The Brief

It’s been more than four decades yet Rhonda Campbell’s voice still quavered as she stood before a row of television cameras recalling the day in 1981 when a repeat drunk driver killed her 12-year-old sister. She remembers her father crying as he told her what happened, still hears her mother’s scream when the coffin lid closed.

“For our family, 45 years means 45 years of missed birthdays, missed holidays and that empty chair at our table for every holiday gathering. Grief does not fade, it just becomes part of who you are,” Campbell, victim services manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving California, said Thursday at a press conference.

Campbell joined other victim relatives, lawmakers, advocates, a police chief and a trauma surgeon on a Capitol building stage, all there to build momentum for what’s shaping up to be the biggest legislative effort to address dangerous driving in a generation.

Next to them as they spoke was a table filled with photos of people killed on California’s roads and one old pair of gym shoes belonging to Campbell’s sister.

“Behind every statistic that you will hear today, someone is loved and irreplaceable,” she said.

A bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers has so far introduced 10 bills this year as part of an unprecedented legislative package aimed at confronting California’s permissive roadway safety laws. Many of the proposals directly address issues CalMatters uncovered as part of the ongoing License to Kill series, which revealed how the state has routinely allowed dangerous drivers to stay on the road as its roadway death toll has skyrocketed.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, called the package of bills “California’s largest and most significant anti-drunk driving and anti-DUI push in over two decades.”

“This crisis is an urgent call to action,” she said.

Her colleague on the other side of the aisle, Assemblymember Tom Lackey of Palmdale, said “it’s time.”

“We are failing, folks, and I’m so heartened by this big coalition of people. I’ve waited 12 years for this,” he said, referring to his time in the legislature after decades as a CHP officer.

Lawmakers said to expect a few more bills next week before the deadline to propose new legislation. Several Republican legislators also asked for a formal audit into DMV records and Democrats plan to propose a separate audit of how the state spends its traffic safety funds.

At Thursday’s event, lawmaker after lawmaker stepped to the podium to discuss their proposals and call on colleagues to join them in doing something about traffic deaths. They were often followed by grieving parents, there to talk about unfathomable loss.

For one father, Anatoly Varfolomeev, it was almost too much. He struggled to address the audience, at one point gripping the podium and lowering his head, overcome with emotion before gathering the strength to continue.

Varfolomeev said he’d planned to cite some of the statistics regarding motor vehicle fatalities but it was clear listening to the speakers that they were well known.

“That means that this legislative initiative is long-time overdue,” Varfolomeev said.

His daughter and her childhood friend, both 19, were killed in November 2021 by a drunk driver going more than 100 miles per hour, Varfolomeev said. The driver served just three and a half years behind bars, Varfolomeev said.

As we reported last year, vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a violent felony in California, meaning drivers who kill can serve only a fraction of their sentence behind bars.

“So this is not a violent crime,” he said, holding up a picture of the mangled, charred remains of a car. “If this is not a violent crime what is?”

One of the bills in the package would add vehicular manslaughter to the state’s list of violent felonies.

A mom, Kellie Montalvo, was there to support the change and the rest of the bill package. Her son Benjamin Montalvo had just turned 21 and was riding his bike when a woman with prior reckless crashes ran him over and fled the scene.

The woman who killed Benjamin – “Bean Dip” as his family affectionately called him – is due to be released from prison as early as this weekend. She called on Governor Newsom to do something.

“Please come out now publicly and support these bills. You have an opportunity to lead the charge in supporting victims,” she said. “His name was ‘Bean Dip’, and he mattered.”

Together, the bills are aimed at strengthening the state’s enforcement system and keeping many reckless drivers from behind the wheel for years longer. The package would bring the state more in line with much of the country, particularly when it comes to handling drunk and drugged drivers.

California saw a more than 50% spike in DUI-related deaths over the most recent 10 years for which federal estimates were available, an increase more than twice as steep as the rest of the country. As our investigation has shown, California currently has some of the weakest DUI laws in the country.

“Safer roads are not a partisan or political issue. They are the basic responsibility we owe to every family that travels upon our roadways,” said Alex Gammelgard, past president of the California Police Chiefs Association.

Yet, even as the number of deaths on our roads soared, California leaders have previously failed to confront these issues.

