The Brief

Republican state Sen. Brian Jones has been trying to block sex offenders from being released from prison through California’s elderly parole program for several years. Last week, for the first time, his bill to do so made it out of its first committee.

It was just one of many votes Senate Bill 286 will have to survive in a long road ahead in the Capitol, but it caught Jones’ attention. In a Legislature dominated by Democrats who often shelve Republican tough-on-crime proposals, the approval from the Senate Public Safety Committee was unanimous.

“I don’t think it would have passed a committee last year,” said Jones, the Senate minority leader.

California’s Democratic legislators — who for years have been passing progressive measures designed to reduce sentences and lessen mass incarceration by emphasizing more rehabilitative solutions to crime — were dealt a blow last fall when an overwhelming majority of voters approved Proposition 36.

The measure backed by business owners, police and Republicans, increased sentences for some drug and theft crimes, partially undoing more lenient measures that voters approved just 10 years ago. Though many Democrats opposed the measure, they’re now tasked with providing funding to carry it out.

Jones, of San Diego, said he’s seeing Democrats inching toward stricter incarceration measures as a result. He said he saw a window to bring back the legislation this year.

“The smart Democrats are getting it,” he said. “The voters spoke overwhelmingly.”

The Public Safety Committee also gave unanimous approval this month for another bill Jones authored, SB 379, that would add regulatory guardrails before the Department of State Hospitals releases sexually violent predators. It’s his fourth year in a row pushing that measure; the proposal passed the Senate and died in the Assembly last year, after failing to clear a single committee both years before that. SB 432, authored by a different Republican senator to increase penalties for selling or giving fentanyl to minors, also got unanimous approval in the committee this month.

Freshman Sen. Jesse Arreguín, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the committee, said his fellow Democrats don’t intend to return to an era of overcrowded prisons or harsh penalties for lower-level crimes. But he acknowledged they’re also shifting their thinking in response to their voters, and called that approach “pragmatic.”

“That was the direction I was given as chair of the Public Safety Committee, was that we need to provide more balance in terms of how we look at criminal justice policy,” he said, referring to the Democratic caucus. “Just focusing specifically on restorative justice and prevention, and not focusing on accountability (for offenders), that's not where the voters are now.”

Criminal justice reforms still advancing

So far, the shift hasn’t been enough to worry Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, a group that advocates for reduced imprisonment and pushed for the 2014 sentencing changes that voters approved.

She pointed to bills her organization has sponsored that are also advancing through the Legislature, including legislation to expand the state’s efforts to clear criminal records to give past offenders second chances, and to require that the California Department of Corrections apply more good behavior credits to reduce prisoners’ time served. With the state tight on cash, she said she doesn’t believe lawmakers will be eager to significantly increase imprisonment and sees a “consensus that we shouldn’t go back that way.”

“Even Prop. 36 wasn't a referendum on reform,” Hollins said. “There's still plenty of support for different approaches to public safety that really address the root cause and prevent crime from happening in the first place.”

Any stricter measures the Legislature approves this year will ultimately be narrow, with Republicans pointing to extreme examples to push their case.

State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, during the state Senate Appropriations Committee session in Sacramento on Sept. 1, 2023.

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

Jones’ elderly parole bill targets a program the Corrections Department first created in 2014, in response to a court order to reduce prison crowding, that allows prisoners who are older than 60 and have served at least 25 years of their sentences to petition for release.

He tried in 2019 to restrict those convicted of sex offenses from being eligible; the bill never got a hearing. In 2020, lawmakers quietly lowered the eligibility for some prisoners to age 50, if they’ve served at least 20 years, though many have not been approved for release. The following year, Jones proposed a bill undoing that change for sex offenders, which went nowhere.

Between January 2021 and June 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings released 1,762 people through the elderly parole program, corrections spokesperson Emily Humpal wrote in an email. Department data analyzed by CalMatters show that while more people have been released under the elder program since 2021, the rates at which the board grants parole fluctuate between 14% and 20% each year, hovering just above the board’s overall parole-granting rate. The department would not immediately provide a breakdown of their convictions, nor of how many of those released were between the ages of 50 and 60.

Now, 12,303 people currently imprisoned – nearly 14% of the prison population – are eligible for either form of elderly parole, Humpal said.

Jones’ bill would bar those convicted of sexual felonies such as rape and child sexual abuse from parole eligibility at age 50. It would not affect their eligibility upon turning 60, or the parole eligibility date in their original sentences.

He also proposed blocking the earlier eligibility from people convicted of murder, but Arreguín’s committee removed that provision with Jones’ agreement before voting to advance the bill.

