Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • How one state represents nation's vaccine battle
    a woman sits on a couch in a living room and on each side of her is a child playing with toys
    Kate Morrow and her 8-year-old twins, Jack and Lilly, at their home in Spartanburg County, S.C. Morrow struggles to understand why many of her neighbors haven't vaccinated their kids.
    Topline:
    Kate Morrow and her family moved to Spartanburg County, S.C., in 2019. The area is the epicenter of the biggest measles outbreak in the U.S. in more than three decades, with nearly 1,000 confirmed cases. Measles — one of the world's most contagious diseases — was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, thanks to widespread vaccination and school vaccine requirements.

    But with the current resurgence of measles, the country is at risk of losing that elimination status.
    How did we get here: The answer is a mix of widespread misinformation, lingering resentment over COVID mandates, and politicians at the local and national level who are sowing mistrust of vaccines.

    What can be done: Public health researchers say eliminating nonmedical exemptions to vaccine requirements could help raise falling vaccination rates. But in South Carolina, where opposition to government mandates is firmly entrenched, that's unlikely to happen. Last week, the state legislature shot down a bill that would have kept unvaccinated children out of schools.

    Read on ... for more about parents' vaccine fears and what doctors say their role can be amid heightened parental anxiety.

    When Kate Morrow gave birth to twins eight years ago, they were very premature, with compromised immune systems.

    "We counted on the community to keep our children safe," Morrow says. She trusted that her neighbors were vaccinating their children to protect other vulnerable people in her community — including her twins. But that's no longer the case.

    Morrow and her family moved to Spartanburg County, S.C., in 2019. The area is the epicenter of the biggest measles outbreak in the U.S. in more than three decades, with nearly 1,000 confirmed cases. Measles — one of the world's most contagious diseases — was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, thanks to widespread vaccination and school vaccine requirements.

    But with the current resurgence of measles, the country is at risk of losing that elimination status.

    In Spartanburg County, school vaccination rates have fallen to just under 89% — well below the 95% threshold needed to prevent community outbreaks.

    And it's not just Spartanburg. There are places around the country where vaccination rates have sunk to levels low enough to allow outbreaks to flare, says Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

    "There are a lot more South Carolinas waiting to happen," he says.

    Morrow says it's hard for her to understand why so many parents in her community are turning against vaccines.

    "How did we get here?" she asks. "How did we get to a place where we don't trust our doctors to do the very best thing for our children? How did we get to a place where vaccinations have become political?"

    The answer is a mix of widespread misinformation, lingering resentment over COVID mandates and politicians at the local and national level who are sowing mistrust of vaccines.

    'I don't trust anything anymore'

    Margarita DeLuca says she didn't give much thought to vaccines until COVID hit. She has three children and lives in neighboring Greenville County. When the COVID vaccine was first rolled out, DeLuca was scared that it had been developed too quickly to be trustworthy, and she was opposed to vaccine mandates.

    "I think it should have been a choice. It shouldn't have been shoved down your throat like you have to do it," DeLuca says.

    DeLuca is not alone. Resentment over vaccine mandates and other public health measures during the pandemic prompted more parents to question vaccine requirements, says Dr. Martha Edwards, president of the South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    "COVID hit and people really didn't like the mandates and that was a big boiling point," Edwards says. "And in South Carolina, that really has caused a lot of people to escalate their feelings of 'don't tell me what to do.' "

    Still, when DeLuca's eldest child, Nikko, was born in the summer of 2021, she got him his routine shots for the first couple of years of his life.

    But about a week after he got his 2-year-old vaccinations, Nikko spiked a fever and experienced a seizure.

    "He froze up and then he started convulsing right in my arms — the scariest thing ever," DeLuca recalls.

    Nikko recovered. Her pediatrician at the time told her these seizures can happen when toddlers get high fevers, and it's unlikely vaccines played a role. But DeLuca remains dubious.

    "He hasn't had any seizures since. But he hasn't had any vaccines either. I'm not saying it's from that, but there is a chance," she says.

    So, like a growing number of parents nationwide, DeLuca decided to forgo vaccinations for Nikko, now 4, and his twin infant siblings.

    "I'm grateful that I did not vaccinate them right now," she says. "Maybe at 5 years old, their bodies are bigger and they have a higher immune system. They can handle things."

    Local pediatrician Stuart Simko with Prisma Health in Greer, S.C., says he hears this from other parents. And he tries to explain why delaying vaccinations is risky.

