Chris Wangsaporn, chief of staff to O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do, at the O.C. Board of Supervisors meeting on Dec. 19, 2023.
(
Nick Gerda
/
LAist
)
Topline:
The longtime partner — and now wife — of Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do's top aide was hired by a nonprofit to carry out a $275,000 mental health contract funded by the county, but the work was never completed, a county spokesperson confirmed to LAist. Supervisor Do told the nonprofit to hire the woman, Josie Batres, to do the work, according to multiple people briefed on the contract.
What was the contract for? The work was intended to advise the county on how to increase access to publicly funded mental health services. The contract called for carrying out a series of monthly listening sessions in the community, and providing quarterly updates, an annual report and a final report to the Health Care Agency.
What we know about what happened: A county spokesperson told LAist they had received none of the work required under the contract, including the reports. Public records show — and the spokesperson confirmed — that all the money was paid out.
It's unclear how many of the listening sessions were carried out. Mind OC said they found a single report connected to the contract, but didn't know whether any work had been turned over to the county.
The longtime partner — and now wife — of Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do's top aide was hired by a nonprofit to carry out a $275,000 mental health contract funded by the county, but the work was never completed, a county spokesperson confirmed to LAist.
Supervisor Do told the nonprofit to hire the woman, Josie Batres, to do the work, according to multiple people briefed on the contract.
At the time, Batres was the longtime girlfriend of Chris Wangsaporn, Supervisor Do's chief of staff. The two were married in December 2021, a year into the two-year contract.
The contract required the nonprofit, Mind OC, to run community listening sessions and submit reports to help the county increase access to publicly-funded mental health services, especially among non-English speakers, foster youth, and other underrepresented communities. The people who spoke with LAist about Do's alleged directive did so on the condition they not be named, saying it could compromise their careers.
Neither Batres nor Wangsaporn responded to multiple requests for comment about the contract. Do did not respond to a voicemail left on his cell phone. Reached by phone, Do's attorney, Paul Meyer, acknowledged receiving a list of questions about the contract from LAist and said he could not talk.
The contract was issued to Mind OC, without competitive bidding, by Clayton Chau, the county Health Care Agency director at the time, according to the agency’s spokesperson. Chau told LAist he didn't remember the contract or any related directive from Do.
In a phone interview, Frank Kim, who was then the county's CEO and supervised the Health Care Agency director and other county executives, also said he did not remember the contract or any related directive from Do.
"If it happened, I'm not aware of that," he said.
He added that Do was closely involved in efforts to improve mental and behavioral health care and had frequent communication with county officials about the county’s programs.
“Supervisor Do had strong opinions,” Kim said. “Did he exert influence? Sure, he was a supervisor."
Jeff Nagel, the county's behavioral health chief, oversaw the contract for the county. He was deeply troubled to learn several months into the contract that Do directed that Batres be hired for the work, according to several people familiar with the situation.
Nagel left the agency in January 2022. He declined an interview for this story.
Marshall Moncrief, who was Mind OC’s CEO at the time of the county contract and now works elsewhere, didn’t respond to multiple phone and text messages for comment.
In a statement to LAist, Mind OC’s current CEO Phil Franks, who was hired after the contract ended, said he had no knowledge of a directive from Supervisor Do to hire Batres.
Ellen Guevara, a spokesperson for the O.C. Health Care Agency, told LAist the agency never received the work required in the contract. That work was supposed to include quarterly updates, an annual report and a final report.
Franks, Mind OC’s CEO, told LAist in a statement that the organization found a single report from Batres' home-based HR consulting firm TalentGate related to the contract, but didn't know whether it or any other related work had been turned over to the county. He didn't respond to a request from LAist for a copy of the report.
It's unclear whether payments went to Batres or TalentGate. Guevara said Mind OC hired Batres as their employee for the contract; Mind OC told LAist it subcontracted with TalentGate to fulfill it.
LAist made multiple requests for documentation of the hiring to the Health Care Agency and Mind OC but has yet to receive any.
The details of what happened
The $275,000 in taxpayer money was paid out to Mind OC over two years in six installments, according to county records.
Multiple people briefed on the contract told LAist that Supervisor Do directed the O.C. Health Care Agency to award the contract to Mind OC, and told Mind OC to hire Batres to do the work.
Josie Batres was hired by the nonprofit Mind OC to carry out a $275,000 mental health contract funded by the county, according to a county spokesperson.
(
Screenshot via YouTube
)
The contract is one of several LAist has uncovered over the past year in which Orange County taxpayer funds went to people close to Do during the pandemic without competitive bidding or disclosure on public agendas. In several cases, contractors didn't provide proof of how the money was spent, as required under those contracts.
LAist has reported that Supervisor Do directed more than $13 million in taxpayer funds to a nonprofit where his daughter Rhiannon Do held top leadership positions, most of it awarded outside public view, according to county records. Supervisor Do didn’t disclose his family relationship, and county officials say the group has refused to account for what happened with most of the money.
In August, county officials sued Rhiannon Do and others connected to the nonprofit, Viet America Society (VAS), for civil fraud, alleging they “brazenly plundered” millions in public funds for home purchases and renovations, and made “voluminous, unaccounted for ATM cash withdrawals.” Last month, Supervisor Do was publicly condemned by his colleagues on the O.C. Board of Supervisors through a censure. He’s facing multiple calls to resign, including from fellow Republican elected officials. He has not attended board meetings since his home — and homes owned by Rhiannon Do and others with ties to Viet America Society — were searched by federal agents on Aug. 22.