Proponents of the measure, including San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan, say victims shouldn’t be forced to relive the trauma of parole hearings and the prospect of their abusers’ release before the end of their original sentences.

They point to Mary Johnson, who identified herself as the childhood victim of rape and sexual abuse by her uncle. The abuser, Cody Klemp, was originally sentenced in the 1990s to 170 years. In 2023, under the elderly parole program, the Board of Parole Hearings recommended his release — then rescinded the decision last year. His next hearing is scheduled for 2029.

“Suddenly, I was no longer a 49-year-old woman, but I was a 13-year-old trapped and powerless and fighting again,” Johnson said in a press conference. “No victim’s family should have to fight over and over again to ensure that a dangerous predator serves the sentence that they were given.”

Closing the doors on the rehabilitated?

A group of criminal justice reform and civil rights advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the legislation, arguing it would close the door on those who have been rehabilitated in prison and pose less of a public safety risk. Studies have found the chances of re-offense decrease as a defendant ages.

Gary Harrell, who was given a life sentence for his participation in a murder, testified that despite becoming eligible for parole in 1984, he wasn’t released until about 40 years later, after he had gone before the parole board about 20 times. He said in the last two decades of his incarceration, he turned his life around, and now works a day job while in his spare time giving homeless Sacramento residents food and hygiene products.

“I have taken so much from others and now it’s time to give back and do my part to make the world a better place,” he said. “I hope you can see that the people who will be impacted by this bill are people like me who have changed and want to give back.”

Arreguín said he proposed removing Jones’ exclusion of people convicted of murder to focus the bill on sex offenses.

That tactic has yielded bipartisan backing in the last legislative session.

In 2023, Republican Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield pushed a bill to increase penalties for child sex trafficking. Democrats in the Assembly Public Safety Committee resisted but, after a public outcry, Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped in with rare public comments in support of the legislation, which ultimately won more Democratic support and his signature.

Last year Grove’s bill to increase penalties for soliciting a minor for prostitution — targeting the buyers of sex — also prevailed. Senate Democrats carved out exclusions for 16- and 17-year-olds who are allegedly solicited, out of concern it would inadvertently rope in older teenagers who aren’t actually involved in or victims of trafficking. (The legal age of consent is 18.) This year, Grove is turning heads with a bill, Assembly Bill 379, co-authored with an Assembly Democrat, to undo those exclusions and apply the changes to all minors.

Jones acknowledged the tactic of focusing on sexual offenses is an incremental step toward tightening criminal sentences overall.

“We’re smart enough to know how far we can go,” he said.

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

The Orange County Board of Supervisors “undermined” the public’s trust when they granted themselves a 25% pay increase, according to the latest OC Grand Jury report released on Monday.

Since 2005, supervisors were set to make 80% of a Superior Court judge’s salary. That changed in June, when the board approved a 25% pay hike, increasing their salaries by about $49,000 to at least $244,000.

The pay increase raised eyebrows over the summer, sparking the Grand Jury investigation. A Grand Jury is a panel of citizens who investigate local government and public agencies. Members serve one year and look into several issues during that time.

It came just weeks after former Supervisor Andrew Do was sentenced to five years in federal prison for accepting more than $550,000 in bribes. The county itself is also financially in hot water following the Airport Fire, which has racked up hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims against the county.

“The timing was especially troubling as the County of Orange (County) has been facing hiring freezes and budget constraints,” the Grand Jury reported. “This decision was not only tone-deaf — it reflected a deeper disconnect from the Board’s duty to serve the public with transparency and fiscal responsibility.”

What does the Grand Jury say? 

The Grand Jury questioned how the item was presented to the public and whether it was purposefully buried within the county budget agenda item.

“The Board added their salary increase into the $10.8 billion 2025-2026 Orange County Annual Budget adoption process. This resulted in a minimal description in the agenda and minimal opportunity for citizen input,” the Grand Jury reported. “Therefore, the Grand Jury investigated: why did they want to conceal their salary increase, was it warranted at this time and who initiated it?”

The board’s vote, the Grand Jury stated, signifies that the board prioritizes personal gain over accountability and public trust.

“Elected officials are entrusted to serve, not to enrich themselves. When this happens, the foundation of representative democracy is undermined,” the Grand Jury said. “The people of Orange County deserve better, and the people must demand it.”

How are officials responding? 

OC Supervisor Katrina Foley — the lone dissenting vote on the raises — said she was not surprised by the Grand Jury’s findings.

