a life safety risk to staff or if the detainee requests it.

The ruling requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other named defendants to immediately provide detainees with the condition upgrades the judge ordered.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the ruling. DHS attorney Pushkal Mishra argued in court last week the federal government couldn’t be held liable for the actions of its contractor, GEO Group, which runs Adelanto and 18 other immigration facilities around the country.

In a motion to dismiss the case, DHS argued that it should not have “to take over the daily management of a federal contract from a private contractor.”

GEO Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Disability access in ICE facilities has been a recurring issue since the Trump administration took office for a second term. According to the complaint, one person described being placed in handcuffs and ankle chains for court appearances despite using a cane. Others alleged people with mobility issues were routinely assigned top bunks. The new court order requires the government to provide people with disabilities with reasonable accommodations.

The court has given the federal government 14 days to create a plan to address medical care and disability needs for detainees. The order requires all detainees to be given an intake screening upon arriving for physical or mental illnesses, ensure ongoing treatment and medication, and treat and segregate detainees to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. The order also mandates that every detainee must have access to primary, secondary, and tertiary medical care and be advised of their patient rights.

Sykes ordered that the government must provide two independent monitors for the duration of the lawsuit to ensure compliance with the court orders. Detainees must also be given the opportunity to submit grievances to the monitors in English or Spanish that are contained in a lockbox only accessible to the monitors.

A report by the California attorney general this year found that six people have died in detention facilities in the state since the start of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. Nationwide, 22 people have died this year in immigration detention.

This week, the Mexican federal government called on state attorneys general to criminally investigate cases where Mexican nationals have died in ICE custody.

The White House has released a series of documents that President Donald Trump said in a primetime address reveals "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure."

Yet Trump, who for years has baselessly claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him, did not detail allegations of widespread illegal votes in that election. Numerous reviews have debunked his claims about that election.

Instead, he focused on allegations that China had accessed voter data and that noncitizens are found on certain states' voter rolls, among his claims.

Yet Trump has often spoken of issues with elections that fall apart under scrutiny. His administration's system for identifying noncitizens on voter rolls has incorrectly flagged citizens, for example.

The remarks came as his war in Iran approaches the five-month mark, some Republican lawmakers want him to focus on the economy, and as his approval rating remains near second-term lows.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The state is often knocked by the rest of the country as being "slow" to count votes. But here's the deal: that's a feature, not a bug, of the election system.

The backstory

Things take a while here largely because California works so hard to expand the ways people can vote. For example:

• Californians in recent years overwhelmingly vote by mail — nearly 90% of votes cast in the 2024 presidential election were mail-in ballots. In that same year's primary the percentage was just as high. Those ballots can be postmarked up to and including Election Day. They're counted as long as the ballot arrives within seven days (for the June primary, that was June 9).
• California offers same-day voter registration at any voting center. These new voters must cast a provisional ballot, which is counted once election officials confirm their eligibility (they are overwhelmingly accepted — for example, Los Angeles County reports that historically between 85% to 90% have been counted.)
• Voters also have the right to cast provisional ballots if there's any problem on Election Day — like if poll workers aren't able to void an outstanding mail-in ballot, or if there’s any issue calling up voter information from e-pollbooks. Again (see above), provisionals take longer to process because eligibility has to be confirmed.
• Vote-by-mail ballots require signature matching. When the one received doesn't match the one on file, county registrars must contact that voter to let them know — and give them the chance to correct it.
• And, with more than 23 million registered voters, we're really, really big. In the 2024 general election more than 16 million Californians voted (down from nearly 18 million in the 2020 presidential election). Either way, that’s more people than the total populations of all but three other states.

Why things have sped up, some

But things have sped up considerably in the 30 counties that have adopted a 2016 law called the Voter's Choice Act, including L.A., Orange and Riverside counties. In recent elections, the changes associated with that law — like voters not being locked into a designated polling location — drastically cut down the number of provisional ballots cast, which helped move things along faster than they had before.

A closer look at ballot counting times in California where an increasing number of vote-by-mail ballots has slowed ballot counts.

(

Courtesy California Voter Foundation

)

Still, accuracy and a commitment to "expanding the franchise" — translation: allowing more people to vote — means the process is not designed to produce instantaneous results.

L.A. County Office of Education’s letter to Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month, warning it was at risk of running out of money, has escalated tensions between county overseers and the state’s biggest school district.

LACOE has told the district it must revise its $21 billion budget by mid-August — or risk the appointment of an external advisor with the power to override the LAUSD board and superintendent’s decisions.

The district has already announced the elimination of hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, and approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years through furloughs, layoffs and school consolidations.

But LACOE says it wants a more specific plan with more details, and has assigned a fiscal expert to help.

