The Brief

Jackie Parra sits at a card table outside the entrance to the South Los Angeles city animal shelter five days a week, hoping to intercept people who feel they must surrender their beloved pets in order to get housed or keep the housing they have.

“Any person coming to the shelter, this is their last resort,” said Parra, a licensed social worker for the nonprofit Downtown Dog Rescue. “They’ve exhausted all resources, asked family members and friends for help, and they don’t know what to do.”

As Los Angeles struggles to address homelessness, housing access and mental health care, Parra occupies a rare role: helping unhoused people with mental illness keep the pets they rely on for stability and companionship — and, in many cases, secure housing — by navigating the rules around emotional support animals. These animals provide comfort and therapeutic benefits to people diagnosed with mental health conditions, such as anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder and depression. They don’t have the same recognition as trained service animals, but under the Federal Fair Housing Act must be allowed to live with their owners.

Up to 25% of people experiencing homelessness have a pet, according to the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based organization focused on improving the treatment of animals. And nearly half of unhoused people with pets report having been turned away from a shelter because of pet policies, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).

Parra’s position grew out of what the team at Downtown Dog Rescue kept seeing in the street and at shelters: People in crisis were giving up animals they loved because housing instability and poverty left them no other choice. And animals were being left to face euthanasia in overcrowded shelters not because they weren’t loved or needed, but because of tragic circumstances. Her job is to interrupt that forced decision — and to help people navigate systems built as if pets don’t matter.

For many, animals are not just companions but the most stable and, possibly, the only relationship a person has, said Lori Kogan, a licensed psychologist in the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at Colorado State University who studies human-animal interactions.

“If you have all of these things ripped out from underneath you and you have to relinquish your pet on top of it all, that would be absolutely devastating,” Kogan said.

That reality plays out daily at the shelter as Parra listens to people explain why they may have to give up their dogs, cats, rabbits, birds or other animals they rely on for mental stability. They can’t afford pet food or veterinary care or they are homeless or facing eviction because of their animal.

This is how Orianna Romero remembers her first meeting with Parra. Someone who listened to her heartbreak.

“It has been a miracle to know Jackie,” said Romero, who suffers from depression.

The pair met at the shelter when Romero, 36, thought she would have to surrender her dog, Taro, a Belgian Malinois with a soft brown and black coat. At the time, Romero and her family had become homeless and were living in a motel. When a shelter finally offered the family a room, Taro wasn’t allowed.

In Parra’s arsenal, she has medical vouchers, dog and cat food and, most critically, her training as a licensed social worker to help people crushed by having to choose between housing and their cherished pets.

Her true superpower is her calm, knowing vibe. Parra is from the neighborhood and understands the lives of her clients. She’s experienced depression, and it’s clear she loves animals. She often wears her brown hair pulled back and large sunglasses and switches easily between English and Spanish with clients. She listens deeply, anticipating their questions. Parra is no-nonsense but compassionate. She doesn’t judge, she says. That makes her approachable. So do the dog paws tattooed on her left forearm.

Parra helps eligible pet owners understand their rights when housing is denied or in jeopardy because of an animal. For those who have a mental health diagnosis, she can issue an emotional support animal letter as outlined under federal housing rules to help smooth the way with a landlord, shelter or motel where short-term housing is available.

It’s the kind of support Romero and many others need.

“Their dog is their everything — that’s all they have,” Parra said. “People fail them and dogs don’t.”

While homelessness in Los Angeles has declined slightly in recent years, it remains at crisis levels, with more than 72,000 unhoused people across L.A. County as of the most recent count last year.

And for those struggling with housing insecurity, pets are a priority. For people living in cars, tents or temporary shelters, animals provide routine, protection, emotional stability and unconditional companionship.

Public health researchers and psychologists have documented how companion animals can reduce anxiety, depression and social isolation — benefits that can be especially significant for people with few other supports. Among pet owners, 84% said their pets have a mostly positive impact on their mental health and 62% said their pets help decrease stress and anxiety, according to a February 2024 survey released by the American Psychiatric Association.

Animals help alleviate loneliness, and caring for a pet often gives people structure and meaning, said Kogan of Colorado State University.