Rhiannon Do, a UCI law student, previously told LAist in April that she worked hard to buy the house and has done nothing wrong.
The contract was awarded without going on a public meeting agenda for a vote by the full Board of Supervisors.
Instead, it was awarded by Chau under COVID emergency contracting authority the board established during the pandemic, according to the county’s contracts database and Guevara, the county Health Care Agency spokesperson. The contract itself doesn’t say it’s related to COVID or the pandemic — nor was there a memo explaining why it was issued through emergency authority, as other contracts issued that way did at the time.
The contract was authorized by Chau, the then-director of the Health Care Agency and county health officer, according to Guevara. Chau told LAist that since the contract was small, it was unlikely to have been something he followed closely.
He added later via text message that his primary concern at the time was responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. "I had to rely on my department head to do their job on small contracts," he wrote.
In business filings with the state, Batres is listed as the CEO, CFO and secretary of TalentGate, the company Mind OC hired to fulfill the contract. TalentGate’s city business license listed it as a “home office for human resource consulting” located in San Gabriel at the time of the contract. Batres and Wangsaporn lived at the company’s address at the time they were married in late 2021, according to their marriage certificate.
TalentGate's LinkedIn profile says it’s a human resources company that addresses “organizational bottlenecks across the employee lifecycle.” Mental health is not listed in the "specialties" section of the company profile.
The county Health Care Agency says it never received the required reports detailing the results of the contract work. Guevara, the agency’s spokesperson, told LAist in an email that the county’s behavioral health team does not know whether the listening sessions were carried out and has no records showing how the money was spent.
“The funds were paid to [Mind OC],” Guevara wrote. “No details on what [Mind OC] did after that.”
She said the $275,000 was funded by the Mental Health Services Act, a voter-approved tax that’s meant to pay for mental health services, including treatment and prevention.
Pandemic contracting rules
In most cases, government contracts are subject to competitive bidding. Before the pandemic, county rules required a vote from the O.C. Board of Supervisors for all non-competitive service contracts (also called “no-bid” contracts) above $75,000 per year.
But starting in March 2020 the board waived this and other rules for awarding contracts, in order to fast-track hiring vendors for “services related to the COVID-19 Emergency.” Instead, for about the first year of the pandemic, county staff were allowed to award large contracts outside public view. In some cases that was done in response to requests by individual supervisors.
The state has passed several reform laws in recent months inspired by LAist's investigation into millions in COVID funds awarded by Supervisor Do to Viet America Society with little oversight and no public disclosure of family ties.
The full O.C. Board of Supervisors must now take a public vote before awarding district discretionary funds to a nonprofit or community group, and the details of the agreements must be posted online.
Statewide, it will become a crime starting in January 2026 for elected officials to be involved in awarding government contracts to organizations if they know their adult child is an officer or director of the vendor, or if their adult child has at least 10% ownership.
Statewide, starting this coming January, all county supervisors will have to disclose any family ties to a nonprofit’s employees or officers before awarding public funds to the group.
The O.C. Board of Supervisors also directed its internal auditor to review all county contracts to ensure oversight and compliance, including those funded by federal COVID dollars. The auditor's report is due before the end of the year.
Payments from Viet America Society to Batres
Federal tax filings for Viet America Society — the nonprofit accused of fraud by the county — show it paid $40,000 to a company named "TalenGate" in 2020, based at the same home address as Batres’ company TalentGate. It was the organization's highest paid independent contractor that year, receiving $40,000, according to LAist's review of a VAS public tax filing.
That year, Viet America Society was funded by county dollars meant to feed needy seniors, which flowed to VAS through another nonprofit, Hand to Hand Relief Organization, according to public records obtained by LAist. The county also is suing Hand to Hand for alleged fraud in diverting those taxpayer funds in 2020, which Supervisor Do also had awarded.
The following year, VAS’ public tax filing shows it paid "TalenGate" another $10,000, while VAS’ financial ledger it filed with the county shows it paid the same amount to Batres herself in January 2021.
Reached by phone in April and this month, Batres declined to answer LAist’s questions about what the payments were for. VAS’ attorney, Mark Rosen, told LAist last week that he could not answer questions about them. The tax filings list the payments as being for “PUBLIC RELATION.” No further detail was provided.
Relationship between Chau and Mind OC
Chau worked as a high-level executive at Mind OC before he took over the county health agency in May 2020, according to a county news release about his hiring. Mind OC's public tax filing shows it paid Chau $133,000 that year for that work — the same year the agency awarded the no-bid contract at issue to Mind OC.
Mind OC has faced recent troubles in its relationships with the county and O.C. cities.
In August, the county abruptly canceled a major contractwith the group to manage the county's signature mental health campus, Be Well, in the city of Orange. That contract was ended a little over two years into a three-year, $63.8-million deal with the county. The rupture came after an audit found Mind OC failed to provide proper oversight of mental health and substance use treatment services on the campus.
In a joint statement, the county and Mind OC said the decision was "based on an ever-evolving public, private partnership model."