Many of the bills are sure to face significant challenges in the months to come. Financial concerns, for example, have helped doom previous efforts to pass expanded use of the in-car breathalyzers known as ignition interlock devices. A proposal to bring California in line with much of the rest of the nation is back on the table as part of the current package. Increasing criminal penalties could also be a tough sell in a legislature that’s been so focused in recent years on criminal justice reforms and alternatives to incarceration.

It was a challenge some on the stage alluded to.

“I want to align myself with the idea of compassion. I think California has done a lot to try to be on the compassionate side of the justice system,” said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat from San Luis Obispo.

“But I think, in this moment,” she added, “we have tragically failed.”

Lawmakers have a little more than a week before the deadline to introduce new legislation for the session.

The bills highlighted at Thursday’s press conference would:

Make vehicular manslaughter a violent felony and increase DUI penalties

(Introduced by Senator Bob Archuleta, a Democrat from Norwalk.)

Issue: Vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a “violent” felony under state law, our reporting showed, allowing people convicted of the crime to serve only a fraction of their time behind bars.

Proposed changes: This bill would add vehicular manslaughter with “gross negligence” to the list of violent felonies. It would also add prison time for crashes with multiple victims and drivers with a prior felony DUI within 10 years. Finally, the bill would stiffen penalties for hit-and-run collisions where the driver had a prior DUI and expand so-called “Watson advisements” that make it easier to charge repeat DUI offenders with murder if they kill someone.

Close the DMV point loophole for drivers who get diversion after a deadly crash

(Introduced by Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City.)

Issue: Recent criminal justice reform laws made it easier for judges to wipe misdemeanor convictions — including vehicular manslaughter — from criminal records. In practice, that means some California drivers can get points added to their license for speeding, but not for killing someone, our reporting has shown.

Proposed change: Ensure the DMV adds points to a drivers license in vehicular manslaughter cases where a driver gets off with misdemeanor diversion instead of a criminal conviction.

Ensure deadly drivers don’t get their licenses back as soon as they get out of prison

(Wilson plans to introduce.)

Issue: License suspensions or revocations often start at the time of a conviction and can actually end before someone is released from prison.

Proposed change: Require license suspensions and revocations to start when a driver is released from incarceration as opposed to at the time of a conviction, potentially keeping licenses away from dangerous drivers for years longer than the current law.

Increase DMV points for fatal crashes 

(Introduced by Assemblymembers Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale, and Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine.)

Issue: California drivers currently get the same number of points added to their license for killing someone as they do for non-injury DUIs and hit-and-run collisions.

Proposed change: Increase the number of points a vehicular manslaughter conviction adds to a driver’s license from the current two points to three.

Allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony on second offense 

(Introduced by Lackey)

Issue: It currently takes four DUIs within 10 years to be charged with a felony in California. Many other states allow prosecutors to charge a felony after two or three offenses.

Proposed change: This would allow prosecutors to charge a second DUI offense within 10 years as a felony.

Allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony after third offense, increase repeat DUI penalties

(Introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank)

Issue: Habitual repeat DUI offenders often face few added penalties.

Proposed change: Similar to Lackey’s bill, Schultz’s would let prosecutors charge a driver with a felony for their third DUI in 10 years. Increase the time some repeat DUI offenders need to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car and the amount of time their driving privileges are revoked.

Revoke the licenses of repeat DUI offenders for longer 

(Introduced by Lackey)

Issue: California takes away repeat DUI offenders’ driving privileges for three years, less time than many other places. Some other states revoke licenses for up to 15 years, or even issue lifetime bans.

Proposed change: Increase the amount of time the DMV can revoke the driving privileges of someone who gets a third DUI to eight years.

Bar people convicted of serious or repeat DUIs from purchasing alcohol

(Introduced by Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democrat from Stockton.)

Issue: California’s current system allows many repeat DUI offenders to stay on the road with few safeguards.

Proposed change: Let judges essentially bar people convicted of serious or repeat DUIs from purchasing alcohol by adding a “NO ALCOHOL SALE” sticker to their driver’s licenses, similar to a law recently enacted in Utah. A “Severe DUI” would be defined as an offense with a blood-alcohol level at least twice as high as the legal limit , conviction for two DUIs within three years, or a DUI causing great bodily injury, death, or major property damage.