“When we spend time with animals we trust and feel comfortable around, this can activate the body’s relaxation system, which slows our heart rate, lowers blood pressure and helps us physically relax,” she said. “At the same time, our brains release oxytocin, called the bonding hormone.”

Jackie Parra talks with her client Robert Valenzuela and his dog, Mamas, at the South Los Angeles animal shelter.

(

Zaydee Sanchez

)

Under federal Fair Housing Act guidance, emotional support animals are not deemed service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, in housing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development mandates that landlords must make reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities who need an emotional support animal.

Critics sometimes frame such accommodations as special treatment. That framing misses the point. Housing policies already privilege people with money, credit and flexibility. Those with the greatest need are often the least able to navigate the process alone.

Parra’s social worker credentials make her a unicorn in the world of mental health and animal services. Downtown Dog Rescue says it is the only rescue or animal welfare organization in Los Angeles to have a social worker on staff focused on keeping owners and pets together for mental health reasons.

In L.A. County, about one in five pets surrendered in 2024 — roughly 7,290 dogs and cats — were given up because of housing restrictions or costs, according to a report by County Supervisor Hilda Solis.

Parra works out of the South Los Angeles shelter because it takes in the highest number of animals of the city’s six animal shelters. In Los Angeles, when animal shelters are full, the city euthanizes animals to make space, according to LA Animal Services. The city has tried to be a no-kill shelter system, which means achieving a 90% survival rate through adoption or rescue organizations, but has fallen short most years. So far this year, the South L.A. shelter shows one of the lowest survival rates among the city’s shelters, dropping to 73.8% in August, according to city data.

Not all of the animals at the shelter are from unhoused families, but if Parra can help she hopes to keep as many animals with their people as possible.

This approach is common sense and L.A. would benefit from more support for pets and their owners who live outside. Pets are often the last thing left to help those without homes feel safe, supported and connected.

For those on the street, there are some efforts to help, such as the county’s Pathway Home, which offers some assistance to those who are moved from encampments into temporary shelter with pets, although it’s not enough with the number of people living outside here. Other cities, such as Denver, have piloted pet-friendly shelter programs and foster partnerships aimed at unhoused pet owners.

Before the rescue, Parra worked as an outreach worker for a homeless services organization. She became familiar with Downtown Dog Rescue because she encountered lots of animals in the homeless encampments downtown that needed help. She began volunteering on her own time for the rescue, transporting needy animals.

“I wanted to do something for my community and myself,” said Parra, who began volunteering after going through a breakup that brought on a deep depression. Parra’s 15-year-old Chihuahua, Chispita, was a comfort to her throughout her depression, her “ride or die,” she said. The job came later.

The stakes of Parra’s work become clearest in the lives of the people and animals she helps, like Romero and Taro.

Romero said that before she met Parra, she, her husband and their two children, ages 7 and 14, had lived in an RV for a year because they could not afford rent in the city. They had arrived in the U.S. just three years before from Venezuela and living in the RV helped them make ends meet. It was there that Taro the large puppy came to live with the family.

After the vehicle broke down while parked near 55th Street and San Pedro Street, it was cited and towed away with all the family’s belongings inside, Romero said. They did not have the money to pay the fees to retrieve the RV, she said.

When the shelter refused Taro, Romero was distraught. Someone referred her to the city shelter and Downtown Dog Rescue.

“Taro sleeps with me. He accompanies me everywhere,” she said. “I would never let him go. It would be the same as if someone said, ‘Give me your son.’ That is not possible for us.”

Through tears, Romero explained her situation to Parra — her diagnosis, her reliance on Taro and her fear of losing him. Parra wrote a letter qualifying Taro as an emotional support animal that kept the family intact.

“We feel the house is happier with him. For our children, it was super important to keep Taro,” Romero said.

The rescue helps individuals escaping domestic violence, seniors on fixed incomes, families torn apart by deportations and homeless families trying to get into a shelter.

“There are so many people out there that love their animals,” said Lori Weise, founder and executive director of Downtown Dog Rescue. “They go unnoticed and really don’t know that resources are available.”