Additionally, two cities, Newport Beach and Anaheim, recently canceled their contracts with Mind OC to provide mobile mental health crisis response to residents. Newport Beach City Councilmember Lauren Kleiman told LAist the service hadn't been effective in getting unhoused people with mental health problems off the streets.
"Given the voluntary nature of street outreach, the data over the past year did not demonstrate their ability to produce street exits in a way that justified the use of taxpayer funds to extend the contract," Kleiman wrote in an email to LAist in late August.
When asked about Anaheim ending the contract in September, Mind OC CEO Franks told LAist in a statement that the organization and the city had mutually agreed to sunset their agreement. A spokesperson for Anaheim said the city no longer needed the services.
Supervisor Do’s ties to Mind OC
Mind OC was formed in 2018 to coordinate a public-private network of mental health providers and resources known collectively as Be Well OC. The concept arose, in part, from a Board of Supervisors ad hoc mental health committee formed in 2015 and run by Supervisor Do and then-Supervisor Lisa Bartlett. At the time Mind OC was created, the county was under fire for failing to spend state funds allocated for mental health services, and for the severe shortage of psychiatric care available to residents.
Supervisor Do has been a consistent champion of Mind OC and Be Well. In a video posted earlier this year to his YouTube channel, Supervisor Do dates the origin of Be Well to a meeting seven years ago between himself, county health care leaders, and Dr. Richard Afable, a former Hoag Hospital CEO who has been Mind OC’s board president since the group was formed in 2018.
O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do (left) and Dr. Richard Afable, the president of the Mind OC board of directors, speak in a 2024 video about the Be Well campus under construction in Irvine.
(
O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do's YouTube page
)
The highly produced video features Supervisor Do and Afable — in hard hats and bright yellow vests — signing beams at the construction site of a planned Be Well campus in Irvine. Do and other supervisors have awarded the organization at least $40 million in public funds to build that second campus.
Afable did not respond to a request for comment.
In May, the county signed an additional $95 million, three-year contract with Mind OC to run the Irvine campus, starting in January.
How to watchdog local government
One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.
Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.
By Isaiah Murtaugh and Christopher Damien | The LA Local
Published April 27, 2026 1:30 PM
Digital billboard on Market Street in Inglewood, part of a collaboration with Wow Media.
(
Isaiah Murtaugh
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.
The backstory: In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals.
Opposition to the initiative: WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability. CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.
Jacque Langston was driving down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood when he came face-to-face with an odd sight: sea creatures floating across one of the city’s new, spiraling digital billboards.
“Why am I looking at jellyfish? That has nothing to do with me,” said Langston, an Inglewood native. For Langston, the video billboards that have come to dominate stretches of Inglewood’s major roads are a square peg in a round hole.
“The city has never been touched like that,” Langston said. “Now you’ve got a mini-Vegas.”
A digital billboard is seen on La Cienega Blvd. at Florence Ave. in Inglewood on April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.
(
Dania Maxwell
/
The LA Local
)
Video billboards have proliferated in Inglewood in recent years, targeting the influx of people driving into the city for concerts and sporting events at SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum.
Last summer, though, they became a flashpoint for a series of lawsuits that revealed fractures in the once-close relationship between the city and its major entertainment venues. The various parties are now fighting over lucrative advertising territory as major international sporting events approach.
That legal drama — reported last week by The LA Local — also threatens to undo the contract that underpins SoFi Stadium’s financial relationship with the city.
Langston and other Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.
Meanwhile, the bright LED video screens have divided local opinion.
Vanessa Cowan, an Inglewood resident, said the gleaming screens are a sign of progress in the city. “I like them,” she said. “It has a different look.”
A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Avenue in Inglewood on April 18, in Los Angeles.
(
Dania Maxwell
/
The LA Local
)
Khnum Alexander, owner of Swank Men’s Fashion on Manchester, called the billboards “monstrosities” and said advertising on the screens is too expensive for small businesses like his. He also questioned the new, twisting screens that billboard company WOW Media has recently begun to install in groups of three across the city.
“Do we really need more?” he asked.
Down the street from Alexander’s menswear store, EZ Will Driving School owner Will McDaniel felt differently.
“I’m all for it,” McDaniel said. “People are afraid of change. Change to them feels awkward.”
If city leaders have their way, the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative won’t make it to voters this fall.
“What is packaged as an initiative by and for Inglewood residents appears to be a product of avaricious puppeteering by a billionaire developer,” lawyers retained by the city wrote in a March 4 court complaint filed in an attempt to block the initiative.
That developer, the city’s lawyers contend, was SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke. Attorneys later amended the complaint to include Intuit Dome owner Steve Ballmer.
“Voter suppression”
In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals.
“Public spaces belong to people, not billboard companies,” Roberts wrote, adding advertising should instead prioritize public safety messaging, such as emergency alerts, not advertising for profit.
“Inglewood should not be for sale to billboard companies for decades at a time — especially when such arrangements permanently alter the character of our beautiful city and erase the legacy of those who fought to preserve our neighborhoods,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts did not respond to a request for comment. When The LA Local reached out to her lawyer, a veteran campaign spokesperson responded.
John Shallman has been a consultant in Southern California politics for decades and formerly worked for the Clippers when they moved to the Intuit Dome.
He is now working with Roberts to get the anti-billboard initiative on the ballot; their website and campaign are called Inglewood Not for Sale.
