The Brief

As L.A. residents continue to rank homelessness as a top concern, taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Mayor Karen Bass’ signature program Inside Safe to help get people off the streets and into motels.

Now an LAist review has found major errors in a recent data release that tracks where encampments have been cleared and how many people were brought inside from each council district.

It comes as some council members have questioned a lack of details about how the mayor’s office chooses which encampments to offer motel rooms to.

The data was the first — and so far only — detailed public listing of each encampment operation for Inside Safe, a program that started a year and a half ago.

About the data and errors

The data was provided to the City Council back in April by the L.A. Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), after the council ordered officials to gather it.

As LAist was analyzing the data last week, we reached out to all 15 council offices to verify the accuracy. That’s when problems with the data were pointed out to LAist by officials — problems that hadn’t previously been acknowledged publicly.

Click to compare the spreadsheets

Officials who prepared the spreadsheet acknowledge it had the following errors:

• It incorrectly labeled encampments located in multiple districts as only being in a single district. In one of those operations, 116 people were incorrectly labeled as all coming inside from Council District 1. The vast majority — about 100 — were actually in Council District 13, according to that district’s spokesperson. 
• It double-counted about 50 people who left Inside Safe motels, returned to an encampment, and then re-entered an Inside Safe motel.
• It listed incorrect dates for when encampment clearings took place. Among the problems: It showed an Inside Safe operation as starting before the mayor took office. The program didn’t launch until after she was sworn in.

Officials at the Homeless Services Authority acknowledged the errors in an interview with LAist and issued a correction this week for the City Council. The agency is overseen by Bass and other officials appointed by the mayor and county supervisors.

LAHSA official owns the errors

“I will own the errors in that report,” said Bevin Kuhn, who has been overseeing data at LAHSA on an interim basis since February. That’s when the previous data chief — Emily Vaughn Henry — left, before this data was compiled.

Kuhn was brought into the top data role at LAHSA by its CEO, Va Lecia Adams Kellum, who formerly worked with Kuhn at the Westside service provider St. Joseph Center.

Kuhn said the data was compiled as she was starting in her new role, and that she did not take the time to thoroughly review the data before it went out for the council.

“This report unfortunately fell off my personal radar,” Kuhn said.

“There was nothing nefarious about it, and there was nothing hidden there.”

LAHSA fixed the errors, and the corrected report sent to the city on Tuesday is “100% accurate,” Kuhn said.

Kuhn said she’s learned to communicate if deadlines aren’t realistic, and to do a better job of educating staff to prevent data errors.

Adams Kellum said she believes overall that LAHSA’s data is much more accurate than in the past, but that mistakes do still happen. She said she’s been working to get LAHSA staff to feel more comfortable asking for more time to make sure data reports are correct, and owning up to mistakes.

“We know nothing will get better, and we won't be able to hone our interventions if we can't tell you what's working and what's not,” she told LAist.

Timing: Homeless count numbers coming soon

LAist discovered the errors as LAHSA prepares to release the widely-anticipated homeless count results on Friday.

Asked why the public should trust the point in time results, Adams Kellum said it’s important to note that the data for that is overseen and validated by researchers at the University of Southern California.

She acknowledged “data issues across our entire homeless delivery system,” noting that LAist has reported on many of them.

“We've made great strides,” Adams Kellum said, adding that Kuhn “is making a great improvement in our ability to stand behind the numbers and also share with you where there's gaps.”

“That's that transparency that we're trying to get to.”

The backstory

The data was collected under a City Council order in February, which was initiated by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.

“I requested the data because this information was not forthcoming from the mayor's office when we were requesting these reports” previously, Rodriguez told LAist in an interview.

“My big problem is that there was a lot of dollars being spent, a lot of money being allocated, but there hasn't been a lot of accountability for who's getting what money, what is it going to — like, breaking down and distilling more of those details,” Rodriguez told LAist in an interview.

The mayor’s office should be ensuring transparency and accuracy for data about the mayor’s key program, Rodriguez said.

“The administrator of the program should be able to account for how the program operates and where the deployments are.”

LAist requested an interview with Bass and her top homelessness advisor, Lourdes Castro Ramirez. They have not responded.

Why there are still unanswered questions

Many City Council members say Inside Safe is making a real difference in the lives of their constituents — housed and unhoused alike. More than 2,700 people have come inside under the program, as of the latest data, of whom about 1,900 are still known to be in shelter or housing.

