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

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Newsom signs law walking back on data sharing
    A low angle view of a sign that reads "Double your CalFresh Dollars. Duplique su dolares de CalFresh. Get More Fruits & Vegetables." In the background, people are looking at items at a table in a stall.
    A sign advertising “Market Match,” a program that matches CalFresh benefits up to $10 for purchasing fruits and vegetables, at the Ecology Center farmers market in North Berkeley on July 11, 2019.

    Topline:

    The governor has signed a law that will walk back data sharing meant to increase CalFresh recipients. The new limitations are in response to the federal government’s attempts to collect private data.

    More details: On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 593 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, that forbids state and local departments from sharing sensitive personal data to increase food stamp enrollment.

    Some background: But only a year ago, it was Wicks who introduced that same data sharing initiative, to get more people enrolled in CalFresh, the state’s federally funded food assistance program. Her bill from last year, Assembly Bill 518, granted state and local public entities involved in education, crime, employment, and other areas the authority to override all state privacy laws to share data about people who could potentially get CalFresh.

    Read on... more about the new law.

    A law that allowed the sharing of limitless amounts of personal data across the state to find people eligible for CalFresh was rescinded this week.

    On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 593 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, that forbids state and local departments from sharing sensitive personal data to increase food stamp enrollment.

    But only a year ago, it was Wicks who introduced that same data sharing initiative, to get more people enrolled in CalFresh, the state's federally funded food assistance program. Her bill from last year, Assembly Bill 518, granted state and local public entities involved in education, crime, employment, and other areas the authority to override all state privacy laws to share data about people who could potentially get CalFresh.

    CalFresh is funded by the federal government, run by the state Department of Social Services and administered locally. Over 1 in 5 Californians are food insecure. About 5 million Californians are CalFresh recipients, and the state estimates almost 2 million more are eligible and haven’t signed up.

    Around 200,000 college students in California receive CalFresh, according to the California Department of Social Services. All recipients must complete an application process many consider time-consuming and confusing.

    In May, 20,000 college students applied for CalFresh, and over half of the applications were denied, often because the student couldn’t prove they were eligible, according to the social services department. CalFresh coordinators say students are unaware of their own eligibility, making outreach important. Through data sharing, Wicks intended to identify demographic groups as well as individuals who are eligible for CalFresh, and develop marketing that would appeal to them.

    Reversing course on data sharing

    In July, Wicks told a Senate committee she had changed her strategy to ensure data could not be shared beyond what is necessary for CalFresh outreach.

    She said limitations on data sharing were increasingly important as the “federal government is attempting to weaponize state data to actively prosecute a subset of Californians.” In June, the federal government shared Medicaid data with the Department of Homeland Security for the stated purpose of monitoring alleged Medicaid fraud. In September, Newsom signed Senate Bill 81, which protects medical data from immigration authorities, effective immediately.

    The feds have also asked for CalFresh data. In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture requested all state agencies send names, addresses and Social Security numbers of people who either received or applied for food assistance, as well as the calculated value of all the benefits allotted over time. The department cited an executive order by President Donald Trump as the basis for the request.

    California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta and others representing Democratic states sued the Trump administration in July to prevent this data collection. On Oct. 15, a Northern California court issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the transfer of CalFresh recipient data to the agriculture department.

    Using data to help food stamp access

    The previous law that allowed data sharing was originally written to expand paid family leave, but the bill was deactivated in September 2023. Wicks and co-author Assemblymember Corey Jackson, a Democrat from Riverside, reintroduced the bill in late August 2024, with an entirely new focus on CalFresh. Within one month, it passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was approved by the governor.

    The law granted state and local entities the authority to flag Californians eligible for CalFresh, allowing them to bypass all existing state laws to do so. The law authorized departments overseeing justice, veteran services, employment, financial aid, and homelessness, as well as all three public higher education systems, to share data. Types of data included utility bills, criminal records, immigration and tax records, and health information.

    There was no limit on what kinds of information could be shared, which Bill Essayli, acting U.S. Central District Attorney and former Republican assemblymember representing the 63rd Assembly District, criticized.

    End Child Poverty California, an advocacy network fighting to eradicate poverty, supported the previous law, saying data sharing could streamline CalFresh enrollment. If the state were provided data, they argued, households wouldn’t have to submit their own verification proving their food stamp eligibility, which could speed up the process.