    "This is the time where your child is at a higher risk, the younger they are, for complications from many of the things that we vaccinate against," he says.

    For instance, the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine can prevent serious complications from measles like brain swelling and pneumonia, both of which have been documented among children in this outbreak. Vaccines can also prevent immune amnesia, a phenomenon where the virus wipes out parts of the immune system, leaving kids vulnerable to new infections for several years.

    And the virus can be deadly. Before the first vaccines were developed in the 1960s measles used to kill hundreds of U.S. children every year.

    Simko says he tries not to judge parents but to listen to their fears.

    "The parent who's choosing not to vaccinate their child, they're not trying to make a bad medical decision. They want what's best for their child. And we have to understand where they're coming from," he says.

    Social media is a big problem. Many of Simko's patients are overwhelmed by information; some of it is good, he says and some is just not backed by science.

    DeLuca says she no longer knows what to believe when it comes to online information.

    "I don't trust anything anymore. I really don't."

    Exemptions rise, vaccination rates fall 

    Spartanburg County is a solidly conservative part of South Carolina. Dotted with small towns, its sprawling countryside is home to rural communities, conservative faith groups and a sizable Slavic immigrant population. All of these groups tend to have lower vaccination rates across the U.S.

    In the majority of states, parents can apply for nonmedical exemptions to required vaccines for religious, personal or philosophical reasons. In Spartanburg County, the use of religious exemptions has skyrocketed since the pandemic. Today, nearly 10% of students in the county have a religious exemption — up from 3.4% at the start of the 2020-21 school year.

    The result is that vaccination rates among school children are dropping. The majority of schools in Spartanburg County now have vaccination rates below the 95% threshold required to prevent measles outbreaks. In one public charter school — which has seen dozens of students quarantined for measles — the vaccination rate is a shockingly low 21%.

    Republican state Sen. Josh Kimbrell, a lifelong Spartanburg resident, says he understands why parents have grown more skeptical of vaccines in the wake of what he calls the government's "overbearing" response to COVID. But he says the distrust has gotten "out of control."

    The exemptions have become easy to obtain — parents can download a form and they don't have to state their religious reasoning. All they have to do is get it notarized.

    "I know people who haven't set foot in a church in five years who suddenly decide it's a religious liberty exemption and don't have a religious reason," Kimbrell says. "They just don't want to do it. And that's fine but just say that."

    Public health researchers say eliminating nonmedical exemptions to vaccine requirements could help raise falling vaccination rates. But in South Carolina, where opposition to government mandates is firmly entrenched, that's unlikely to happen. Last week, the state legislature shot down a bill that would have kept unvaccinated children out of schools.

    And it's not just South Carolina. A recent study found the rate of nonmedical exemptions to vaccines has risen steadily in the majority of U.S. counties, and this trend has accelerated since the pandemic.

    Parents changing their minds

    Gene Zakharov is one of those Spartanburg parents who got religious exemptions for his children. He owns a cafe, 121 Coffee, in sight of Emmanuel Church where he's an active member of the leadership team.

    Zakharov is part of the large Slavic community drawn to Spartanburg by its conservative politics and sunshine. He says many people from the former Soviet Union who settled here "don't believe in vaccines."

    "People who lived there have a big distrust in the government, to say the least," he says.

    He and his wife didn't vaccinate their two youngest children. They worried about potential side effects from vaccines. But they changed their minds after their 13-year-old daughter was exposed to measles at a friend's house and spent time in quarantine.

    "It doesn't hit you until you actually come in contact with something like this. You're like, well, thank God my kid is all right. But you know, what if she wasn't?"

    Zakharov is not the only parent questioning earlier decisions. As the measles outbreak exploded in January, pediatrician Stuart Simko says his phone started ringing.

    "I've had several patients who've said no to vaccinations in the past who've said, 'Hey, what do you think of the MMR?' " he says. "What do you think about measles? It's in our backyard."

    He explains how dangerous the measles virus can be. And "a lot of people are changing their minds," Simko says.

    Combatting myths and fears

    Tracy Hobbs changed her mind recently.

    Last month Hobbs brought her 5-year-old twins, Joseph and Alice, to a mobile vaccine clinic to get their first dose of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. The twins should have gotten their first shots around 12 months of age, but Hobbs decided against it at the time. That's because her oldest child, now 7, was diagnosed with autism shortly after he got his first measles vaccine.

    Hobbs says she saw conflicting information about whether the vaccines were to blame.