Still, lack of clarity around how decisions get made persists, which the City Council’s directive to collect data in February noted. The strategy “remains open to further definition,” states the motion.

Asked how encampments are prioritized for Inside Safe, Mayor Bass’ office pointed LAist to a short description that says factors include “council district priorities, voluntary participation, encampment-specific needs (e.g., RVs, number of residents, size of encampment, safety/hazard issues, multiple jurisdictions), availability of interim housing, and service provider capacity."

Her office did not respond to follow-up questions, including what "council district priorities" means and how they’re decided.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who chairs the council’s budget committee, called for “more transparency and accountability” about Inside Safe decisions in an interview with LAist.

He credited the mayor’s office with trying to prioritize encampments for Inside Safe in “a rational way,” but said “the decision process is not necessarily clear or inclusive of the entire council.”

“I think they're just trying to address a crisis. I don't think they have a clearly delineated process,” Blumenfield said.

The City Council is now stepping up its push for transparency about that. As part of its budget approval for the new fiscal year, the council is requiring detailed data about each Inside Safe operation on a regular basis — including, for the first time, how encampments were chosen.

As for the data errors uncovered by LAist, he said LAHSA’s data quality has been a longstanding problem and one that’s still “a big concern” for him.

LAHSA officials “certainly have asked us for more money for admin, for data, and we've provided that every time we've been asked,” he added.

“And we're spending a lot on making sure that they're resourced to provide the data.”

Tell LAist: The state of homelessness in your neighborhood

NEW YORK — A coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia on Tuesday sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and its inspector general over a declaration that could complicate access to gender-affirming care for young people.

The declaration issued last Thursday called treatments like puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries unsafe and ineffective for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, or the distress when someone's gender expression doesn't match their sex assigned at birth. It also warned doctors that they could be excluded from federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid if they provide those types of care.

The declaration came as HHS also announced proposed rules meant to further curtail gender-affirming care for young people, although the lawsuit doesn't address those as they are not final.

Tuesday's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, alleges that the declaration is inaccurate and unlawful and asks the court to block its enforcement. It's the latest in a series of clashes between an administration that's cracking down on transgender health care for children, arguing it can be harmful to them, and advocates who say the care is medically necessary and shouldn't be inhibited.

"Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors' offices," New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement Tuesday.

The lawsuit alleges that HHS's declaration seeks to coerce providers to stop providing gender-affirming care and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. It says federal law requires the public to be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively changing health policy — neither of which, the suit says, was done before the declaration was issued.

A spokesperson for HHS declined to comment.

HHS's declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that urged greater reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender-affirming care for youths with gender dysphoria.

The report questioned standards for the treatment of transgender youth issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and raised concerns that adolescents may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility.

Major medical groups and those who treat transgender young people have sharply criticized the report as inaccurate, and most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, continue to oppose restrictions on transgender care and services for young people.

The declaration was announced as part of a multifaceted effort to limit gender-affirming health care for children and teenagers — and built on other Trump administration efforts to target the rights of transgender people nationwide.

HHS on Thursday also unveiled two proposed federal rules — one to cut off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children, and another to prohibit federal Medicaid dollars from being used for such procedures.

The proposals are not yet final or legally binding and must go through a lengthy rulemaking process and public comment before becoming permanent. But they will nonetheless likely further discourage health care providers from offering gender-affirming care to children.

Several major medical providers already have pulled back on gender-affirming care for young patients since Trump returned to office — even in states where the care is legal and protected by state law.

Medicaid programs in slightly less than half of states currently cover gender-affirming care. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care. The Supreme Court's recent decision upholding Tennessee's ban means most other state laws are likely to remain in place.

Joining James in Tuesday's lawsuit were Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington and the District of Columbia. Pennsylvania's Democratic governor also joined.
Copyright 2025 NPR

A dangerous atmospheric river is poised to deliver “excessive rainfall” across Southern California, raising fears that the rain could unleash a threat that has been lingering in the burn scars of wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles communities in recent years.

Called debris flows, these fast-moving slurries of floodwater and sediment can hurtle down slopes carrying cars, trees and even boulders with them.