Weise started the rescue in 1996 to help one unhoused man with his dog. Over the years, the small organization has received funding for a counselor to be at the shelter. Weise said it helped, but she saw the need for someone with more training, a social worker. Several years ago she started asking funders and applying for grants to support her idea. Two special grants gave life to the idea and funded Parra’s position, which began in April of 2024.

But Parra’s position is coming to an end in April when the current grant ends. The first year was funded by a grant from California for All Animals, a $50 million state initiative to support California animal shelters. The ASPCA funded the second year, Weise said.

Weise and Parra hope for additional funding or that the city or county will absorb the position. It’s a worthy aspiration for a program that works to save both people and animals who, as the adage goes, save one another.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a new law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks during immigration sweeps.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the state could not enforce the facial-covering provision of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, while a legal challenge brought by the federal government moved forward. That lawsuit argued that SB 627 conflicted with federal authority and would improperly limit how federal agents could do their jobs.

The backstory

The law banning facial coverings took effect Jan. 1 and had already sparked confusion and backlash in Los Angeles after Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said officers would not enforce the ban. McDonnell called the law bad policy and said enforcing it could put officers and the public at risk.

McDonnell’s statements drew sharp criticism from local elected officials, the authors of the laws, and immigration law attorneys and advocates.

The federal government sued California last year, arguing that SB 627 and a second law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. SB 627 sought, in part, to make it illegal for most officers, including federal agents, to conduct law enforcement operations while wearing masks. SB 805, in part, required agents to identify themselves.

About the ruling

Snyder ruled that the mask ban inconsistently applied to some law enforcement officers and not others, which is one of the reasons why the judge temporarily blocked it.

Federal attorneys had argued that agents should be allowed to wear masks for their safety against harassment and assault, such as doxxing. Snyder disagreed, writing that while federal agents and other public figures face security risks, masks were not essential for performing their duties.

“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks,” Snyder wrote. “If anything, the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Reaction to the ruling

One of the law’s authors, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, announced Monday afternoon that he would be introducing new legislation aimed at revising the original law to apply to state officers it previously exempted. He characterized the ruling as a win and vowed to continue efforts to unmask federal agents.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said in a prepared statement, adding: “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”

What's next

Monday’s ruling still required enforcement of SB 627 and SB 805’s remaining provisions, including that officers identify themselves. It also protected the pathway for civilians to directly sue agents for misconduct.

This temporary order will remain in effect until the federal case is resolved. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will update if it does.

A new report from L.A. County offers a closer look at the economic damage to the region caused by federal immigration enforcement — and at the neighborhoods most affected.

The analysis, compiled by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, identified the neighborhoods hardest hit by ICE, and found that they were more economically precarious.

Researchers determined that the most targeted ZIP code in the county is 91402, which spans Mission Hills, Panorama City and North Hills in the San Fernando Valley.

The report, which was commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors, also found that many small businesses county-wide have lost revenue and customers since ICE ramped up its presence in Los Angeles last year.

The Department of Homeland Security has detained more than 10,000 people in the L.A.-area since June, according to numbers released in December. Its aggressive deportation campaign has altered daily life in Los Angeles, where nearly one in five people is undocumented or lives with someone who is undocumented.

The report lays out the ripple effect of that campaign on communities, local businesses, and workers, and its uneven influence on the region as a whole.

Vulnerable neighborhoods

The survey created an index of most vulnerable areas.

(

Courtesy L.A. County Economic Development Corporation

)

The report lays out the economic consequences for communities repeatedly hit by ICE sweeps.

The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit research group, used census data and reports on detentions from the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network to assess how vulnerable each L.A. County ZIP code was to immigration enforcement.

Researchers looked at four other factors for each ZIP code: shares of foreign-born population from Latin America, renter households, Spanish-speaking households and non-citizen workforce.

The 10 most vulnerable ZIP codes, they determined, are primarily in working class, immigrant neighborhoods including Bell, Pico Rivera and Southeast L.A.

Researchers used employment data for the county and found that those ZIP codes were over-represented in industries, including manufacturing and retail, which have a significant number of undocumented workers. Businesses in these neighborhoods also tended to have fewer employees on average compared to the rest of the county, and employees were paid less.