    Though the original law was entered late in the 2024 session, it garnered several opponents, including the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Oakland Privacy. The latter group argued to the Senate that the “preposterously broad” bill didn’t let Californians opt in or out of data sharing.

    Assemblymember Alex Lee, a Democrat from San Jose, concurred with Oakland Privacy that the bill was “far too broad.”

    “I'm deeply concerned how this will impact low-income individuals,” Lee had said on the Assembly floor. “This population deserves the same privacy as everyone in this room.”

    Lee as well as Essayli took issue with the gut-and-amend process that allowed the legislators to completely change the bill without approval from any Assembly policy committees. When bills are rushed in this way, Essayli said, they “can have unintended consequences.”

    However, Wicks promised to add clauses limiting the bill’s scope during the following year. Four assemblymembers voted no on the bill, three of them Republicans and the last one being Lee. Newsom signed the bill into law on Sept. 28, 2024.

    Clean-up leads to limitations

    Wicks proposed initial drafts of the clean-up bill in early 2025. Early drafts set some limits on the scope of shareable data, but were “pretty weak,” according to Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director for Oakland Privacy.

    Another draft of the bill removed the sharing of public data related to income and health. It also required the data only be used for CalFresh outreach, facilitating enrollment, and measuring impact. To Rosenberg, this “catch-all” language was still too broad, and still would have “justified… using the data for all kinds of things.”

    Oakland Privacy collaborated with Wicks to draft this year’s bill, and Rosenberg noted Wicks was very open to protecting people’s privacy. “We think the changing political environment probably played a role,” she said.

    As proven by federal probes into Medi-Cal data, Rosenberg said, California’s social services department couldn’t guarantee their data was safe from federal interference. “That was certainly a concern in 2024, but it’s a much bigger concern in 2025,” she said.

    Finally, after facing Senate amendments, the last bill draft removed authorization for the data sharing entirely. The bill passed the Senate and Assembly with only two dissenting votes in total, and was signed by Newsom and chaptered into law on Oct. 13.

    CalFresh data is crucial for colleges

    Not all aspects of the data sharing law were rescinded this week. For example, the state social services department is still tasked with developing a methodology for estimating the rate of CalFresh participation, to be released to the public each year.

    The department will also determine the typical characteristics of people who are CalFresh-eligible, including but not limited to “race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and location.” The department is required to develop marketing schemes that correspond to these demographics. Promoting CalFresh in underserved communities could make for more “equitable” SNAP access, Jackson said.

    The department is also required to identify all public data sets that could name potential CalFresh participants.

    State social services will not receive county data under this new law. But according to the people who run CalFresh programs at colleges and universities, analyzing participation is critical at the local level.

    At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, almost 30% of all students are on CalFresh, according to Olivia Watts, program manager of CalFresh outreach at the university. She largely attributes the program’s success to their close relationship with the San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services.

    Through the data provided by that department, the university learned that half of all CalFresh applicants in the county are its students.

    The data they receive is scrubbed of personal information, Watts said. It’s just numbers, which she said are integral to CalFresh functionality. “Without knowing how many students are enrolled, it makes it difficult for us to do our job, to really see, are we making progress?”

    Other university programs strive for that kind of open information. Amy Gonzales, Cal Fresh director at Chico State, has repeatedly requested CalFresh participation data from her local social services department in Butte County. They rejected the requests.

    But according to Tiffany Rowe, director of Butte County’s Department of Employment and Social Services, the department doesn’t have direct access to that data, and would have to request it from the state. If they had that data, she said, they wouldn’t deny Chico State’s access.

    With access to data, Gonzales said, the CalFresh program at Chico State could improve its outreach initiatives. They could attempt to target student groups that are eligible but under-enrolled.

    Gonzales would be “all about” data sharing, even across the state, as long as the information is shared with “trusted” agencies. “I think it can be very beneficial to share that eligibility data,” she said, and flag people for different social service programs based on their characteristics.

    Still, Gonzales manages to conduct outreach without countywide data. At Chico State, she partners with some of the college’s academic programs and workplaces to find students eligible for CalFresh.

    College students are eligible for food assistance based on their participation in employment training programs. Certain majors count toward this criteria. Students are often unaware of their eligibility, which is why targeted outreach is important, Gonzales said.

