The Brief

To slow the rise of homelessness, one program in Los Angeles County has been using artificial intelligence to find and offer help to people before they lose their housing.

The program has shown promise at preventing homelessness. But first, outreach workers need to convince people the help they’re offering isn’t a scam.

“We hear all the time from our clients that our program sounds too good to be true — what’s the catch?” said Dana Vanderford, head of the Homelessness Prevention Unit run by the L.A. County Department of Health Services.

The stakes are high for the prevention unit. Many policy experts have become convinced that L.A. County won’t solve its homelessness crisis by focusing only on the expensive, lengthy process of moving people from the streets into new housing.

Prevention advocates note that for all the people in L.A. who’ve been rehoused in recent years, more have become unhoused. This stark math recently helped persuade county leaders to vote against $21 million in planned budget cuts to prevention programs.

But the work of preventing homelessness is complicated. In many cases, the difference between keeping someone housed and watching them fall through the cracks comes down to a delicate human interaction — two strangers trying to establish trust in an unexpected phone call.

The art of building trust

In a Skid Row office building, Emily Gonzales-Zentgraf looked at a spreadsheet and dialed a phone number. This time, someone actually picked up.

“Hi,” Gonzales-Zentgraf said. “I'm calling from L.A. County's Department of Health Services Housing Stabilization Team. How are you doing today?”

The person on the other end said she was at a doctor’s appointment.

“OK, I'll give you a call later today,” Gonzales-Zentgraf said before making a note in her spreadsheet.

The goal was to get this person enrolled in services provided through the county’s prevention unit, a special initiative of the Department of Health Services’ Housing for Health program.

Housing for Health is now being cited as a model for the county’s new approach to funding homeless services. Last week, elected leaders voted to pull hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding from the region’s troubled L.A. Homeless Services Authority.

The prevention unit can offer quick cash assistance for things like rent, medical care or car repairs. It also gives people six months of case management and help signing up for other county programs.

Gonzales-Zentgraf wasn’t able to sign up the person she reached on the phone for help yet. But she considered the call a success.

“Every time I'm able to have a conversation with someone, it's me building trust,” she said.

Many people eligible for help are unreachable

Outreach workers say they’re getting better at winning that trust. One strategy is to avoid the word “homeless.” They’ve found it can scare people. Instead of saying they’re with the county’s “Homelessness Prevention Unit,” they say they’re with the “Housing Stabilization Team.”

Improving the program’s contact success rate is critical. At last count, more than 75,000 people are experiencing homelessness in L.A. County. Even as thousands move into shelters and apartments each year, thousands of others become newly unhoused.

In the past, only about 21% of the people the prevention unit called ended up enrolling in the program. About half never called back at all.

“Phone numbers wouldn't work,” said Vanderford. “Voicemails would be left and not returned.”

She said the people they’re trying to reach are by nature difficult to contact. Many are sick and frequently in and out of hospitals. Some can’t afford reliable phone service. Others have been stung by past experiences with government programs.

“We've learned a lot in the last couple of years about what works in cold calling our clients, but we still get clients who hang up on us,” Vanderford said.

Dana Vanderford, associate director of homelessness prevention for L.A. County's Department of Health Services, stands in the call center where outreach workers try to establish connections with people on the brink of losing their housing.

(

David Wagner/LAist

)

If calls, emails and physical mail all fail, the prevention unit will try to establish contact through a person’s medical provider. For now, the unit does not send text messages because of concerns about running afoul of federal telemarketing laws. Some hope that will change.

In a world where spam calls seemingly never cease, Vanderford said her team understands the need to patiently explain what the program is and what it offers.

“That's something that keeps us up at night,” she said. “There's some segment of eligible clients who we’re not reaching. But I think the trade off there is we know that we're reaching a group of people who have a really high level of need.”

Using AI to predict homelessness

County prevention workers know the people they’re reaching out to are at high risk of homelessness because they’re relying on a statistical model created by researchers with the University of California system’s California Policy Lab.

The model uses artificial intelligence to comb through county records on emergency room visits, psychiatric admissions, food assistance, arrests and other factors that put someone at high risk of becoming unhoused in the next 18 months.

Janey Rountree, executive director of the California Policy Lab, said the predictive model identifies people with about a 1-in-4 chance of becoming unhoused.

“What we know from the unit so far is that 90% of people complete the program and are still housed,” Rountree said. “Which is great.”

Rigorous studies on the program are still in the works. Results from a randomized control trial are expected in 2027.

Rountree said early results suggest preventing homelessness saves money in the long run. Research on the prevention unit shows that on average, it takes about $6,500 to stabilize a participant’s housing. Helping someone find new housing after they’re already living on the street tends to be much more expensive.