Mandate in-car breathalyzers for all DUI offenders

(Introduced by Petrie-Norris)

Issue: Most states already require all DUI offenders to install an in-car breathalyzer. California does not. State law currently requires the devices, which a driver must blow into for their car to start, for people convicted of two or more DUIs, or a DUI that results in injury.

Proposed change: Require the breathalyzers for all DUI offenders. (A nearly identical measure was gutted late in the legislative process last year after the DMV said it did not have the technology or funding to implement the changes.)

Expand law enforcement DUI training

(Introduced by Assemblymember Juan Alanis, a Republican from Modesto.)

Issue: Local law enforcement training varies widely in California, meaning that officers aren’t always trained in how to test for drunk and drugged driving.

Proposed change: Increase DUI training for police officers who work traffic enforcement to ensure they are proficient in areas like sobriety testing and report writing.

The immigration detention center closest to Los Angeles has placed dozens of people in solitary confinement each month since June, according to the most recent data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In May 2025, the Adelanto ICE Processing Center had 14 people in isolation. When the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort revved up in June 2025, the number of detainees in solitary confinement there more than tripled. By July, it was 73; by August, 105.

The most recent data available shows that number went down slightly in January, to 74 people.

Ranked by percentage of the detainee population in “segregation,” as it is called at immigrant detention centers, Adelanto is among the U.S.’s top 10 facilities as of January, according to an LAist analysis of the most recent ICE data.

The data shows that of 229 ICE facilities that reported holding people since October 2024, between 50 and 60 usually reported putting at least one person in segregation in a given month. Out of the facilities that did place people in solitary confinement, Adelanto tended to do so less often than others until June 2025. (The facility held just a few people from October 2024 into January 2025.) When ICE’s presence increased in L.A. in June, the number of people sent to isolation in the facility also shot up — three to five times as many people have been isolated in Adelanto compared to the average facility that used any solitary confinement.

Since June, only two facilities have sent people to solitary confinement more times than Adelanto: one southwest of San Antonio, the other in central Pennsylvania.

Both of those facilities held twice the number of detainees as Adelanto on average from October 2024 through September 2025; but the number of people held in Adelanto since then has tripled, growing larger than either of the other facilities to hold an average of 1,800 people a day since October.

More on solitary confinement  

According to ICE, detainees may be placed in segregation for “disciplinary reasons,” or because of:

• “Serious mental or medical illness.”
• Conducting a hunger strike.
• Suicide watch.

The agency also says it might place detainees “who may be susceptible to harm [if left among the] general population due in part to how others interpret or assume their sexual orientation, or sexual presentation or expression.”

Not only is ICE holding more people in solitary confinement, but the agency's data also shows that detainees across the country are being isolated for longer periods of time. Detainees ICE considers part of the "vulnerable & special population" spent an average of about two weeks in solitary confinement each time they were isolated in 2022, when ICE first made the data available. By the end of 2025, the average stay in isolation had risen to more than seven weeks straight.

The GEO Group Inc., a private company that operates the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, has not responded to requests for comment.

How isolation can affect immigrant detainees  

UN human rights experts consider solitary confinement placements that last 15 days or more to be torture, though the U.S. Supreme Court has held that isolation doesn’t violate the Constitution.

The UN also maintains that solitary confinement should be prohibited for people “with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.”

In January, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of current detainees, calling for conditions at Adelanto to be improved. In addition to an unsanitary environment and a lack of healthy food and clean drinking water, detainees say solitary confinement is frequently used to punish those who speak out about conditions at the facility.

People held in immigrant detention centers are technically in “civil detention,” meaning that they are being detained to ensure their presence at hearings and compliance with immigration orders — not to serve criminal sentences.

According to the immigrant rights groups’ complaint, one detainee was placed in solitary confinement after complaining about the showers being broken. Another detainee said that, after asking a guard to “use more respectful language toward him, he was ridiculed, written up and given the middle finger by a guard who shouted, ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’” Then, the detainee was placed in solitary confinement for 25 days.