    But though she’d appreciate data on eligible people, “I do have concerns with data sharing, given the current administration’s priorities and what they have requested,” she said.

    Watts and Gonzales both help students at their universities with CalFresh applications. They both said they wish that all college students were automatically eligible for the program.

    Under the new law, counties can continue to harvest data about the efficacy of their own CalFresh programs. They’re just prevented from sharing data on eligible individuals with the state. But interagency relationships at local levels, Watts said, need to be protected.

    “We’ve had a lot of success… because of our ability to share data, and communicate in these ways, and problem-solve together,” Watts said.

    Phoebe Huss is a contributor with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

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

  • Federal judges say new maps are legal
    A man wearing a white long sleeved button up shirt and blue pants speaks into a microphone he's holding in his right hand. He is standing on a stage, behind him is a the American flag. To his left is a wooden podium with a sign on it that reads "Yes on 50."
    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a "Yes On Prop 50" volunteer event at the LA Convention Center on Nov. 1, 2025, in Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the new congressional maps created by California voters in the fall are legal and should remain in place, handing a win to state Democrats who hope the new districts will swing five congressional seats for their party next year.

    About the case: The ruling denies a request by California Republicans and the Trump administration for the federal court in Los Angeles to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the maps created by Proposition 50. In the 117-page ruling, the federal judges rejected GOP arguments that the new maps amounted to racial gerrymandering, which has been prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court. The panel ruled 2-1, with the two Democratic appointees ruling for California and Judge Kenneth K. Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissenting.

    What's next: The ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Congressional candidates have until March 6 to file papers to run for office in the June primary.

    A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the new congressional maps created by California voters in the fall are legal and should remain in place, handing a win to state Democrats who hope the new districts will swing five congressional seats for their party next year.

    The ruling denies a request by California Republicans and the Trump administration for the federal court in Los Angeles to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the maps created by Proposition 50.

    In the 117-page ruling, the federal judges rejected GOP arguments that the new maps amounted to racial gerrymandering, which has been prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court. The panel ruled 2-1, with the two Democratic appointees ruling for California and Judge Kenneth K. Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissenting.

    In the opinion, Judge Josephine Staton wrote that the panel’s conclusion “probably seems obvious to anyone who followed the news” about Proposition 50 last year. She noted that during the campaign, no one ever described the new maps as racially motivated — including the Republican plaintiffs.

    “No one on either side of that debate characterized the map as a racial gerrymander,” the opinion states, noting that the California Republican Party called it a “political power grab to help Democrats retake Congress and impeach Trump,” and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi deemed it a “redistricting power grab” for political gain.”

    The judges also rejected Republican arguments that the voters’ intent did not matter. The majority wrote that voters clearly were endorsing the argument that both sides were making: that this was a partisan power grab, aimed at giving Democrats a leg up in the midterm elections and counteracting what GOP-led states were doing with their own districts.

    Democrats celebrated the ruling.

    “Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed. California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 — to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas — and that is exactly what this court concluded,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

    Newsom pushed lawmakers to put Proposition 50 on a special statewide ballot after Trump set off a mid-decade redistricting scramble by demanding Texas redraw its maps to benefit Republicans.

    In his dissenting opinion, Lee wrote that race “likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell,” referring to a Democratic consultant who helped draw the new lines.

    Lee argued that Mitchell publicly “boasted” about boosting Latino voting power in the 13th Congressional District in theCentral Valley, and that voter intent should not be the only basis for the court’s decision.

    “To be sure, California’s main goal was to add more Democratic congressional seats. But that larger political gerrymandering plan does not allow California to smuggle in racially gerrymandered seats,” said Lee, who wrote that Democrats likely wanted to create a Latino majority district “as part of a racial spoils system to award a key constituency that may be drifting away from the Democratic party.”

    The ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Congressional candidates have until March 6 to file papers to run for office in the June primary.

  • Sponsored message
  • He's running for state attorney general
    A man at a podium with the seal of the City of Huntington Beach on it and a large image of the pier and the beach behind him.
    Michael Gates at a news conference outside Huntington Beach City Hall on Oct. 14, 2024.

    Topline:

    Huntington Beach’s controversial former city attorney is running for state attorney general.

    Why now: Michael Gates officially launched his campaign today and he will be going up against the current Attorney General Rob Bonta.

    Why it matters: Gates has been an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump and his policies — and a continuous thorn in the side of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is one of the most prominent critics of the president.