“Our system is trying to solve a crisis, and it does not have enough funding to do everything it needs to do,” she said. “The future, I think, is around thinking strategically around the maximum impact for dollars.”

Reaching out before people know they need help

Preventing homelessness is not as easy as it sounds. First, you need to know who is going to become unhoused. Otherwise, prevention dollars may end up going to people who — while seemingly vulnerable — were not likely to become unhoused in the first place.

Researchers say looking at eviction filings is not always a reliable way of predicting homelessness. Some renters who get evicted do become unhoused. But many do not. They might move in with family members or find cheaper housing elsewhere.

People at high risk of becoming unhoused are also likely to not be renting directly from a landlord. A 2023 UC San Francisco study found that in the months leading up to their homelessness, 49% of Californians were not lease-holders. Instead, they were chipping in on rent as a roommate or living somewhere for free.

All of this makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint who will become unhoused. Often, people don’t realize they’re on a slippery slope to homelessness. Many never think to ask for help.

Unlike programs in New York and Chicago, which rely on people calling a homelessness prevention support line and asking for aid, L.A. County’s program proactively finds people at high risk and calls them.

Research has shown the Angelenos identified by this model rarely ask for help on their own.

“We were not only finding a unique group, but we were finding a group that was more vulnerable,” Rountree said.

Armando Carrillo plays with his Pomeranian dogs, Snuggles and Elle, inside his living room in Arcadia on March 29, 2025. Enrolling in homelessness prevention services helped him secure pet food assistance through Pasadena Humane.

(

Zaydee Sanchez

/

LAist

)

He picked up a call that changed his life 

Armando Carrillo was part of that unique group. He had lost his job as an after-school tutor and was close to maxing out his credit cards when he got a call last year from an unknown number.

“I ended up trying to swipe it away, and I accidentally swiped it to answer,” said Carrillo, who lives in an Arcadia apartment with his disabled mother and two siblings.

At first, Carrillo was skeptical. He said he hadn’t asked for any help avoiding homelessness. But he later realized the offer was genuine after the county mailed him a letter confirming the offer.

By enrolling in the program, Carrillo found help covering his portion of the rent, paying down his debts and feeding his family’s pets. He said getting treated for anxiety and depression was critical in helping him find a new job as a special needs aid in a local school district.

Now Carrillo has stable housing. He said he’s glad he didn’t hang up the phone that day.

“I felt very, very, very lucky that I was one of the people considered to be helped because I would have ended up homeless," he said.

Carrillo said he understands why others don’t immediately answer the phone. But he urged people who get the calls to check their voicemail, even if they don’t pick up at first.

“It's OK to be skeptical,” he said. “Especially now, with everything that's going on, a lot of scams and all that… All it takes is looking [the prevention unit] up on Google. Within 10 seconds, you know that they're a legit organization.”

LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover on Wednesday responded to the outcry over tickets for the Olympics, saying the average price was "accessible" and that more $28 tickets would be available in later drops.

He also defended the prices, the majority of which are more than $100 and can go as high as $5,500. Each ticket includes a 24% service fee.

"The average ticket price is under $200," he said. "That's an accessible ticket."

Not everyone in Southern California agrees. After the cheapest tickets sold out quickly in the locals-only sale that wraps Wednesday, many Angelenos wondered if they'd missed their chance to get affordable seats at Olympic competitions and said they felt priced out of the Games before they'd even arrived in Los Angeles.

Hoover pushed back against that idea, saying ticket sales were critical to paying for the Games, which could end up costing taxpayers if they're not delivered within budget.

" These are the biggest games in Olympic history. And so in order for us to be able to deliver a fiscally responsible, as well as a safe and secure Games, our ticket prices start at $28 and offer a range of pricing for everybody," Hoover said. "You may get on the website and you're not gonna necessarily find the ticket at your price in this drop. There'll be more drops coming."

What's unclear is how many $28 tickets, or tickets under $100, will be made available in future sales, including the general sale that launches Thursday.

LA28 has avoided sharing exact numbers and prices, outside the promise to make at least 1 million tickets available for $28.

The cost of tickets could get even more expensive in future sales. When LAist asked if Olympics organizers would use dynamic pricing, where sellers can adjust prices based on demand, Hoover didn't rule it out.

" We're not using dynamic pricing in this round of ticket drops," Hoover said. "We may adjust it in the future."