“I think most people felt that it was poor form for that to happen at that time, and given our current economic instability due to what's happening at the federal and the state level,” Foley told LAist.

Following the criticism, Supervisors Vicente Sarmiento and Doug Chaffee said they would donate their increased pay to charity.

“I am open to considering the recommendations in the report for changes to the pay ordinance and how future increases are approved, and I have been open to reconsidering the pay increase,” Sarmiento said in a statement.

A county spokesperson and Supervisor Don Wagner declined to comment. Supervisor Doug Chaffee and Janet Nguyen did not respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What’s next? 

The report made a handful of recommendations, including that the board rescind the pay raise and salary changes by next March “to restore institutional trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency and accountability.”

It also recommends that the board adopt procedures for proposing, reviewing and approving future supervisor salary changes that include public hearings.

The county has 90 days from the release of the report to respond to the Grand Jury, according to a county spokesperson.

The increase of federal immigration sweeps in Southern California this year made one thing clear to street vendors without authorization to be in the U.S. — running a business outside was risky.

In response, L.A. nonprofit Inclusive Action for the City ramped up an existing program that trains street vendors to work in private catering.

“One of the big successes of the year was the growth of our Hire a Vendor program, where our business coaches essentially became brokers for our street vendors and other entrepreneurs so they can get catering jobs,” said Rudy Espinoza, the group’s CEO.

The program was created in 2024 but the group expanded it this year after the increase of immigration sweeps. The group said in its annual report that 34 small businesses were trained for catering this year and more than 350 catering jobs came to those trainees this year.

The training program includes menu design and pricing, electronic sales systems and marketing

(

Courtesy Inclusive Action for the City

)

“Everywhere from the mayor's house to a small backyard party,” Espinoza said.

The group’s effort is part of actions taken by individuals and groups across the region to help people targeted for detention keep sources of income.

That help has included buyouts of daily inventory of fruit and flowers, as well as the awarding of grants to street vendors who lost income because they stayed home.

Advocates said the loss of income through detentions — many carried out through violent means — often affected family members who were U.S. citizens and has created a humanitarian crisis as families have lost the means to pay bills and buy food.

Street vendors in a Hire a Vendor session organized by Inclusive Action for the City.

(

Courtesy Inclusive Action for the City

)

The vendor training program sought to alleviate that.

“Sometimes, challenges force us to think, be creative and think about how to adapt,” Espinoza said. “The Hire a Vendor program is just an example of how some entrepreneurs really dedicated themselves to build out a different line of business for themselves.”

How it works

The Hire a Vendor program is free to people who seek and receive micro-loans from Inclusive Action for the City.

Four of the program’s nine sessions are "office hours" in which a business coach works one-on-one with the business owner.

The trainings cover:

• Catering basics such as delivery, set-up and presentation
• Invoicing and electronic sale systems
• Menu design and pricing
• Marketing through social media

The trained vendors are free to pursue their own catering jobs but also get catering work through a portal created by Inclusive Action for the City.

Espinoza said one full-time employee oversaw the program this year, and he’d like to add another full-time worker to expand the trainings in 2026.

The Trump administration will resume garnishing wages from student loan borrowers in default in early 2026, the U.S. Education Department confirmed to NPR.

The move comes after a years-long pause in wage garnishment due to the pandemic.

"We expect the first notices to be sent to approximately 1,000 defaulted borrowers the week of Jan. 7," a department spokesperson told NPR. The spokesperson said wage-garnishment notices are expected to increase on a monthly basis throughout the year.

A borrower is in default when they have not made loan payments in more than 270 days. Once that happens, the federal government can try to collect on the debt by seizing tax refunds and Social Security benefits and also by ordering an employer to withhold up to 15% of a borrower's pay. Borrowers should receive a 30-day notice from the Education Department before this wage garnishment begins.

Betsy Mayotte, the president and founder of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, says even though borrowers have expected this, the timing is unfortunate.

"It will coincide with the increase in health care costs for many of these defaulted borrowers," she said, referring to the premium increases for Affordable Care Act health insurance that kick in in 2026. "The two will almost certainly put significant economic strain on low- and middle-income borrowers."

About 5.5 million borrowers currently are in default, according to a recent analysis of the latest federal student loan data published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a public policy think tank.

Another 3.7 million are more than 270 days late on their payments and 2.7 million are in the early stages of delinquency.

"We've got about 12 million borrowers right now who are either delinquent on their loans or in default," Preston Cooper, who studies student loan policy at AEI, told NPR.

That's more than 1 in 4 federal student loan borrowers.

Cory Turner contributed to this story.

Copyright 2025 NPR