He said he’s never seen a city sue one of its residents over an idea they’re attempting to put before voters.
“It’s voter suppression,” Shallman told The LA Local. “You can run a campaign against it, but trying to stop it from getting in front of citizens at all, that’s a big red flag. We’re all about voter empowerment. They’re the public’s streets, parks and medians. They control how they’re used and how they’re sold.”
Inglewood Mayor James Butts did not return a request for comment. The city’s lawyers argued in court filings that the initiative shouldn’t be allowed to go before voters because it would unconstitutionally restrict speech, lay out illegal zoning guidelines and hurt the city’s contract with WOW Media, the company that controls many of Inglewood’s billboards.
Shallman believes that the Inglewood City Council cut a bad deal in April 2025 with WOW Media when the city approved a 20-year contract, which can be extended for decades. “It’s sort of biblical in its length of time,” he said. “The city decided that the profit of one company is far more important than the residents who will have to live with these billboards.”
The campaign has already collected several thousand signatures, Shallman said.
Shallman dismissed the city’s accusations that the coalition he works with does not authentically represent Inglewood’s residents. Though Roberts’ name is on the initiative, the filing fee was paid for by Gerard McCallum II, a longtime associate of Hollywood Park.
Shallman said the initiative is raising money from all sorts of supporters, including those tied to the Rams and Clippers professional sports teams.
“You’re talking about an insignificant sum of money that pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that will be spent to sue this Inglewood resident,” Shallman said of the filing fee.
Inglewood’s November election could be packed
WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability.
CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.
“The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents. We trust the people of Inglewood to see the stadium owner billionaire’s scam for exactly what it is,” Krantz wrote.
Krantz and Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability are also backing a pair of initiatives that could have a big impact on stadiums’ bottom line: The initiatives seek to remove admissions tax caps for large venues and limit how much some parking lots can charge during major events.
Longtime Mayor Butts is also up for reelection in November, as are Councilmembers Gloria Gray and Alex Padilla and a few school board members.
Wherever the votes land, Inglewood’s rapid transformation doesn’t appear to be slowing down.
“Times are changing around here,” said Rick Todd, who sat at a table on Manchester Boulevard on Thursday, selling jugs of soursop tea. Up the street, a video billboard flicked between an Inglewood police recruitment poster and an ad for “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” “This goes along with it.”
A homeless encampment on first street across from city hall in downtown Los Angeles.
(
Chava Sanchez
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to help thousands of homeless Californians when he launched a new mental health court in 2023. So far, it has struggled to help the sickest, most vulnerable people, but a Southern California lawmaker is carrying two proposals this year that she hopes will fix gaps in the program.
About the bills: One bill would create a pathway for the most severely incapacitated people to go directly from Newsom’s voluntary mental health court into involuntary treatment in a hospital. The other would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer people to mental health court. Both bills recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite concerns from disability rights advocates that they would force more people into unwanted treatment.
The backstory: CARE Court launched in 2023 as a major piece of Newsom’s strategy to get people in the grip of psychosis off the streets. It allows family members of people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to refer them into the court-based program, where they can work with a judge, a public defender and a case worker on a plan for medication, therapy, housing, and whatever other help they may need. As of January, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. At its outset, the Newsom administration estimated between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would qualify for the program.
Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to help thousands of homeless Californians when he launched a new mental health court in 2023. So far, it has struggled to help the sickest, most vulnerable people, but a Southern California lawmaker is carrying two proposals this year that she hopes will fix gaps in the program.
Both bills reopen the debate among families and advocates over when it’s appropriate to put someone into mental health treatment without their consent.
One bill would create a pathway for the most severely incapacitated people to go directly from Newsom’s voluntary mental health court into involuntary treatment in a hospital. The other would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer people to mental health court. Both bills recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite concerns from disability rights advocates that they would force more people into unwanted treatment.
“While early implementation shows promise,” Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, said during a recent committee hearing, “barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve.”
CARE Court launched in 2023 as a major piece of Newsom’s strategy to get people in the grip of psychosis off the streets. It allows family members of people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to refer them into the court-based program, where they can work with a judge, a public defender and a case worker on a plan for medication, therapy, housing, and whatever other help they may need.
But a CalMatters investigation found the program is falling short of expectations. As of January, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. At its outset, the Newsom administration estimated between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would qualify for the program.
Some families who attempted to use CARE Court to help their severely ill loved ones told CalMatters they were disappointed by the results. They thought a judge could order their family members into treatment. But that turned out not to be the case. If someone is too sick to realize they need treatment, CARE Court can’t help, which means that their case can be dismissed while the person continues to languish on the street.
That’s the problem Blakespear is attempting to tackle with Senate Bill 1016. It would allow anyone filing a CARE Court petition to request that a judge order a mental health assessment to determine if the subject of the petition is “gravely disabled” or a danger to themselves or others – if the subject can’t comply with voluntary treatment.
Depending on the results of the assessment, a judge could order that person into a conservatorship, which would likely mean a stay in a locked psychiatric facility and mandatory medication.
The idea is to create a formal bridge between voluntary treatment under CARE Court and involuntary treatment through a conservatorship.
Adding the specter of forced care will make people with mental illness less likely to accept help from CARE Court, Samuel Jain of Disability Rights California said during the committee hearing.