Another way people in Southern California can participate in the Olympics will be to volunteer. But it appears there will be fierce competition for those slots, too. Hoover said Wednesday that he estimated needing 60,000 volunteers and that more than a quarter million people had signed up. That includes some 50,000 locals.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is advancing a plan that could funnel hundreds of millions in road dollars to a struggling oil refinery — pitching it as a cleaner jet fuel initiative. The credit, drawn from funds voters designated for highways and local streets, could also raise gas prices for most drivers.

UC Berkeley economists warn it could raise California gas prices. And while the plan is pitched as a climate measure, the analysis finds it could cut emissions at more than 10 times the cost economists consider effective, one of the authors told CalMatters.

The proposal is expected to receive a final legislative hearing on Thursday. It has drawn backing from lawmakers and labor groups, who say it preserves jobs at facilities like the Rodeo refinery in Contra Costa County and helps the state achieve its climate goals.

But the plan has drawn criticism from an unlikely mix of voices: oil industry representatives, the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst — who is urging lawmakers to reject the proposal — and environmentalists who argue California is underfunding cleaner, more effective alternatives like mass transit.

Phillips 66 leads the subsidy line

The governor's four-page proposal is a straightforward mechanism granting a tax credit to producers in a small corner of the jet fuel market — with potentially far-reaching implications for most drivers.

Only two companies currently produce state-certified jet biofuel and also owe diesel excise tax in California — the conditions required to claim the credit, said

Andrew March, a Department of Finance budget analyst. Of those, only Phillips 66 has publicly confirmed it would qualify for the credit. The company spent $1.25 billion converting its Rodeo refinery in Contra Costa County from traditional petroleum refining to biofuels.

Jets do not run on gasoline; they run on a fuel refined from petroleum by oil companies that also produce gasoline for cars and diesel for trucks. Because jet fuel requires less processing than gasoline or diesel, it is generally cheaper to produce. But sustainable aviation fuel, made from products like used cooking grease and animal fat, costs significantly more, roughly twice the price of conventional jet fuel, due to the expense of converting refineries and processing organic materials.

Under the proposal, producers would earn credits for selling the fuel here and use those credits to offset the diesel taxes they owe.

The formula for credits isn't flat — the cleaner the fuel, the bigger the credit, ranging from $1 to $2 per gallon.

The state estimates that Newsom’s proposal could cost between $165 million and $300 million, but California's nonpartisan legislative analyst warns that figure could be far higher. That’s because the tax credit is so high that it could incentivize companies outside California to acquire California companies with diesel tax liabilities, said Helen Kerstein, who evaluates climate programs for the Legislative Analyst’s Office. A major California refiner like Chevron could also buy a renewable fuel company elsewhere and ship the fuel here, she said.

If more companies claim the credit than expected, diesel tax revenues could fall more sharply — driving the program’s cost higher than anticipated. In February, a team of UC Berkeley economists estimated the proposal could cause diesel tax receipts to fall by as much as 75%.

“They're going to incentivize a whole lot more sustainable aviation fuel than they're planning,” Aaron Smith, a Berkeley economist who co-authored the report, told CalMatters. “That is going to be a huge hit to the state's diesel tax receipts, and so it's going to be a huge hole in the budget.”

March, the budget analyst, disputed Smith’s findings, saying it assumes an 8-to-10-fold surge in sustainable aviation fuel flowing into California. Other states that have passed similar credits haven’t experienced such growth, he said. The program is designed to grow over time, as more companies begin producing sustainable aviation fuel and become eligible, March said.

One refinery’s bet 

Last year, Assemblymember Anamarie Ávila Farías and a dozen colleagues toured the Rodeo refinery, which sits along the shores of the San Pablo Bay, in the Concord Democrat’s district. What they learned alarmed them, Ávila Farías said.

Phillips 66 officials told lawmakers that due to the loss of federal incentives — and because California's own low carbon fuel program wasn't generating enough revenue — projects like the refinery conversion were struggling, she said.

Phillips 66 lobbied the Governor’s office directly near the end of 2025. Newsom included the tax credit in his budget proposal. Ávila Farías and 40 of her colleagues joined in a “bipartisan” push for the measure.

“In 2026, these facilities are on the brink of closure,” Ávila Farías said in written responses to CalMatters questions.

The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters Phillips 66 declined to answer basic questions about the proposal it lobbied to help shape: whether the Rodeo facility is profitable, whether it faces closure without the credit or how much it expects to claim if the credit is approved. Neither the governor’s office nor the company would say what role it played in shaping the proposal.

In 2025, the company made $4.4 billion in profits. The Houston-based company’s renewable fuels segment, which is anchored by the Rodeo complex, lost $380 million in 2025, worse than the $198 million loss it posted the year before, according to the company's annual report.