"Taken together, these exhibits show that areas facing heightened immigration enforcement differ from the rest of Los Angeles County and appear more economically vulnerable," the report states.

Declined revenue, less foot traffic

Researchers also distributed a survey to small businesses county-wide to assess how federal immigration enforcement has affected the communities they operate in and their bottom lines since summer.

More than 200 small businesses responded. Most reported having fewer than 10 employees, and the majority were in industries like restaurants, retail, professional or personal services and manufacturing.

The majority of respondents — 82% — reported being negatively affected by federal immigration enforcement. Around half reported lost regular customers, less foot traffic or reduced daily sales. Around a quarter reported temporary closures due to concerns from community members.

Many surveyed business owners reported a climate of fear that has led people to stay home and avoid certain places altogether.

"Businesses reported that customers expressed fear about their location, that customers asked about safety in the neighborhood, and that customers avoided shopping or dining in their neighborhood," the report states.

Undocumented workers generate 17% of county's economic activity

No corner of Los Angeles is exempt to the ongoing immigration sweeps that have become a new reality for the region. Nearly 950,000 undocumented immigrants live in L.A. County, according to recent estimates. That's more than 9% of people in the county who lack legal status.

Undocumented workers also play a huge role in many of L.A.'s key industries. Recent research from the USC Equity Research Institute estimates that 37% of cleaning and maintenance workers and 25% of food preparation and service workers in L.A. County are undocumented.

The industry with the highest percentage of undocumented workers is construction, at 40%.

The county's undocumented population together generates just under $240 billion in economic output, according to the county's report. That's around 17% of the county's total economic activity.

The Los Angeles Unified School District rescheduled a Tuesday meeting where the board was expected to vote on layoffs as part of a larger plan to cut spending.

“The district has adjusted the date of the upcoming board meeting to ensure adequate time for preparation, public engagement, and responsible deliberation on items of significant impact and interest to our workforce and community,” an LAUSD spokesperson wrote in a statement to LAist.

They wrote the proposed reduction in force would be presented at a “future meeting.” Tuesday’s meeting is currently re-scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 17.

In a Friday letter, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

“The notion that these are dark times for education requiring harmful cuts when there are record high state revenues is fearmongering,” the union letter reads.

LAUSD's financial challenges

For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That deficit comes enrollment has declined steeply but expenses have not. There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s. At the same time, as costs have increased, the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

The layoff vote is part of a $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.” Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff, and at schools that support higher needs students.

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off.

 “It is not a foregone conclusion that people will lose jobs,” said Superintendent Alberto Carvalho at a Jan. 20 board meeting. For example, he said staff may be reassigned to vacant positions or given the opportunity to transfer to another school.

Where are the plan details?

At that same meeting, several board members pressed LAUSD staff for more details.

“When are we going to know the central office reductions? When are we going to know how many of those [there] are?” Karla Griego, a board member who represents District 5, asked, adding: “In a couple of weeks, I hope.”

“No, sooner,” responded Saman Bravo-Karimi, LAUSD's chief financial officer. Bravo-Karimi said the board would be provided with the number of positions impacted and their job classifications.

LAist requested information about the proposed layoffs last week and was told by a district spokesperson that the information would not be available until the board materials were publicly posted.

California’s Brown Act requires public agencies, including school districts, to post information about their regular meetings, including a description of each matter to be discussed, at least 72 hours in advance. Some agencies opt to publish the information even earlier.

No materials related to the Feb. 10 meeting were posted by that 72-hour deadline, and the meeting was rescheduled Sunday.

LAist reached out to Scott Schmerelson, LAUSD board president, who represents District 3, to discuss the delayed meeting. As of Monday evening Schmerelson had not responded.

Weigh in on LAUSD’s planned layoffs

The next meeting where the board could vote on the layoff proposal is Tuesday, Feb. 17. The agenda for the meeting must be publicly posted by Saturday, Feb. 14 at 10 a.m.— 72 hours before the start of the meeting. Sign up to get the agendas emailed here.