“SB 1016 adds an expensive, coercive and convoluted layer to CARE Court that will drive up costs and further erode the rights and trust of the Californians that our system is supposed to help,” he said.
An unhoused person secures their belongings on a bicycle near a homeless camp in north Sacramento on Jan. 26, 2026. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters
Family 'frustrated' by CARE Court
Jennifer Farrell, who filed a CARE Court petition in late 2024 for her brother in Alameda County, sees it differently. Farrell’s 59-year-old brother, who struggles with schizophrenia and meth use, had been homeless off and on since 2017. He was able to stay housed via CARE Court for a few months, but then he left his placement in September and disappeared into the streets.
It was clear he needed more help than CARE Court could provide, but the program had no way to elevate him to a higher level of care, Farrell said.
“I was really frustrated at that point,” she told CalMatters.
Farrell’s brother spent three months deteriorating on the street before a case worker found him in December. He was hospitalized on a temporary psychiatric hold and eventually placed on a conservatorship. He’s still in a locked facility, where he’s medicated and seems to be doing much better, Farrell said.
To Farrell, it’s “absurd” that there isn’t already a direct link between CARE Court and a conservatorship — a connection that she thinks could have saved her family some grief.
At CARE Court’s inception, Newsom said people who didn’t follow their CARE plans could be moved into a conservatorship. But Farrell and other families CalMatters spoke with said if their loved one couldn’t consent to treatment, there was no clear path forward.
Technically, CARE Court judges can order participants to follow mandatory “CARE plans” — something that happened just 32 times between late 2023 and January — but judges can’t force participants to comply.
Easier CARE Court petitions
Blakespear’s other bill, SB 989, addresses another CARE Court challenge: the low number of people participating.
Filing a CARE Court petition is a complicated, time-consuming process. Whoever is filing the request needs the person’s medical records. Then, they need to appear at the first court hearing — something overworked first responders don’t always have time to do.
That’s a key reason that people who work in public safety, such as firefighters and EMTs, say they don’t file CARE Court petitions, said Meagan Subers of California Professional Firefighters, who spoke in support of the bill at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
SB 989 would create a framework for first responders to refer clients directly to their county behavioral health department, which could then file a CARE Court petition on their behalf. The county would have 30 days to decide whether to file.
Some counties already make an effort to train and support their first responders in filing CARE Court petitions. Stanislaus County allows first responders to refer CARE Court clients directly to the county.
But that collaboration isn’t happening in a systematic way across the state, Subers said. This bill could help fix a broken system where first responders are constantly cycling people with severe mental illnesses in and out of emergency rooms, she said.
“When our members have to run these calls repeatedly on individuals and take them to the hospital, knowing that they’re going to have to respond to that person again, my members tell me that they feel helpless,” she said. “We see this pathway as another option for them.”
Blakespear’s bills follow a similar effort last year by Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana to make CARE Court more effective. His new law, which went into effect in January, expanded CARE Court to include people who experience psychosis as a result of bipolar disorder. The program initially was exclusively for people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other limited psychotic disorders.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Libby Rainey
has been tracking how L.A. is prepping for the 2028 Olympic Games.
Published April 27, 2026 11:34 AM
Evelyn Ashford of the USA reacts after winning the women's 100 meter event of the track and field competition of the 1984 Olympic Games.
(
David Madison
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Blanket genetic testing will return to the L.A. Olympics in 2028, raising questions about how it will be implemented and who it will keep off the Olympic stage.
Why now: The International Olympic Committee issued a new policy last month, banning transgender women from participating in women's sports starting at the 2028 Summer Games, and requiring all athletes who want to compete in the female category to undergo genetic testing.
Why it matters: The policy represents a significant inflection point in the ongoing political battle over trans women's participation in sports at all levels, including in California. It also marks a return to genetic tests that for decades dictated women's participation in the Olympics, and excluded transgender and many intersex athletes — those whose sex characteristics don't fall into the binary categories of male or female.
Decades of scrutinizing women athletes: Attempts to define the category of woman in athletic competition are nothing new. Suspicion over the identity of women athletes started when they entered Olympic track and field competitions in 1928, according to Jaime Schultz, a kinesiology professor at Penn State who studies the history of women in sports.
Read on... for the long, controversial history of testing for women athletes.
The International Olympic Committee issued a new policy last month, banning transgender women from participating in women's sports starting at the 2028 Summer Games and requiring all athletes who want to compete in the female category to undergo genetic testing.
The policy represents a significant inflection point in the ongoing political battle over trans women's participation in sports at all levels, including in California. It also marks a return to genetic tests that for decades dictated women's participation in the Olympics, and excluded transgender and many intersex athletes — those whose sex characteristics don't fall into the binary categories of male or female.
Genetic testing was required of women athletes for much of the second half of the 20th century, including the last time Los Angeles hosted the Olympic Games in 1984. Athletes had to present "certificates of femininity," according to the official report on the 1984 Games.
Those types of tests were stopped after the 1996 Games in Atlanta amid questions about their scientific efficacy and ability to assess what was an "unfair advantage," according to the IOC's own retelling.
Blanket genetic testing will return to the L.A. Olympics in 2028, bringing with it questions about how it will be implemented and who it will keep off the Olympic stage.