    "We were afraid that if we had gotten the kids the vaccines, that it might actually cause autism," Hobbs says. "And that's really messed us up because what are you supposed to believe?"

    Claims linking the vaccine to autism stem from a 1998 study that has been thoroughly debunked by a large body of research, but this misinformation still circulates widely. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long promoted the discredited claim and he recently directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to change its website to say the link can not be ruled out. Hobbs says all the conflicting information out there is confusing.

    "You have one person saying, hey, this could cause the kid to get autism. And then you have somebody saying, no. I've gotten conflicting information since the day they were born," she says.

    But when her twins were also diagnosed with autism, even though they weren't vaccinated, Hobbs changed her mind. With measles spreading rapidly around her, she decided to get them the shot. "The measles aren't really something to play with," Hobbs says.

    'Not an outlier'

    Spartanburg mom Kate Morrow says it pains her to know this kind of misinformation about vaccines and autism still circulates. One of her twins has autism. Both are fully vaccinated.

    She wants to encourage parents to trust the science and to speak openly with their pediatrician about their fears.

    She feels so strongly about this that she's helping a pro-vaccine advocacy group called South Carolina Families for Vaccines get off the ground. "I'm rooting for the mom in the middle that's feeling lost and scared and doesn't really know what to do," Morrow says.

    There's some evidence that outreach efforts are working. State epidemiologist Linda Bell says vaccination rates in Spartanburg County were up by 133% in February compared to the previous year. And new measles cases have slowed significantly.

    But the danger hasn't disappeared altogether, says Scott Thorpe, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Public Health Leadership.

    "I think what keeps me up at night more than anything else is that Spartanburg is not an outlier," he says. He notes that just across the border in western North Carolina, there are lots of counties with lower vaccination rates. "And we've already started to see some cases there."

    Across the U.S., there have been 12 new measles outbreaks so far this year, and more than 1,280 confirmed cases, according to the CDC.

    "It's just kind of percolating in all these places," Thorpe says. "And eventually it's going to catch on and turn into a big outbreak, just like Spartanburg. And it's just going to keep on happening as vaccination rates get lower."

  • Watch replay: Bass, Raman on environmental issues
    Two women in suit jackets hold mics and gesture as the address an audience.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman separately explain their environmental positions at a mayoral forum held Thursday at L.A. Trade Tech in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass painted herself as a proven fighter for environmental justice issues. Her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, said progress on environmental goals has stalled in City Hall.

    Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

    Here are some of the topics they covered:

    • Extreme heat
    • Emergency preparedness and recovery
    • Protecting communities from pollution
    • Water
    • Public transit

    LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described herself as a proven fighter for environmental justice issues. Her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, said progress on environmental goals has stalled in City Hall.

    Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

    Here are some of the topics they covered:

    • Extreme heat
    • Emergency preparedness and recovery
    • Protecting communities from pollution
    • Water
    • Public transit

    About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

    LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

  • Sponsored message
  • Ahead of election, Trump admin still has big plans

    Topline:

    The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election.

    About the timing: Trump officials will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

    Where things stand: Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

    Why this matters: The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

    The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

    Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

    The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

    The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

    The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

    The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

    "States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

    The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

    The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

    The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

    Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

    "It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

    Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

    The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

    The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

    Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

    This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

    Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

    NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • CA officials oppose land-swap deal
    A mountain with a sheer face is seen behind a row of trees. In the foreground is a river.
    El Capitan in Yosemite National Park.

    Topline:

    A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

    About the proposed land exchange: The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

    Why it matters: A bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties argues that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

    A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

    The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

    “Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

    Two men and one woman stand side by side, looking to their left. Behind them is an bay.
    Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.
    (
    Katie DeBenedetti
    /
    KQED
    )

    The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

    “What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

    It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

    The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

    Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

    State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

    “If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

    Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

    “I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

    In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

    Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

    “The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

    The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

    Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

    The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

    Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

    “The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

    Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

    Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

    “Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

  • New program to help small shops install cameras
    A window to a business storefront is broken as you can see inside the gated fence and "Open" sign.
    A file photo of an East Village restaurant that was vandalized on Thursday, June 6, 2024.

    Topline:

    Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

    More details: Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

    How it works: The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

    Read on... for more on how to qualify for these grants in Long Beach.

    This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

    Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

    The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

    Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

    Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

    To qualify, a business must:

    • Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
    • Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
    • Be currently open and active for business
    • Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
    • Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

    The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

    It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

    His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

    Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

    The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

    “Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

    In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

    Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

    He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

    “There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.