# data[].attributes.body
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/
-victoria salazar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.

# data[].attributes.body
“This issue of Human Rights focuses on health and health rights, highlighting some of the extreme disparities that exist for millions of people living in the United States due to the lack of health care and health rights and making some recommendations for what we can do.”-  this article discuss how healthcare is a human right and how its a necessity

https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/5-tips-for-health-plans-to-improve-race-and-ethnicity-data

https://healthcare.procon.org/

-Nancy O.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how high schoolers would rather go hungry than eat their vegetables and fruits and how the menu has to change to combat this wasteful eating.- Mariah Rodriguez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Students Are Saying About Improving School Lunch, ‘#Megxit’ and Emoji Fun. (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teenage comments in response to our recent writing prompts, and an invitation to join the ongoing conversation.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how and why the gas prices are on the rise. Not only that but shows statistics on how California gas prices have always had the highest gas prices.
-Jonathan Benitez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Refiners are rewarded for using more biofuels. If they don't meet CARB's benchmark, they must buy regulatory credits. The program adds an estimated 22 cents per gallon to the price, according to WSPA.

In 2017, Democrats raised the state's gasoline excise tax by 12 cents per gallon and linked it to inflation. California also imposes a sales tax on gasoline. So when the wholesale price of gasoline rises, drivers pay even more in taxes.

Californians pay about 73 cents per gallon in state taxes compared to 39 cents nationwide and 44 cents in Florida, 25 cents in Arizona and 20 cents in Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking Down California's 'Mystery' High Gas Prices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Refiners are rewarded for using more biofuels. If they don't meet CARB's benchmark, they must buy regulatory credits. The program adds an estimated 22 cents per gallon to the price, according to WSPA. In 2017, Democrats raised the state's gasoline excise tax by 12 cents per gallon and linked it to inflation.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the requirements of unvaccinated employees and why the verification requirement is in place. -Katana Lee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California will implement a vaccine verification program for all state and health care employees as COVID-19 case and hospitalization rates continue to increase in the state, officials said Monday.

The state will require evidence of vaccination from employees by Aug. 2. Any unvaccinated employees will be required to be tested for COVID-19 regularly; protocols will be established in each department in state government. The testing protocols will be implemented over several weeks.

There are approximately 246,000 state employees, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Similarly, health care workers in hospital and skilled nursing facilities will be required to verify their vaccine status by either showing their vaccination card or obtaining a vaccine verification code through the California Department of Public Health.

Hospital workers who are unvaccinated will be required to participate in twice a week COVID-19 testing, and it is recommended that they wear an N95 mask. In outpatient settings such as a dental office, unvaccinated workers will be required to take part in once a week testing and wear surgical masks.

The requirements apply to public and private health care settings. The policy for health care workers and congregate facilities will take effect on Aug. 9, and health care facilities will have until Aug. 23 for full compliance.

Newsom said California is the first state to not only implement this type of policy for state employees, but also engage in a public-private partnership with all health care facilities. Though the verification program will apply to state employees and all health care workers, employers across California are encouraged to consider having a vaccine verification system in place as well.

Eisenhower Health Chief Medical Officer Dr. Alan Williamson called Monday's announcement a "reasonable step" to protect employees and patients. If too many employees fall ill, "that creates a major problem with our being able to provide health care services for the residents of the Coachella Valley."

The hospital in Rancho Mirage has had many conversations about if and when it would mandate vaccinations among employees, Williamson said, however that may pose a problem with staffing. Currently, slightly over 80% of employees are vaccinated. Some of the 20% who aren't, Williamson said, have valid medical reasons, but there are others who are resistant. Just last week, he said, a new employee resigned on their first day after learning vaccines would likely be required.

"This is at a time when there's critical staffing shortages in hospitals across the country, and while we all agree, theoretically, with the idea that we should all be vaccinated ... it is a complicated issue," Williamson said.

Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella, said the requirement is similar to the policy state legislators and staff members have been following at the State Capitol for weeks. He hopes that by having state employees and health care workers, and possibly other employers, show vaccination proof or participate in weekly testing, it will allow the state to keep its June 15 reopening a "successful one."

"(The requirement) will help ensure that California remains ahead of the curve in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic," Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association, said in a statement.

Newsom 'exhausted' by vaccine 'misinformation'

Newsom, a Democrat, voiced his frustration during a press conference Monday at "pundits who are profiteering off misinformation" about the vaccine and individuals who choose to listen to them.

"We are exhausted, respectfully, exhausted by the ideological prism that too many Americans are living under. We're exhausted by the Ron Johnsons and Tucker Carlsons, we're exhausted by the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, we're exhausted by the right-wing echo chamber that has been perpetuating misinformation around the vaccine and its efficacy and safety," Newsom said.

"We're exhausted by the politicization of this pandemic and that includes mask-wearing that has been equated to the Holocaust," he added. "It's disgraceful, it's unconscionable and it needs to be called out."

Newsom applauded Republican leaders who have had "the courage to call that out," and hopes more do the same.