IOC says the science is settled. Some experts disagree
How to measure fairness in women's competition has been debated for at least a century, and different approaches have been used and abandoned over the decades. In recent years, the IOC had stopped requiring genetic tests and left rules around sex testing to individual athletic federations.
When IOC President Kirsty Coventry announced that the IOC would re-introduce a mandatory genetic test for all female Olympic athletes last month, she presented it as the final word on who can and can't participate in women's sports.
IOC President Kirsty Coventry speaks during an IOC Executive Board press conference on Feb. 01, 2026 in Milan, Italy.
(
Andreas Rentz
/
Getty Images
)
All women Olympic athletes will have to take a test to identify if they have an SRY gene, which is on the Y chromosome. According to the IOC news release, that SRY gene represents "highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development." Those with the gene will be excluded from competition except in some limited cases where the athlete is found to not to "benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone."
"At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat," Coventry said. "So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category."
The new policy faced immediate pushback from human rights advocates and some experts in the field, including UC Irvine genetic expert Eric Vilain, who has previously advised the IOC on its inclusion policies.
He told LAist that the new IOC policy ignores women athletes with sex traits that aren't neatly aligned with the gender binary.
" Many of these athletes who were born intersex, they [looked] like a female baby, they were raised as female. They don't necessarily have male levels of testosterone," said Vilain, who said the science isn't settled on what advantage intersex women with a Y chromosome have in sport. " The answer to that is very unclear."
Decades of scrutinizing women athletes
Attempts to define the category of woman in athletic competition are nothing new.
Suspicion over the identity of women athletes started when they entered Olympic track and field competitions in 1928, according to Jaime Schultz, a kinesiology professor at Penn State who studies the history of women in sports.
" Track and field was seen as a masculine sport. The fear was that the sport would either masculinize women or else 'masculine women' might be drawn to the sport," Schultz said. "There was suspicion from the very beginning at the Olympic Games."
In the 1930s, two prominent retired athletes who had competed in women's sports transitioned to become men — exacerbating anxieties about any athletes who did not fit gendered norms.
"In the early 20th century, women’s sports were a source of moral and gender panic," historian Michael Waters, who wrote a book on those athletes, told Mother Jones. "Sports officials saw the idea that an athlete could transition gender as a threat to the binary categories they had built."
This led to the scrutiny of women who didn't fit gendered norms, according to Waters.
Women had to submit certificates from a physician in order to compete in track and field competition by the end of the 1930s, Jaime Schultz told LAist. Then came World War II and after that, the Cold War, when Schultz said suspicions turned to Soviet athletes who were suspected of "masquerading" as women. By the 60s, women in professional sport were subjected to gynecological exams and "naked parades" where they had to show their nude bodies to a panel to prove their sex.
American track star Wilma Rudolph breaks the tape at the finish line for the United States at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome on Sept. 8, 1960.
(
Robert Riger
/
Getty Images
)
" They ask the women athletes to strip naked and parade themselves in front of these three physicians, who sort of look them up and down and say, 'Yes, you're a woman, you can compete in women's events,'" Schultz said. "The visual inspections [were] humiliating to the women."
Those tactics were abandoned after outcry. That's when genetic testing entered the scene.
How genetic testing began for female Olympic athletes
French skier Marielle Goitschel (C), Annie Famose (R), and Canadian Nancy Greene after the slalom at the 1968 near Grenoble, during the Winter Olympic Games when the IOC began trialing a chromosome test for female athletes.
(
Getty Images
/
AFP
)
"The stated aim was to detect male athletes posing as women, though in practice the test excluded women with naturally occurring chromosomal variations," according to a history posted to the IOC website in 2023.
One such athlete was Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño, who went to a competition in Japan in 1985, but forgot her certificate verifying her status as a woman. When she re-took the genetic test, she learned she had a Y chromosome and was barred from competition.
Martinez-Patino had androgen insensitivity syndrome, a condition that causes the person to have "genitals that appear female, but they don’t have female reproductive organs," as NPR reported. Officials determined she did not have an unfair advantage and she was eventually allowed to compete, but the process took years and was publicly humiliating.
Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño, who went to a competition in Japan in 1985, re-took the genetic test and learned she had an XY chromosome and was barred from competition.
(
Courtesy of "The Lancet"
)
"I knew that I was a woman, and that my genetic difference gave me no unfair physical advantage," Patino wrote in The Lancet in 2005. "I could hardly pretend to be a man; I have breasts and a vagina. I never cheated."
In 1992, the IOC introduced the SRY gene test that will now be re-introduced for the L.A. Olympics, according to Vilain at UC Irvine. That test was abandoned by the 2000 Olympics.
"There was so much outcry from the scientific community because it was also deemed not very ethical with lots of issues of privacy," Vilain said.
The rise of testosterone testing
What rose in place of the genetic testing was a new focus on testosterone levels in women athletes. That started in 2009 with South African runner Caster Semenya, who has differences of sexual development that meant she had higher than typical testosterone levels.
At the track and field World Championships, Semenya faced intense scrutiny from the public and sports officials over her appearance and gender identity. This fervor, recounted in NPR's series "Tested," led the governing body for track and field to require Semenya to take medication to lower her testosterone and implement limits to testosterone levels for female competitors.
Double Olympic champion Caster Semenya (C) in 2024 during her legal battle against regulations requiring female athletes with high testosterone to take medication as she prepares for a May hearing. Semenya is seated with her lawyers Gregory Nott (R) and Patrick Brancher (L).