Alvaro Huerta, the director of litigation and advocacy at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center who is representing detainees at Adelanto, told LAist that when people are placed in isolation at the facility, they’re typically in the same cell for 23 hours per day, unable to receive visits from their families.

For clients who are experiencing mental health challenges — especially those with suicidal thoughts — being placed in solitary confinement “can really exacerbate their condition,” he added.

In multiple statements to the media, ICE has said that the agency “is committed to ensuring that all those in custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments.” The agency has also said that detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” and that all detainees “receive medical, dental, and mental health intake screenings within 12 hours of arriving at each detention facility.”

Huerta called that “laughable.”

“We have countless examples of people who have said that this is not true, that they're not getting the medication that they're requesting, that they're not being seen for chronic conditions and emergency conditions,” he added. “And we know it's not true because 14 people have died in ICE custody this year alone.”

Lori Rovner of Manhattan Beach is a big sports fan, so there was no question that when tickets for the Olympic Games went on sale, she'd be signing up.

She scored a slot in the first ticket drop, which launched Thursday, and logged on right at 10 a.m., hoping to score tickets to the Opening Ceremonies and some finals too. After battling her computer to get through "access denied" screens and a lost shopping cart due to a 30-minute time limit, she bought 16 tickets.

It was only when she was about to purchase that she noticed the service fees, which were around 24% of each ticket. One $2,100 ticket had a $505 service fee, bringing the total cost to $2,604.63.

"It's insane," she said of the fee. "I don't understand what the service is."

As the locals-only sale kicks off and Southern Californians have their first chance to buy tickets to the Olympic Games, some fans are wide-eyed at the high fees on all tickets and the prices in general, which start at $28 but go up to more than $5,500 a pop. Opening Ceremony tickets start at $328.68

The service fees aren't a surprise add-on. The price fans see when browsing the site is the total cost, including the fee. Still, some who bought in the first phase of sales were surprised when they saw the fees add up.

One user on Reddit of shared their cart of 10 tickets, which added up to $11,264. That included $1,038 in fees alone. Commenters responded in shock and awe.

Service fees are standard in ticket sales, but the percentage they charge can vary widely. High fees have been a source of ire for music and sports fans for years. A 2018 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the average fees on a primary ticket market were 27%.

LA28 did not respond to LAist's requests for details on the service fee, like what it pays for or why it's a percentage rather than a flat rate.

Not everyone seemed bothered by the prices. Some people LAist spoke with opted for only $28 or similarly priced tickets, even if it meant missing some of the biggest Olympic events. One user on Reddit said they purchased 18 tickets for around $550.

"I went with all $28 tickets," they wrote in the online forum about the Olympics. "I got women’s soccer, gymnastics, beach and regular volleyball, track and field, baseball and a few others."

For some, the ticket process, the prices and the dense web of events to choose from made it too hard to pull the trigger.

Jeff Bartow of Sierra Madre made a spreadsheet with some competitions he was interested in seeing before he logged on to buy tickets Friday.

"So many times, so many schedules, so many events," Bartow said. "I think I initially thought I was going to go to a bunch, but thinking about how crazy it's going to be … I might be a little more limited."

This is just the first ticket drop. There will be more opportunities to buy tickets in the months to come — and on a resale market that launches in 2027.

Some ticket-buyers told LAist they already were contemplating which tickets they'd keep and which ones they'd re-sell, just minutes after buying them.

In the more than two months since the Department of Justice released its latest batch of files on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, prosecutors have not brought any new charges based on the documents, despite federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continuing to demand accountability.

The more than 3 million pages of documents include accusations by alleged victims of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse and thousands of emails and photos showing Epstein associated with prominent figures. The files indicate that many of these people maintained contact with the disgraced financier long after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to sex crimes that involved minors. Appearing in the files is not necessarily an indication of criminal wrongdoing.

The release of the Epstein files came after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Justice Department to make public all documents it held related to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison about a month after a 2019 arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Maxwell was convicted on sex-trafficking charges in 2021 and is serving a 20-year sentence. Since the release of the files in 2025 and 2026, there have been no related arrests in the U.S. However, the disclosures have led to some resignations and other reputational repercussions for some high-ranking Americans.