Rep. Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, later responded to Newsom on Twitter: "@GavinNewsom you know what is exhausting to the people of California? Your communist dictatorship. Shutting down businesses, closing churches, schools, and beaches is disgraceful. Mandating vaccines against people's will is unconscionable which is why you're being recalled."

The governor equated the choice to not getting vaccinated to drinking and driving, saying it's putting "innocent people's lives at risk."

"It's a choice to live with this virus," he added.

The announcement comes as California reported a seven-day average of 6,400 COVID-19 cases per day, according to the Health and Human Services Agency.

The case rate is 9.6 cases per 100,000 residents, which includes both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. By comparison, the case rate average on May 15 was 1.9 cases per 100,000 residents.

The unvaccinated case rate is estimated to be above 14 cases per 100,000, while the vaccinated case rate is around 2 cases per 100,000, according to the Health and Human Services Agency.

Over the past three days, 600 patients have been admitted to hospitals due to COVID-19, according to the Health and Human Services Agency. Overall, hospitalizations are approaching 3,000.

The delta variant has also been increasing throughout the state and now it makes up around 80% of infections in California.

Approximately 75% of eligible Californians have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, according to state data.

New York City, San Francisco bars also impose requirements

More cities and organizations in the country are requiring vaccinations for workers or businesses. New York City announced Monday it will require municipal workers to be vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19, according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough also announced he will make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for Title 38 VA health care personnel who work in Veterans Health Administration facilities, visit VHA facilities or provide direct care to those VA serves.

Effective Thursday, a group representing 500 bars in San Francisco will require proof of vaccinations or a 72-hour negative COVID-19 test for indoor patrons. Guests without these items can sit outside or in other spaces.
Ema Sasic covers health in the Coachella Valley. Reach her at ema.sasic@desertsun.com or on Twitter @ema_sasic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination or regular testing for state workers, healthcare employees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California will implement a vaccine verification program for all state and health care employees as COVID-19 case and hospitalization rates continue to increase in the state, officials said Monday. The state will require evidence of vaccination from employees by Aug. 2.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.doi.gov/blog/10-tips-prevent-wildfires
The article discusses how you can easily prevent yourself from starting a wildfire. :D - Peter Tang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nationally, almost nine out of 10 wildfires are caused by humans. These preventable wildfires threaten lives, property and our precious natural resources. Whether you're a first-time visitor or a public land pro, you play a valuable role in preventing wildfires and protecting our natural resources.

Interior's Office of Wildland Fire oversees a program spanning multiple bureaus that manage 535 million acres of public and Tribal lands: including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Share these tips to help prevent wildfires and spread the word about #TeamPublicLands, our campaign to encourage responsible recreation.

1. Check weather and drought conditions.

Pay close attention to weather and drought conditions, which can affect the flammability of vegetation.

Avoid any activities that involve fire or sparks when it's hot, dry and windy. If the conditions aren't right, choose non-flammable options. Remember, conditions and local restrictions should guide your decision for any fire-related activity such as building a campfire, operating equipment, off-roading on dry grass, or burning debris.

2. Build your campfire in an open location and far from flammables.

Many people love to go camping and enjoy the warmth and light from a campfire, but your campfire can cause wildfires if you do not build and extinguish it properly.

To build a safe campfire, make sure you:

Select a flat, open location away from flammable materials such as logs, brush or decaying leaves and needles. ​

Scrape away grass, leaves and needles down to the mineral soil.

Cut wood in short lengths, pile it within the cleared area and then light the fire.

Stay with your fire.

Extinguish it completely before leaving.

3. Douse your campfire until it's cold.

Make sure your campfire is completely out by following the steps below:

1. Douse the fire with at least one bucket of water.

2. Stir it.

3. Add another bucket of water.

4. Stir it again.

Your campfire should be cold to the touch before you leave.

4. Keep vehicles off dry grass.

If you are off-roading, remember that your exhaust can reach temperatures of 1,000+ degrees! So, avoid driving or parking over dry grass.

5. Regularly maintain your equipment and vehicle.

Vehicles and equipment can shoot sparks from their exhaust, particularly vehicles that haven't received regular maintenance.

Whether it's a car, truck, or OHV (off-highway vehicle), make sure your vehicle is current on all mechanical checkups and suited for off-road adventures.

6. Practice vehicle safety.

Carry a shovel, bucket and a fire extinguisher in your vehicle to put out fires. Off-highway vehicles must have a spark arrester. You should also carry a bucket, but you could also use a helmet or anything else to carry water.

7. Check your tires, bearings and axles on your trailer.

If you're towing a trailer, please remember to do a maintenance check to ensure the tires are not worn, the bearings and axles are greased, and safety chains are properly in place and not dragging on the ground.

8. Keep sparks away from dry vegetation.

Make sure you never operate equipment that produces sparks near dry vegetation. Always clear the area around your workspace. This area should be even larger if it is windy and dry.

Create clearings where all flammables have been removed. The width or radius of the clearing will vary with the conditions from 10 to 25 feet.