(
Phill Magakoe
/
Getty Images
)
That approach, too, has faced criticism from human rights organizations for its disproportionate impact on women from the Global South and the privacy issues it raises.
"A policy that calls for scrutiny of women’s naturally-occurring hormone levels — and, in practice, their bodies for signs of perceived “masculinity” ascribed to testosterone — is a form of policing women’s bodies, and passing judgment on their “femininity” as well as on their sex and gender identity," reads a 2020 report from Human Rights Watch.
The IOC's reintroduction of genetic testing has raised even more questions about the lines drawn around women's sports — and how those lines will be implemented come 2028.
In 1984, 1,610 women athletes underwent a "gender verification test" while in L.A., according to the official report on those Olympic Games. How testing will work this time around, who will pay for it, and what controversies it might unearth are still to be seen.
The charred remains of a house on Feb. 8, 2025. The home burned during the Eaton Fire in Altadena.
(
Jules Hotz
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
CalMatters interviewed five leading candidates who want to regulate one of the world’s biggest insurance markets. Here’s what they said.
Why it matters: Picking the next insurance commissioner could be one of the most important decisions Californians make for their wallets this election year. They may have seen a big increase in their insurance premiums in the past couple of years. They might know someone whose homeowners policy got canceled. Or perhaps they’re trying to rebuild after last year’s deadly Los Angeles County fires.
The backstory: Whoever is elected to succeed Commissioner Ricardo Lara will have a long to-do list. For the past few years, insurance companies have paused writing homeowner policies or reduced their presence in California. That’s starting to change because of industry-friendly regulations Lara put in place, but premiums are still rising and the market cannot be described as healthy yet.
Read on... for the guide to the candidates.
Picking the next insurance commissioner could be one of the most important decisions Californians make for their wallets this election year.
They may have seen a big increase in their insurance premiums in the past couple of years. They might know someone whose homeowners policy got canceled. Or perhaps they’re trying to rebuild after last year’s deadly Los Angeles County fires.
If you’re not sure what the insurance commissioner does, here’s a rundown:
Regulates the nation’s largest property and casualty insurance market, which includes policies for homeowners, businesses, landlords, renters and drivers.
Leads the Insurance Department, which reviews and approves premium rate increases.
Regulates life, health and workers’ compensation insurance.
Whoever is elected to succeed Commissioner Ricardo Lara will have a long to-do list. For the past few years, insurance companies have paused writing homeowner policies or reduced their presence in California. That’s starting to change because of industry-friendly regulations Lara put in place, but premiums are still rising and the market cannot be described as healthy yet.
The L.A.-area fires last year highlighted other problems, such as homeowners dealing with insurers delaying or denying claims, discovering they were underinsured, or finding out there are no standards for smoke-damage claims. Frustrated fire survivors called for Lara to step down.
In a recent poll commissioned by the Insurance Fairness Project, a national insurance information hub, 62% of likely voters said they are very concerned about the cost of home insurance and 43% said they are not confident at all that California’s insurance system can withstand future extreme weather disasters.
Former insurance commissioner John Garamendi, who held the position two separate times and is now a U.S. congressmember, calls the commissioner job the second-hardest in the state behind the governor. Another former commissioner, Dave Jones, said the next commissioner needs to keep a closer eye on insurance companies and regularly examine their conduct, creating “clear enforcement triggers.” He worked on a blueprint with recommendations galore for Lara’s successor.
About a dozen candidates are officially vying for the position, though not all of them have active campaigns. The two who receive the most votes in June’s primary will move on to the November ballot.
CalMatters interviewed the five candidates who have raised the most money for their campaigns.
All of them are calling for more transparency and accountability from insurance companies within the law that governs insurance in the state, Proposition 103. They want to help reduce fire risk at the individual and community level. Most of them agree California should try to hold the fossil-fuel industry accountable for climate risks that are helping drive up insurance costs.
They want to reduce Californians’ dependence on the FAIR Plan, the insurer that’s mandated to sell fire insurance to those who can’t buy it from individual insurance companies. At the end of 2025, the plan had nearly 650,000 noncommercial dwelling policies, up from about 264,000 in 2022.
Here is how each candidate, in alphabetical order, plans to tackle the challenges.
Ben Allen
State Sen. Ben Allen.
(
Photo via the California State Senate
)
Last year’s massive fires in the L.A. area hit the senator’s district. Along with other insurance-related bills, Allen has introduced legislation that would give the commissioner more power to hold insurance companies accountable. After hearing from his constituents about the department’s handling of their problems after the fires, he wants to boost the number of staff handling consumer complaints and create a consumer advocate position in the insurance department, he told CalMatters.
Allen, a Democrat, would take a more comprehensive approach to risk reduction, including by creating funding sources such as state-backed loans for hardening homes, and by bringing together insurers, builders, local governments, firefighters and the state to work on solutions. As part of reducing risk, he wants to restrict new construction in high-risk zones, saying developers who are building in such areas are “basically freeloading off the rest of us.” He also wants to “carefully and sensitively” find a way to incentivize those already living in risky areas to move elsewhere.