The lack of arrests in the U.S. contrasts to the fallout in the U.K., where investigators have pursued charges related to corruption, not sexual abuse, in their dealings with Epstein. Two former government officials — former Prince Andrew and ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson — were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as he is now known, has denied wrongdoing and has not been formally charged. Mandelson has also not been charged, and lawyers for Mandelson have said that the arrest was prompted by a "baseless suggestion."

In the U.S., top Justice Department officials have said that they found no evidence compelling enough to pursue further charges related to Epstein, and that the public can make their own assessments based on the disclosed documents.

In a statement to NPR, Justice Department spokesperson Katie Kenlein said that "there have not been additional prosecutions beyond Epstein and Maxwell because there has not been credible evidence that their activities extended to Epstein's network. However, if prosecutable evidence comes forward, the Department of Justice will of course act on it as we do every day in sexual trafficking and assault cases across the count[r]y."

On Thursday, President Trump announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out of the top job at the Justice Department, following bipartisan criticism over her handling of the Epstein files.

NPR asked four former prosecutors and one former law enforcement officer why there may not have been enough evidence to levy additional charges. Here's what they said.

Prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Prosecutors must prove to a jury that a person committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt," according to Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

"One of the biggest misconceptions people have is how difficult it is to charge and convict somebody for a criminal case," said McQuade, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

A prosecutor's ethical responsibility is to charge cases only if they believe there is enough evidence for a conviction, McQuade said. Documents, including emails, jokes, and even plane itineraries, can be a place to start, but, alone, they are not enough to prove guilt, McQuade said.

"What you would need [is] rock solid evidence," McQuade said. "You can't charge someone for a crime without sufficient evidence, and I have yet to see evidence of a crime involving an Epstein associate that has gone uncharged."

Based on his understanding of the case, Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law, said he agreed that prosecutors who investigated Epstein's alleged associates "may have believed that they couldn't persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." He said problems with witness credibility or certain forensic evidence can prevent a case from moving forward.

The U.K. cases are focused on corruption 

In the U.K., the two people arrested are being investigated on suspicion of "misconduct in public office." McQuade said the U.S. does not have a single equivalent federal law. Instead, the U.S. prosecutes public corruption through statutes that focus specifically on crimes such as bribery and extortion.

After the release of the latest files, British police began investigating Andrew's correspondence with Epstein when Andrew was a U.K. trade envoy. At that time, Andrew allegedly shared government itineraries, investment plans and notes from official foreign trips with Epstein. The information may have been covered by the United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act.

Similarly, Mandelson has been accused of passing confidential government information to the late sex offender when Mandelson was a U.K. Cabinet minister.

Meeting the burden of proof is especially challenging for sex crime cases

Victim statements are essential for establishing basic elements, such as the timeframe of events, required to build sexual assault cases, said Diane Goldstein, a retired police lieutenant from California and the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. But a victim may be reluctant to come forward because of a fear of retaliation, not believing the police can help, believing it is a personal matter, or not wanting to get the perpetrator in trouble.

McQuade noted that in some sex trafficking cases, especially those in which a perpetrator is in a position of power, victims may experience intimidation or threats that prevent them from speaking out.

Victims also may be hesitant to move forward with allegations because they fear having to testify at trials where defense attorneys may attempt to poke holes in their allegations, McQuade said.

Goldstein said that for sex crime cases to advance, investigators need to follow certain policies and procedures. "If you don't have a legitimate police investigation to start, you're not going to get any type of criminal filing," Goldstein said.

Other potential charges are also a difficult path

Prosecutors may have considered pursuing charges of criminal conspiracy related to sex trafficking against people associated with Epstein, said Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo School of Law. FBI documents in the files relating to its investigation into Epstein's crimes identify certain people as "co-conspirators."

But Ankush Khardori, a senior writer and columnist at Politico magazine who worked as a federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases, told NPR those identifiers are not "formal accusation[s]" and are simply part of "interim documents."

"The FBI does not determine who is a co-conspirator," Khardori said. "That is a legal judgment that prosecutors make."

But for those conspiracy cases, "criminal intent," in particular, is difficult to establish, said Roth, who worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York for seven years. Criminal conspiracy charges "would require knowledge and intent on the part of each individual who was charged," Roth said. If a person who communicated with Epstein had some suspicion that he was engaged in illegal activity, that alone would not be sufficient evidence to press charges, she said.