They’re like “a flood on steroids,” said Jason Kean, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s landslide hazards program. “It’s really hard to stop these things. The best thing to do is get out of the way.”

Northern California is already reeling from the atmospheric river that unleashed catastrophic flash flooding in Redding over the weekend, killing a 74-year-old man who became trapped in his pickup truck on a flooded roadway.

Now, another storm is expected to reach coastal Northern California this evening, with strong winds and especially heavy rainfall pushing into Southern California.

Forecasters warn that the rain “will cause life-threatening flash flooding, along with landslides, rockfalls, and/or mudslides,” particularly for areas along Southern California’s Transverse Ranges, including the San Bernardino, San Gabriel, and Sierra Madre mountains. “Urban flooding in the greater Los Angeles metro area is likely.”

Burn scars — slicked by fire and stripped of plants — are especially dangerous during heavy rains. A storm after the Thomas Fire in 2018 spurred debris flows in Montecito that killed 23 people. And in February, a debris flow in the Palisades Fire burn zone swept a Los Angeles Fire Department member and his SUV into the Pacific Ocean.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works warns that there’s a risk of moderate debris and mudflows capable of blocking roadways and endangering some structures in the burn scars of more than a dozen fires — including January’s Eaton, Hurst and Palisades fires.

The county has issued evacuation warnings in and around recent burn scars, and urged those who may take longer to evacuate to consider leaving now. Officials also announced some targeted evacuation orders for specific properties “at higher risk for mud and debris flows impacts.”

“Recent burn areas, including those impacted by the January wildfires, remain highly susceptible to mud and debris flows,” county officials warned Monday.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday that more than 225 personnel and resources including 45 fire engines, 10 swiftwater rescue teams, helicopters and more have been pre-deployed to a dozen northern and southern California counties.

Meteorologists are discussing it as a “one in every five years type of storm,” said Lisa Phillips with the National Weather Service. “There's going to be problems everywhere. We have a lot of canyon roads and mountain roads, and things will fall down.”

Phillips said she expects to see mudslides, landslides, sinkholes — even after the rains have ended, and urged people to stay off the roads if they can.

“There's going to be issues outside of the burn scars too, and flooding,” Phillips said. “We want everyone to stay at home, stay safe and don't get yourself into any trouble unnecessarily.”

We spoke with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Kean, an expert on debris flows after wildfires, last month about what to expect when storms strike burn scars. This conversation has been edited and condensed.

As this storm really takes hold in L.A. and Southern California, I'm hearing a lot of concern about it hitting areas that burned this past year, including in the Eaton and Palisades fires. Why is this such a big concern? What could happen?

Last January those fires removed much of the vegetation on really steep slopes, and that made those slopes really vulnerable to erosion during intense rainfall. That protective blanket of vegetation is gone, and heavy rain can rapidly make a flash flood. And that flood, in some cases, can pick up material and turn into what we call a debris flow — which is like a flood on steroids.

Damage along Tanoble Drive near Mendocino Street is visible after heavy rainfall triggered multiple mudslides in the Eaton Fire burn scar area in Altadena on Feb. 14, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters These burn areas are still vulnerable, even though it's now many months after the fire and there have been flows already. There's still plenty of material that could be mobilized. So the threat’s still there. And so we know they're bad actors, and we’re concerned they could be bad actors again.

I’m hearing a lot of different terms: mudslide, debris flows, landslide. What are the differences, and which ones are the burn scars at risk for? 

Landslide is an umbrella term that captures all kinds of mass movements, from rock falls to debris flows — these floods on steroids — to big, slow movers. The type of flow that we're most concerned about in a recent burn area is a debris flow. It's also called a mudslide. But geologists don't like to use the word mudslide as much because it sounds like there's some mud on your driveway — not a big issue, not something that could kill you. And these things, if you're in the wrong spot at the wrong time, they can cause serious damage.

You called it a flood on steroids. What happens in a debris flow? 

Flash floods are bad, and they can cause lots of problems, too. They can get even worse if they pick up enough sediment to turn into the consistency of wet concrete. But it's worse than just concrete, because it can contain boulders the size of cars. And, very close to the mountain front, it can move very quickly — faster than you can run. And when it gets all bulked up with debris, the rocks, the gravel, the mud, trees, the flow can be a lot bigger. It just turns into a different animal.