    What are a few of his campaign points? Gates says he wants to crack down on crime and election fraud, and make sure local cities (and not Sacramento) have the final say on housing issues.

    Huntington Beach’s controversial former city attorney is running for state attorney general.

    Michael Gates officially launched his campaign today and he will be going up against the current Attorney General Rob Bonta.

    Gates has been an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump and his policies — and a continuous thorn in the side of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is one of the most prominent critics of the president.

    Gates was first elected city attorney in 2014 and easily won re-election twice since then. Over the years, Gates earned plenty of fans and enemies as he filed a barrage of lawsuits against California over state housing mandates and the city’s plans to require voters to show ID to cast a ballot, among other issues.

    Gates left the city last year to work in the Trump administration and left his D.C. post in November to return to the beach city. He told LAist he missed Huntington Beach and his family and was hired back at the city as a chief assistant city attorney. The circumstances of his return made headlines.

    In a video announcing his campaign, Gates said too many lawmakers in Sacramento spend their time "scheming" for ways to raise tax rates while leaving streets unsafe.

    “California has lost its way," he said. "When I am your attorney general, we are going to be toughest on crime. ... We are going to restore public safety, law and order, up and down the state of California."

    He said he would also prioritize election integrity and giving local cities (and not Sacramento) final say over construction. You can watch his full statement here:

    Rene Lynch also contributed to this story.

  • LA ballot prop targets bloated executive pay
    A woman with a medium-light skin tone and dark sun glasses holds a white sign that reads "Overpaid CEO Tax Now! CEOTAX.LA." Behind her, others hold a Unite Here banner.
    L.A. unions gathered outside the Tesla Diner in Hollywood to launch a ballot initiative aimed at companies with executive pay that vastly exceeds the average worker.

    Topline:

    Progressive forces in Los Angeles are taking aim at companies with bloated executive pay through a ballot initiative.

    What's happening: On Wednesday, a coalition led by hotel workers union Unite Here Local 11 launched a signature-gathering effort for a ballot proposition they called the "Overpaid CEO Tax."

    What would the ballot proposition do? If it makes it on the November ballot, it will ask voters to impose an additional city business tax on large companies with CEO pay that is exponentially higher than worker pay.

    How would it work? If passed by voters, the executive pay ordinance would impose an additional business tax on companies with at least 1,000 employees whose top executive makes more than 50 times the median worker pay in Los Angeles.

    Read on ... for more on the bigger political fight over the coming Olympic Games.

    Progressive forces in Los Angeles are taking aim at companies with bloated executive pay through a ballot initiative.

    On Wednesday, a coalition led by hotel workers union Unite Here Local 11 launched a signature-gathering effort for a ballot proposition they called the "Overpaid CEO Tax." If the proposition makes the November ballot, it will ask voters to impose an additional city business tax on large companies with CEO pay that is exponentially higher than worker pay.

    Representatives of some of Los Angeles' most powerful unions, including the Los Angeles teachers union UTLA, gathered in Hollywood to announce the launch. They spoke on the sidewalk outside of the Tesla Diner — a recently opened charging station and restaurant owned by world's richest man Elon Musk.

    "A growing and dangerous divide is tearing Los Angeles apart. On the one side, corporate CEOs live in their own world," said Unite Here Local 11 co-president Kurt Petersen. "On the other side, workers … juggle two and three jobs, they make impossible choices between medicine and rent."

    The initiative takes aim at big corporations. If passed by voters, the executive pay ordinance would impose an additional business tax on companies with at least 1,000 employees whose top executive makes more than 50 times the median worker pay in Los Angeles. Those funds would go toward low-income housing projects, sidewalk repairs and other projects.

    The additional tax would be one to 10 times the typical city business tax. According to the city clerk's office, the current city business tax is between 0.1% and 0.425% of gross receipts.

    The campaign is part of a bigger political fight over the coming Olympic Games and who will benefit from them.

    The executive pay initiative is one of a series of competing ballot propositions launched by union and business interests after the Los Angeles City Council voted last year to raise the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 an hour by 2028.

    That vote set off a cascade of responses from the companies it affected. A business group backed by Delta and United Airlines launched a referendum to repeal the wage increase. That effort eventually failed.