The senator — a lawyer who will be termed out of the Legislature, where he has worked on environmental issues — said his eyes are wide open about how tough the job would be, but believes he has and can create the relationships needed, including with an incoming governor, to address the issues. On the role of intervenors, members of the public who can challenge insurers’ rate reviews, he indicated he needed to look into it further and that they shouldn’t be slowing down rate reviews — adopting a refrain by the current commissioner, who is seeking to reduce intervenors’ power.
He has received the most endorsements from the who’s-who of state politics, including Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, both U.S. senators from California, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, and more than two dozen state lawmakers. Jones, the former commissioner, also endorsed him.
Steven Bradford
Steven Bradford.
(
Photo via the California State Senate Archive
)
The former Southern California senator and assemblymember would establish a public-private partnership that would share risk with insurers to keep them in the state. What that would look like needs more exploration, Bradford told CalMatters.
The Democrat, a former executive at the utility company Southern California Edison, would invite insurance companies “to the table” when discussing land use and planning, and support a voluntary buyout program to encourage people to move away from high-risk areas.
He said funding could come from expanding an existing program in the insurance department called the California Organized Investment Network, which is backed by the insurance industry and invests in underserved communities, environmentally friendly and affordable housing projects, and more. Insurers’ investments in the program have grown from tens of millions of dollars to more than $1 billion in 2023, according to the commissioner’s annual report in 2024.
Bradford would push insurers for clear explanations when they raise rates, saying it won’t be easy but that because the state’s insurance market is so big, it “would behoove them to do what they can to be partners with California.”
He is endorsed by U.S. Reps. Adam Gray and Luz Rivas, state Treasurer Fiona Ma and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, plus Teamsters California, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and other labor groups.
Merritt Farren
Merritt Farren.
(
Photo courtesy of Merritt Farren’s campaign
)
The Pacific Palisades home of the former Amazon and Disney executive was destroyed in last year’s fires. He became an intervenor and pushed for more information on State Farm’s request to raise its rates as a result of the fires, which led to his campaign for commissioner.
Farren, a Republican, would create CAL Reinsure so the state could provide a backstop for insurers. The entity would be funded by a fee charged by insurers and would eliminate the need for the FAIR Plan because companies would be more inclined to write policies, he told CalMatters. The authority could issue bonds that could be sold in the commercial market, and would be backed by the state, like municipal bonds.
He would want to “revamp” regulations that get in the way of allowing new insurance products in the market, saying that he wishes insurers had a premium product that charged customers more but would “pay out immediately on loss without putting them through the drama and trauma they have to go through today.”
Farren said he sees the commissioner’s job as one of consumer advocacy, and invoked his days at Amazon, where he says the motto was to be the most customer-centric company in the world. “You can be a consumer advocate and still appreciate the fact that there will be no insurance for consumers without insurance companies,” he said.
Jane Kim
Jane Kim.
(
Photo via Jane Kim’s campaign
)
The lawyer, consumer advocate and former San Francisco supervisor told CalMatters that the commissioner’s office has been “under-leveraged” and has the levers to protect people from the powerful insurance industry.
Kim, a Democrat and head of the California Working Families Party, has three main proposals around more government involvement, the main one to create “natural disaster insurance for all.” It would be funded by a portion of policyholder premiums that insurance companies would pass along to the state. The state would manage the fund, which would guarantee fire and flood coverage. Insurance companies would continue to provide coverage for other risks. It’s not her idea — New Zealand has the same system, and it allows the country to invest the premiums in preventive measures, she said. Establishing such a system in California could allow the state to invest profit from premiums that would have gone to insurers’ shareholders in its communities instead, she said.
She would establish a public option for auto insurance by expanding eligibility for an existing program that provides low-cost insurance to drivers who make less than $38,000 a year.
Kim also wants to provide Medicare for kids. She believes California should centralize all insurance authority within the insurance department instead of having managed health care handled by the Managed Health Care Department.
She acknowledges that her biggest ideas are for the long term and will require her to win over naysayers.
“I’ve heard it — ‘She doesn’t know anything,’ ” Kim said. “We’re all so tired of seeing candidates that don’t have political courage.”
Kim is endorsed by some big names, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — she was California political director for his presidential campaign in 2020 — Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley congressmember, and unions such as SEIU California, the California Teachers Association and the UFCW Western States Council.
Patrick Wolff
Patrick Wolff.
(
Photo via the Patrick Wolff campaign website
)
The financial analyst, a Democrat who lives in San Francisco and has never held public office, obtained an insurance license ahead of his run for commissioner. Wolff told CalMatters that he has invested his own money in his campaign — $600,000, according to campaign finance records — and simply wants to help fix the problems he sees in the insurance market. “It would be the honor of my lifetime if I can do this job and really do this job well,” he said.
Wolff would create a report card that would grade how insurers handle claims based on existing market conduct annual surveys of insurance companies, which is now anonymized but which he would push to be identifiable. He said that would let the insurance department help customers decide which insurers to reward or punish for their behavior.
He would consider allowing auto insurers to use telematics, which companies use in other states to track driver behavior for underwriting purposes. He said it could help for more accurate underwriting and possibly even lower auto insurance premiums, but acknowledged privacy concerns around the technology and said insurance companies should be prohibited from sharing or selling driver information.
Wolff would roll out a dashboard that would disclose complaints about providers of life insurance. The insurance department is not making that data public, and he doesn’t see why not, he said.