Disclosures filed with the California Secretary of State show Phillips 66 lobbied the Governor's Office directly on a "proposed sustainable aviation fuel incentive package” in the last three months of the year — after the legislative session had concluded but budget planning for the next year is typically underway. An earlier disclosure specifically referenced 'diesel excise taxes' alongside the fuels incentive package.

Phillips 66 was a member of the Western States Petroleum Association, the state’s main oil lobby, until the end of last year. The association has not taken an official position on the tax credit, though its chief lobbyist has urged lawmakers to stay focused on keeping California’s traditional petroleum refineries open.

Phillips 66 has been a significant contributor to state campaigns through 2024, donating a total of more than $1.1 million to legislators, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Since 2024, the company has continued to fund legislative campaigns, including those of Ávila Farías, Secretary of State data shows.

For workers at the Rodeo plant, the stakes are high. Joe Jawad, president of United Steelworkers Local 326, represents roughly 250 workers there, many from families who have worked the refinery for generations. In total, the refinery employs more than 400 workers.

“If this incentive passes, it's my understanding this place stays here for years to come,” Jawad said. “That's what we're looking for.”

But the transition has concerned local environmental justice advocates. Community organizer Daphney Saviotti-Orozco, who grew up in the unincorporated community of Rodeo, a few blocks from the refinery, worries biofuels could still pollute local air quality with methane, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter.

“There'll be more pressure to make even more,” she said.

A hit to California’s highways and byways

California has long protected fuel tax money for roads. Newsom’s proposal could drain those funds.

In hearings, lawmakers have specifically raised concern about the use of road dollars for green jet fuel.

“We don't have sustainable funding for our transportation system,” said Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, who chairs the Assembly transportation committee, speaking at a March 11 hearing. “It does give me cause for concern.”

The state constitution protects gas and diesel excise taxes: they must fund highways, local streets and transit infrastructure. Voters reinforced that mandate in 2010, when they passed Proposition 22, which barred the state from borrowing or redirecting those funds.

Newsom’s proposal wouldn’t technically violate the rules, but the proposal would have a similar impact, said Kerstein, of the legislative analyst’s office.

"Every dollar that goes to this credit is one fewer dollar that goes to local streets and roads, and the state highway system," Kerstein said. "That's the trade-off."

March disputed the framing, saying there were other sources of money for transportation funds.

“The projected impact on road repairs is not a dollar for dollar trade,” he wrote.

The credit would pull money from three programs: Caltrans highway maintenance, local street and road funding and competitive freight grants. California's roads are already starved for cash.

Current funding only covers about 61% of projected highway needs, according to Caltrans, while more drivers switching to electric vehicles are likely to shrink gas tax revenue. Local streets and roads face a $74 billion funding gap, according to a survey from the California State Association of Counties, which advocates for local jurisdictions.

“We definitely need road repairs, but we can't miss this chance on jet fuel,” Ávila Farías wrote. “We must do both.”

A costly climate fix

But the plan’s primary beneficiary isn’t the climate; it’s a refinery whose parent company lost hundreds of millions on renewable fuels last year. And while supporters say the jet fuel credit would cut carbon emissions, critics say it could do so at a steep cost.

The plan would cost $1,000 to $2,700 per ton of emissions reduced — more than 10 times what economists consider a cost-effective way to cut climate pollution, according to the Berkeley analysis.

That’s because California is already getting most of the climate benefits from renewable fuels — also made from plant and animal materials — through its low carbon fuel standard, a program that pushes producers to make what they sell here progressively cleaner. Many of those fuels today go into diesel trucks.

Berkeley’s report contends that the credit would mainly shift the same limited supply of used cooking oil, animal fats and other raw materials into jet fuel instead of replacing fossil fuels.

March said the state has invested in similarly-priced and more expensive policies in the past in order to boost emerging technologies. “Public investment does what private capital won’t,” March said.

Matthew Botill, a division chief with the California Air Resources Board, said boosting sustainable aviation fuel is critical because demand for jet fuel is expected to grow and state policies aim to cut fuel use in trucking by shifting to electric vehicles.

Without stronger incentives for sustainable aviation fuel, petroleum use in aviation will rise as more people fly, undermining the state’s climate goals, Botill said at a March 11 hearing.

But by diverting renewable diesel from trucks, producers could drive gas and diesel prices up by 10 to 15 cents per gallon, according to Smith and the Berkeley economists – pushing trucks back toward petroleum and making the fuel mix dirtier and more expensive to clean up.

“Markets chase the subsidies,” said Danny Cullenward, an energy policy researcher who agreed with the Berkeley findings. “You make a very attractive subsidy, and people say, ‘Well, I'd rather be delivering that thing.’”