    The fight around the so-called "Olympic wage" is still playing out. A coalition of business interests has introduced its own ballot initiative to eliminate the city business tax entirely. In December, City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson introduced a motion to delay the $30 minimum wage by two years.

    Campaigners for the executive pay tax will be on the ground as hype around the Olympics ramps up. Ticket registration opened for fans on Wednesday morning, the same day union leaders gathered in Hollywood.

    To land the ballot initiative on the November ballot, campaigners have 120 days to gather around 140,000 signatures from registered voters in the city of Los Angeles.

  • County officials consider major budget cuts
    A woman in a pink t-shirt and black blazer stands behind a thin microphone.
    Sarah Mahin, director of the county's new Homeless Services and Housing Department, detailed the proposed cuts at an L.A. County Board of Supervisors meeting.
    L.A. County officials are considering $219 million in cuts to homeless programs for the coming fiscal year. The Board of Supervisors will vote on the plan Feb. 3.

    The cuts: The county’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing proposes reducing the Pathway Home encampment clearing program, outreach efforts and a host of other programs to make up for a large budget deficit.

    What's driving the deficit: The county has been facing a $303 million shortfall from three main factors: increased shelter bed operating costs, expiring state and federal grants, and declining projected sales tax revenue under Measure A.

    Why it matters: Service providers warn that the cuts contradict what voters intended when they approved Measure A. The ordinance doubled L.A. County’s dedicated stream of homelessness-related funding to roughly $1 billion.

    Facing a loss of state and federal funding and increased costs, Los Angeles County officials are considering cutting homeless services and programs by more than 25% in the next budget year.

    If approved next month, the spending plan presented to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday would trim $219 million from homeless services and programs, slashing county street outreach efforts in half and closing most of the sites for the Pathway Home encampment clearing program.

    Several supervisors pushed back on aspects of the spending plan and urged county staff to find ways to avoid some of the proposed cuts.

    “ I'm not particularly happy with everything that I'm seeing,” Supervisor Hilda Solis said. “I've heard from my providers that their people are disappointed.”

    L.A. County’s new Department of Homeless Services and Housing drafted the spending plan. In a presentation to supervisors, officials said the deep cuts were necessary because of the rising costs of operating existing shelter beds and the loss of tens of millions in temporary state and federal funding.

    The proposal comes after county voters approved Measure A in 2024 to increase the sales tax rate and double county dollars dedicated to addressing the homelessness crisis.

    “This is really challenging, and we’re making recommendations that nobody wants to be making,” department Director Sarah Mahin told supervisors.

    After the department published a draft of the plan in November, authorities changed the proposal to avoid more than $80 million in additional program cuts. They did that by securing $39 million one-time state grants and implementing about $45 million in other cost-saving measures, officials said.

    Dozens of homeless service providers on Tuesday thanked county officials for shrinking the initial $303 million shortfall and urged them to avoid further cuts to services.

    “We truly appreciate the progress you've made, but now the remaining shortfall is devastating for Los Angeles and for organizations like ours that are already stretched to the limit,” said Georgia Hawley of Midnight Mission, a homeless shelter in Skid Row.

    Outreach workers, seen from the back, are walking down a street. A man and a woman on the left are wearing tops with the words LAHSA on them; the man on the right is wearing a neon green jacket. All three are wearing blue masks
    Garrett Lee, of Department of Mental Health's HOME Team, collaborates with LAHSA’s Homeless Engagement Team during outreach in the targeted COVID-19 testing efforts in the homeless community in 2020.
    (
    Courtesy of Los Angeles County
    )

    What’s driving the deficit?

    Several factors are driving the budget deficit projected for the fiscal year that begins in July, according to L.A. County’s homelessness department.

    • Shelter bed cost increases: The rates L.A. County pays shelter bed operators went up last year. It will now pay 46% more — an increase of $86 million — to maintain the same 6,000 shelter beds, officials said.
    • Funds expiring: Several temporary funding sources — totaling about $185 million — have ended or will end in the next fiscal year, officials said. That includes $38 million in federal COVID relief and more than $80 million in state funding.
    • Consumer spending: Sales tax revenue from Measure A is projected to decrease by $14.5 million in the next fiscal year because consumer spending is down.
    • Carry-over funds: There are fewer one-time funds available from previous budget years that can be rolled into the coming budget year, officials say.  That number is down by $18 million.