What does it all mean — for teachers, staff and most importantly, the almost 400,000 students in LAUSD schools? We break it down.

What’s in the letter?

The letter outlines a list of why the County has determined the district will become insolvent.

These include:

• Running out of money: The district's own projection has shown that its operating cash will be $231 million in the red by November 2027. “A district that cannot maintain a positive cash balance is unable to meet payroll and other obligations as they come due,” wrote Debra Duardo, the L.A. County superintendent. 

• New labor agreements with teachers, principals, school support staff and other employees: Recently approved contracts, which the unions say are essential to helping employees weather the region’s increasingly high cost of living, will cost an additional $1 billion in the next school year. These increases outpace the state’s  cost of living increases. 
  
• Declining enrollment and attendance: About 40% fewer students attend LAUSD schools than two decades ago, in part because of lower birthrates and families leaving because of the region’s high cost of living. Over time, this can reduce revenue because state funding is calculated based on how many students show up for class each day. 
  
• Leadership stability: The LAUSD Board appointed Andrés Chait, a longtime district administrator, as superintendent in June, just days after his predecessor resigned amid an ongoing federal investigation. ”This transition occurs at the moment the district must execute substantial corrective actions,” Duardo wrote.

It also includes next steps. We’ll discuss those below.

Why did LACOE send the letter July 2?

The letter is part of a process outlined in California law meant to prevent districts from going bankrupt.

Specifically, LACOE is required to intervene anytime it determines the district may be unable to meet its financial obligations in the current or subsequent two years (California requires districts to budget in three-year blocks.)

Has this happened to LAUSD before?

The requirement to issue this letter is fairly new and tied to a 2021 change in state law.

However, LACOE has intervened in LAUSD’s finances in the past. The agency assigned a fiscal expert team to the district from January 2019 to December 2021 after determining the district was at risk of not meeting its financial obligations.

The team helped analyze staffing, enrollment and make adjustments to the budget, according to a statement provided by Elizabeth Graswich, executive director of LACOE’s public affairs and communications department.

How did LAUSD get to this point?

The shortest explanation is that LAUSD is spending more money than it brings in.

The last three budgets relied on billions of dollars in reserves to offset the deficit.

Some of those reserves were built up when the district was receiving federal pandemic relief money and that funding ended in 2024.

LAUSD, like other districts in the state, also faces increased costs on everything from employee salaries and benefits to providing services for students with disabilities and settlements for decades-old sexual assault claims.

The district’s unions, parents, and several board members have also called for increased scrutiny on how much money the district spends on third-party contracts, including with tech companies.

Is LAUSD making cuts? How will they affect students?

LAUSD has already eliminated hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, earlier this year.

This summer the board approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years.

That plan includes furlough days for all employees, the elimination of thousands more jobs and cuts to the trust that funds retiree health benefits.

Among the cuts is the elimination of $900 million that helps high-needs schools pay for counselors, tutors and other student supports.

Most of these cuts aren’t scheduled to go into effect until the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years.

The county said in its letter that the district plan needs to be more specific and include how each proposed change will be implemented, when the change will happen and how the outcomes will be measured.

Has there been any push back to the letter’s findings?

The district did not appeal the letter’s findings to the state, according to a district spokesperson.

However, when LAist asked if the district disputed any of the findings, a spokesperson wrote that the district is quote “continuing conversations” with the County, and that a revision to the budget may not be required.

“We will remain in conversation with LACOE to ensure our financial plan remains responsible, transparent, and aligned with our long-term commitments,” the spokesperson wrote.

The teachers union has said the letter unfairly targets the union’s new contracts.

“To me it feels as though the message is, ‘We warned you not to approve these contracts, and yet you did, and now we're going to overstep,’” said Gloria Martinez, president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

Martinez said the overall problem is that California doesn’t adequately fund public education.

We’re about a month away from the start of the next school year. What happens next?

The county has appointed a fiscal expert to help the district revise its budget by mid-August. Otherwise, the county says this advisor could be given the power to override decisions by the board and superintendent.

What happens if the district runs out of money?

Districts that become insolvent can lose the power to govern themselves in an arrangement called receivership. Instead of the elected school board and appointed superintendent making decisions about everything from curriculum to the budget, that power is transferred to an external administrator.

Receivership is a condition of accepting an emergency loan from the state. Only 10 school districts, out of nearly 1,000 statewide, have entered receivership since 1990, including Inglewood Unified.

The impact on students varies from district to district. The process was designed to protect students from sudden school shutdowns, but it comes at a cost. Districts must pay back the emergency loan and community-members lose the ability to elect or recall decision-makers during the receivership.

Contact your school board member

The LAUSD's Board's next meeting is a closed session scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug.11.