Environmentalists say the state would be better off investing in proven, emission-cutting solutions like electric cars and trucks and mass transit.

“We're not funding the low-hanging fruit,” said Christina Scaringe, California climate policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There's just a very basic argument that we don't have a lot of money.”

March, the state budget analyst, told CalMatters that predictions about the governor’s biofuel proposal’s impact on gas prices are “highly uncertain.”

Lawmakers, including Ávila Farías, have compared jet biofuel to solar or wind power in their early stages arguing California “must act boldly now,” to support sustainable aviation fuel.

Smith is skeptical sustainable aviation fuel will ever get cheap enough to stand on its own. And the economics have only worsened since the U.S. began strikes on Iran in late February, sending fuel prices sharply higher.

Before the conflict, conventional jet fuel ran about $2.50 a gallon, according to Argus Media – which also tracked sustainable fuel’s cost at more than twice that — $5.48. Since the strikes on Iran, both have climbed. At west coast airports this week, Globalair.com reports the price of sustainable fuel has reached $10.20.

"You need a lot of government support to make it work," Smith said. "I just don't ever see that happening."

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

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

A local pastor, an ACLU organizer, and the leader of an immigration advocacy group showed up early Tuesday to a Los Angeles Police Commission meeting to demand answers after their scheduled presentation on federal immigration raids was canceled.

The groups had been invited to brief the commission on the impact of federal raids and ways to better protect immigrant communities, but on Friday they received a call saying the presentation was canceled. They convened a press conference soon before the commission meeting was scheduled to begin, with dozens of supporters holding “ICE out of LAPD” signs.

The police department has struggled for months to explain to city residents its role in federal immigration sweeps that have resulted in more than 14,000 being detained in the region last year. 

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has wavered between publicly criticizing state laws designed to hold  federal agents accountable when they refuse to identify themselves and promising full compliance with Mayor Karen Bass’ order for more immigrant protections.

Police Commission President Teresa Sanchez Gordon offered in a March commission meeting to invite immigrant groups to give presentations about their work and concerns regarding the raids.

The commission did not respond to a request from The LA Local for more information about the canceled presentation.

Father Brendan Busse, from Dolores Mission Church, speaks during a news conference calling for LAPD compliance with Los Angeles sanctuary policies outside LAPD headquarters.

(

Martin Romero

/

The LA Local

)

Father Brendan Busse, of Dolores Mission in Boyle Heights and LA Voice said he helped organize efforts to protect people during aggressive federal immigration sweeps last year.

“That’s what we’ve been doing, and that’s what we’re here to ask LAPD to do: To serve and to protect, ” Busse said at the press conference. “Safety and sanctuary go together.”

He described being at a raid in the city’s Fashion District last year, saying “They threw tear gas and flash grenades at all of us.” Others said LAPD officers had established a perimeter around the federal sweep and were seen escorting agents.

In February, Mayor Karen Bass ordered the department to draw a clearer line between the work of local police and the federal government’s deportation efforts. McDonnell soon after established policies requiring officers to identify federal agents at sweep sites and be present only to protect the public. 

But Martha Arevalo, executive director of the Central American Resource Center, said that LAPD continues to respond to federal immigration agents requesting aid and is “effectively assisting ICE operations in ways that undermine the local sanctuary protections.”

The Los Angeles City Council established a sanctuary ordinance in late 2024, partly restricting how city employees and resources can assist federal immigration enforcement. Last year, the council passed additional legislation directing the commission to further limit LAPD interactions with immigration agents.

“As a city and as a police department, we have to ask the question: ‘Who are we here to protect?’” Arevalo asked the dozens gathered outside LAPD headquarters, later adding, “You should be wanting to have dialogue about these issues.”

Andrés Kwon, Senior Policy Counsel and Organizer at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, speaks during a news conference calling for LAPD compliance with Los Angeles sanctuary policies.

(

Martin Romero

/

The LA Local

)

Andrés Kwon, senior policy counsel and organizer at the ACLU of Southern California, told The LA Local that he and others from the groups met with Sanchez Gordon and Inspector General Matthew Barragan in recent weeks. They were invited to give the 20-minute presentation, he said. 

Then, he added, “We got pulled.” He said they did not receive an explanation for why their presentation was canceled.

Kwon said they had planned to provide statistics on the impact of immigration raids and a history of the groups’ work since the 1980s helping immigrants fleeing persecution and war.

“We need LAPD to not just blindly trust ICE and Border Patrol,” Kwon said

Several people spoke during the public comment period of the commission meeting requesting that the groups be invited again to present on how to further protect the city’s immigrants.

The Los Angeles Police Department did not respond to requests for comment about this story.