Investigators may have considered charges related to criminal tax violations, McQuade said. But the statute of limitations has likely ended on those cases, she said, meaning that prosecutors can no longer bring charges.

The current evidence lacks context

Legal experts say the haphazard way the documents were released and redacted makes it difficult for the public to understand why no additional charges have been filed.

Roth, the Cardozo law professor, said the information is in "isolation," without the appropriate context. "We'll see an individual photograph that looks perhaps incriminating. We'll see an email that looks incriminating, but we don't necessarily have everything that was said before and after that email and that exchange," Roth said.

One document that could explain why no charges were pursued, according to Butler, is a heavily redacted DOJ memo naming "potential co-conspirators" of Epstein. "The parts that should indicate why the department declined prosecution on any alleged co-conspirators other than Ghislaine Maxwell [are] redacted," said Butler, the Georgetown law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

Butler said those redactions are "unusual" because they do not appear to follow the permissible reasons for redactions in the Epstein documents. Those reasons include confidentiality for Epstein's alleged victims, or anything that would compromise an ongoing investigation, Butler said.

"When the Justice Department grudgingly releases information when pressed by politics or forced by Congress, it also creates the impression that they have something to hide," Butler said. "That there is some cover-up going on."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Nearly 30% more students in Los Angeles County experienced homelessness from 2022-23 to 2023-24, making it the county’s highest rate in the past five years and far outpacing the rate of homelessness across the state in the same timeframe, as the resources to identify and support this student population have decreased.

The UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools published two reports on Wednesday on the state of student homelessness in the county: “Rising Numbers, Fading Resources: Students Experiencing Homelessness in Los Angeles County” and “Hidden in Plain Sight: Fear, Underidentification, and Funding Gaps for Housing-Insecure Students in Los Angeles County.”

Researchers found that Norwalk-La Mirada Elementary Unified School District had the highest rate of student homelessness in the county — 1 in 3 students, meaning that over 4,700 students were identified as experiencing homelessness during the 2023-24 school year out of a total cumulative enrollment of about 15,600.

The city of Norwalk, where the district is located in the eastern region of the county, was sued by the state in 2024 for banning emergency shelters and other support services for people experiencing homelessness. Last year, the state reached a settlement with the city, which was forced to overturn the ban and put $250,000 toward building affordable housing.

Student homelessness is defined differently under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a federal law that requires every public school to count the number of students who are living on the street, in shelters, in motels, in cars, doubled up with other families, or moving between friends’ and relatives’ homes.

As a result of this expanded definition, McKinney-Vento includes doubled-up students in the count of homelessness. Doubled-up is a term used to describe children and youth ages 21 and under living in shared housing, such as with another family or friends, due to various crises.

There were a few other patterns seen in the L.A. County data analyzed by the UCLA researchers:

• Latino students were disproportionately more likely to experience homelessness: they represent 65% of the county’s student population, but 75.5% of student homelessness
• A third of homeless students were in high school
• Many districts with the highest rates of homelessness had higher school instability but lower dropout rates

While McKinney-Vento has an expanded definition that includes more types of homelessness than several other definitions, identifying students remains difficult.

The second report from the UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools focuses on the lack of dedicated funding for school staff to identify and support homeless students. Students and families facing homelessness do not always self-identify, whether due to fear, shame or being unaware that their housing situation is considered homelessness under McKinney-Vento.

“A lot of these young people are dealing with a lot of trauma, so they don’t want to be identified. They don’t want to be pointed out; sometimes it’s scary for them, because they think we’re going to report them to the Department of Children and Family Services,” said L.A. County Office of Education staff interviewed for this report.

School staff, known as homeless liaisons, who work with homeless students received a historic influx of federal funds during the Covid-19 pandemic — $98.76 million for California, out of $800 million nationwide, from the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth.

That funding has since ended, and there is no other dedicated, ongoing state funding set aside solely for the rising number of homeless students. This has led districts in California to “heavily depend on highly competitive and unstable federal streams,” the UCLA researchers wrote. Those federal streams have become increasingly precarious as the federal administration last year sought policy changes that would shift how they are structured.