    Measure A looms large

    Last year, L.A. County started collecting revenue through Measure A. The additional 0.5% sales tax approved by voters to address homelessness is expected to generate about $1 billion for L.A. County next budget year. That’s double the revenue generated under the county’s previous homelessness sales tax ordinance.

    On Tuesday, service providers said the county cuts don’t make sense to voters who approved Measure A.

    “This is not what voters intended when they doubled the tax on themselves to address the homelessness crisis,” said Katie Hill, CEO of Union Station Homeless Services, a Pasadena homelessness nonprofit.

    Dozens of homeless services employees lined up to echo that message and demanding officials restore the full budget.

    " My request is that you please not approve this plan without filling the gap first,” said Erin Thompson of Inner City Law Center, a nonprofit law firm. “Please find the funds.

    Deandra Davis, from the homeless service provider HOPICS, said cutting programs doesn't end up saving the county money in the long run. The costs get pushed elsewhere.

    “We shift these costs to jails and hospitals," she said.

    Under Measure A, about 60% of revenue has to go toward homeless services. That’s about $625 million for next budget year.

    Nearly 36%, or $372 million, must go to the L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency to support housing development. County homelessness officials said that agency is expected to take on some of the homelessness prevention functions cut from the county’s homeless services budget.

    “Measure A has given the overall system more tools to address the homelessness crisis, but fewer of them are held directly by the county,” Supervisor Janice Hahn said Tuesday.

    Proposed reductions

    L.A. County’s latest homelessness budget proposal includes a $92 million reduction for the county’s Pathway Home program, which moves unhoused Angelenos out of tent encampments by offering them hotel room beds. Pathway Home would be reduced from more than 1,200 beds at 20 project sites to 460 beds at seven sites, officials said.

    Fewer beds for the program will mean more tent encampments in areas it serves, officials said.

    Solis and fellow Supervisor Holly Mitchell said the program has been crucial for their constituents.

    “This continuing attack on Pathway Home is problematic,” Mitchell said at Tuesday’s meeting. “We are clearly heading in a direction where our ability to ultimately resolve homelessness and address encampments and continue to make the progress we've seen in the last couple of years will be severely constrained."

    A woman with medium-dark skin tone with dreadlocked hair in a bun wearing a green shirt as she speaks from a dais sitting in a cream colored chair.
    Holly J. Mitchell, an LA County Supervisor who represents the second district.
    (
    Samanta Helou Hernandez
    /
    LAist
    )

    The budget plan also includes $127 million in reductions to other programs, including at least 100 frontline worker jobs. Outreach and prevention-related programs would be hit hardest, officials said.

    Street outreach-related programs would be reduced by 60% and staffing in those programs would be cut by about half.

    Mahin said parts of the county outside the city of Los Angeles will be disproportionately affected by reductions to outreach programs. Her department recommended reductions to certain outreach teams working outside city limits, but not in L.A.

    That’s because of legal obligations under a settlement of a major homelessness lawsuit brought against the city and county by The L.A. Alliance for Human Rights.

    “There is a requirement due to the L.A. Alliance for the county to maintain a certain level of outreach services in the city of L.A. through next fiscal year,” Mahin told LAist.

    Critics of the spending plan urged supervisors to look at other parts of the budget to help save programs still on the chopping block.

    Lily Clark of HOPICS told county officials the cuts would hurt her unhoused clients.

    "What we can't do is eliminate the programs that prevent homelessness and expect the crisis to improve,” Clark said. “ Every subsidy cut, every outreach program lost, every navigation team dismantled, each one represents a person who will fall through the cracks.”

    Next steps

    Solis said on Tuesday that she hopes to see changes to outreach spending and other recommendations before approving the plan next month.

    “ I know we're gonna have opportunity to try to make some adjustments,” she said.

    Mahin told LAist her department has been “turning over couch cushions” looking for other sources of funding to help address the planned cuts and reductions.

    “Unless people are bringing other funding solutions to the table,” Mahin said, “My question is: we can make changes, but what would you like to cut instead?”

    Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said local programs are getting cut because state and federal dollars dried up and costs rose, not because L.A. County cut spending.

    “ We cannot invent dollars we no longer receive,” Horvath said. “We're the only level of government that has actually increased our investment. Every other level of government has decreased, and we cannot backfill these gaps.”

    The board is expected to vote on the proposed budget Feb. 3.