Now, debris flows pack a bigger punch than floods, but thankfully, they don't have as long of reach. So usually, the debris flows are confined really close to the mountain fronts. That's where they put those debris basins to catch them. But if there isn't one protection like that, then they can travel downslope and impact neighborhoods, and then flooding can extend even further down.

Is there something about Southern California that makes it higher risk?

Southern California's kind of the world capital for these kinds of events. It's got this combination of very steep topography, like the San Gabriel Mountains that just shoot right up, Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Ynez — very steep topography. It burns fairly frequently. And then there are a lot of people living very close to the mountain front, so that's what puts the risk up.

The thing about a burn area is it takes much less rainfall to cause a problem than it would in unburned conditions. So we've now made the slopes really vulnerable. They're extra steep. There's a lot of people there. That's why the risk is so high.

We've seen debris flows in Northern California burn areas as well. It's not just a Southern California problem, and it's not just a California problem.

Is there anything that could have been done to reduce this risk? Anything that should be done now? 

Not long after the fires, in particular the Palisades Fire, (there were) a number of fairly widespread debris flows that disrupted the roads. There were also, in the Eaton fire, floods and debris flows there. Thankfully there's a dense network of LA County debris basins, which are designed to catch the material before it enters neighborhoods, and those largely saved the day.

Planners have planned ahead and put in these debris basins — these big, giant holes in the ground — designed to catch the material. That's the best defense against these. They're not everywhere, but there is a good network of protection. Other than that, it's really hard to stop these things.

What should people who live near the recent burn scars know? What should they do now, as the rain starts? 

The best thing you could do is, if you're really close to a drainage in one of these burn areas, is to get out of the way. You're going to get a heads up from the National Weather Service, who's closely monitoring the rainstorms. They know how much rain it's going to take to cause a problem, and they'll get out warnings, and local authorities will reach out to get people out of the way. So there's a lot of eyes on the situation. And so at this point, the best thing to do is listen to the weather service, listen to local authorities.

If they ask you to get out of the way, take their advice. These things can happen really fast if there is an intense burst of rain, a flash flood, where debris flow can start within minutes.

So there is no escaping a debris flow once it starts? 

It's pretty difficult. If you have a two-story home and you happen to be there at the wrong time, get up to that second floor for sure. Fight like heck if you get trapped in one. But best to be out of the way.

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

Of everything I saw on TV in 2025, the one show I thought was the very best, and has haunted me ever since, was the four-part Netflix drama Adolescence. It's the story of a young teen accused of murdering a classmate, and it's told in such a way, emotionally and technically, that I can't and won't forget it. It's the show I recommend most highly, but with a major caveat. It's grim. And it's almost unbearably intense.

Intensity, it turns out, is a common factor among many of my very favorite shows from this year. HBO Max's The Pitt was a medical show with an impressively credible tension factor. So was Netflix's The Diplomat, with its unpredictable, high-stakes plot twists. And so was FX's The Bear, even though it wasn't about life or death, just appetizers and entrees. The Bear even calls itself a comedy, but it's not. Much, much too dramatic for that.

A couple of my other favorite TV dramas, almost equally intense, featured ragtag, mismatched investigative teams thrown together to solve specific crimes. One, HBO's Task, was headed by a brooding, intelligent guy with lots of emotional baggage, played by Mark Ruffalo. Another, Netflix's Dept. Q, was headed by a brooding, intelligent guy with even more emotional baggage, played by Matthew Goode.

And maybe it's just me, but this year I definitely gravitated to dramatic shows that made me uneasy. It was another great season for Netflix's Black Mirror, and the end-of-year final episode of another dark Netflix fantasy series, Stranger Things, is eagerly awaited by many. Including me, because I've seen all the new episodes leading up to it, but the finale is being kept under wraps.

Stranger Things has been around since 2016 — almost a decade — but other terrific genre productions were new takes on old ideas. Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein, on Netflix, was an excellent and very different adaptation. And what Noah Hawley did by reinventing the Alien movie franchise, for the FX TV series Alien: Earth, was thrilling — and, at times, truly scary. And still churning out weekly episodes, brilliant ones, is Pluribus, the new, indescribably original Apple TV sci-fi series from Vince Gilligan.

The comedies I liked best this year? Some were set behind-the-scenes of show biz — like the new Apple TV series The Studio, starring Seth Rogen as a bumbling but well-meaning studio head, and the returning HBO Max series Hacks, starring Jean Smart as a female comic landing a job as a TV talk-show host. The other comedies were lighthearted mysteries benefiting greatly from their veteran cast members: Hulu's Only Murders in the Building and Netflix's A Man on the Inside. Both of those shows made me feel good — which is a lot to ask of any TV show these days.

Nonfiction TV also offered many excellent options this year. Artistic profiles to seek out from 2025 include Apple TV's Mr. Scorsese, about film director Martin Scorsese, and HBO's Pee-wee as Himself, about actor Paul Reubens. Most recently, there's the short but powerful Netflix documentary All the Empty Rooms, about a TV feature reporter and photographer who visit the families of children killed during school shootings, to memorialize the children's empty, but still intact, bedrooms. It's as tough to watch as Adolescence — and, oddly, touches on a similar subject.

Other great documentaries this year included Sunday Best, a new Netflix program about Ed Sullivan's contributions to popularizing Black entertainers; PBS's The American Revolution, the latest and perhaps greatest epic history lesson from Ken Burns and company; and the new installment of The Beatles Anthology, presented by Disney+.

On talk shows, I loved the feisty, topical spirit invoked by Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, Seth Meyers and John Oliver — and especially the well-aimed irreverence of the current season of Comedy Central's South Park. Wow. Many of these shows were attacked or censored by their corporate owners, in well-publicized clashes that exposed, and fought against, the interference. The CBS Late Show franchise is being retired from the schedule — but most of the time this year, the comics and their programs persevered.

Finally, my favorite TV moment of 2025 came courtesy of CNN. Not for a news bulletin, but for televising, live from Broadway, a production of Good Night, and Good Luck, starring George Clooney as veteran CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow. At the end of the play, Clooney recites Murrow's actual speech to news and TV executives from 1958, urging them to use TV wisely.

In the year 2025, the best of television — from The American Revolution to Adolescence — is living up to Ed Murrow's inspirational ideals. We all just have to find the best that's out there … then find the time to watch it.
Copyright 2025 NPR

Huntington Beach City Councilmember Butch Twining has sued Ocean View School District President Gina Clayton-Tarvin for what he alleges is a “sustained and coordinated campaign to publicly brand” him as “a white supremacist and extremist.”

At the heart of the complaint are Clayton-Tarvin’s tweets about Twining attending a vigil to honor slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. On Sept. 13, 2025, she tweeted, “What’s worse? That Huntington Beach councilman Butch Twining was there gleefully chanting amongst alt right white supremacists. Anyone recognize this behavior? Look no further than his buddy and mentor councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark, HB’s resident Neo Nazi since 2017.”

In the lawsuit, lawyers for Twining wrote Clayton-Tarvin “weaponized” the vigil “into a digital smear campaign” against Twining that was carried out across multiple social media platforms and community forums.

According to the lawsuit, the vigil was “hijacked by a small group of bad faith opportunists,” prompting Twining to leave the vigil.

“Twining did not participate in the chant or march alongside the racist opportunists. Twining condemns white supremacy in all of its forms,” the attorneys wrote.

The lawsuit accuses Clayton-Tarvin of being “a prolific poster of misinformation designed to cause reputational harm” and that her recent posts are “increasingly manic and reckless, as if

the author is not only lying but also losing touch with reality.”

Twining also alleges that Clayton-Tarvin’s tweets led to three death threats.

A video that went viral from the day of the vigil that Clayton-Tarvin quoted in her tweet shows Twining holding a candle and an American flag. Some people are chanting “white men fight back” in the video, but it is unclear if Twining was one of them.

In an interview with LAist, Clayton-Tarvin called the legal action a “nonsense lawsuit.”

“ Butch Twining is a very sensitive man and he doesn't understand that he's trying to chill free speech. The facts of the matter are that he was there and he can't deny it,” she said, adding that her tweets were posted three days after the vigil and Twining was seen by hundreds of people.

Twining, she said, is going down a “slippery slope” with the lawsuit, showing other residents in the city that if they speak up or criticize a politician, they can be sued. Twining is seeking $25 million in damages from Clayton-Tarvin.

“This is about squashing the First Amendment, about damaging the public's rights, public participation,” she said.