9. Check conditions and regulations before you use fireworks or consider safe alternatives.
Fireworks start over 19,000 fires and send over 9,000 people to the ER each year in the United States.
Check your local federal, state and city regulations before using fireworks. States, counties and cities may have different laws and regulations, so a little bit of research could save you the cost of an improper fireworks use penalty, or worse - the cost of fighting a wildfire.

Consider safe alternatives such as glow sticks or silly string.

10. Cautiously burn debris and never when it's windy or restricted.

Sometimes, people burn trash, leaves, agricultural waste, or other materials.

If you plan to burn debris on your private property, make sure you have water nearby (such as a garden hose) and never burn anything if it's windy.

Once your burn is completed, be sure to "mop up" the ashes with water and stirring.

Wildfires often start from "holdover" debris piles that were not extinguished, days or even weeks after they were burned. There may be burning restrictions in your area, so contact your local fire authority for more information and debris burning tips.

And, remember, not all fire is bad.

Wildland fires can be devastating, but fire also plays a natural and necessary role in many landscapes.

Fire is vital for some wildlife habitat. The diversity of plants and animals you enjoy on public lands can depend on fire.

Periodic low-intensity fires speed up the process of forest decomposition, create open patches for new plants to grow, improve habitat and food for animals and deliver nutrients to the plants that survive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nationally, almost nine out of 10 wildfires are caused by humans. These preventable wildfires threaten lives, property and our precious natural resources. Whether you're a first-time visitor or a public land pro, you play a valuable role in preventing wildfires and protecting our natural resources.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about California lifting their vaccine or negative COVID test verification, but venues are strongly recommended to continue checking. - Katana Lee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California will drop the requirement of proof of COVID-19 vaccinations or a negative test at arena concerts, sporting events and other large public gatherings next month.

On Friday, the California Department of Public Health lifted the requirement for indoor masking at so-called indoor mega events - of 1,000 people or more - as well as requirements for vaccine verification or a negative COVID-19 test.

The change came as COVID-19 infections continue to fall across the state.

"This shift acknowledges that while case rates and hospitalizations are declining statewide from their peak during the omicron surge, indoor mega events continue to involve several factors that increase the risk of transmission of COVID-19," CDPH officials said announcing the move last month.

State health officials continue to recommend wearing masks in public gatherings to reduce the spread of COVID-19, but say it is up to Californians to recognize situations that do require a mask.

The CDPH stated that attending large events where vaccination statuses are undetermined could increase the risks of transmission.

Officials said vaccinations and masks are "strongly recommended" for mega events, whether indoor or out.

Venues have been encouraged to continue to recommend a fully vaccinated status or a negative test for events within the state, and county health boards are allowed to enforce stricter rules if desired.

This story was originally published March 19, 2022 1:39 PM.

Marcus D. Smith covers Black communities for The Sacramento Bee. Marcus is an alumnus of Texas Southern University in Houston. Marcus was raised in Sacramento and is excited to be back home following his passion in journalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California drops COVID vaccine-or-test requirement for concerts, sporting events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California will drop the requirement of proof of COVID-19 vaccinations or a negative test at arena concerts, sporting events and other large public gatherings next month. On Friday, the California Department of Public Health lifted the requirement for indoor masking at so-called indoor mega events - of 1,000 people or more - as well as requirements for vaccine verification or a negative COVID-19 test.

# data[].attributes.body
This news article talks about a sexual assault case nearby. This helps provide support for my argument that there are things nearby and in our area. Chapman University is a 20 minute drive from here in Anaheim. This is just evidence of a case that has happened. 22 year old man was convicted last year of sexual assault on a student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
22-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting Chapman University student on campus last year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 22-year-old man was convicted Wednesday of sexually assaulting a Chapman University student in Orange last year.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how the government can give 800 dollars for people for transportation.
- Josue Guzman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes $11 billion in a California tax rebate to offset high gas prices, including $400 debit cards per vehicle. He must negotiate a final deal with the Legislature.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to send California drivers as much as $800 each and encourage public transit systems to offer free rides, the latest proposal from state policymakers seeking to offset the soaring cost of gasoline and other goods for struggling residents.

Newsom first floated the idea of a gas rebate earlier this month during his annual State of the State address, but details of his approach were slow to emerge, giving legislators time to surface several plans of their own. The governor's Republican opponents have become increasingly critical of the lack of progress during the weeks since his announcement.

Under Newsom's proposal, unveiled today, California would send registered vehicle owners $400 debit cards, limited to two rebates per person. Those would likely arrive starting in July, after the state adopted a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The governor's office estimates the rebate would cost about $9 billion.

"That direct relief will address the issue that we all are struggling to address and that is the issue of gas prices," Newsom said in a video posted to Twitter.

The average price for a gallon has reached $5.88 in California, according to AAA, the highest in the country.

Following extensive criticism in progressive circles that a rebate based on car ownership would send the wrong message about the state's climate goals and leave out many poor Californians, the governor is now also proposing $750 million in grants for local bus and rail agencies to offer up to three months of free transit, benefiting about 3 million daily riders.

KEEP TABS ON THE LATEST CALIFORNIA POLICY AND POLITICS NEWS

The plan would also pause part of the sales tax on diesel and pause the scheduled inflationary increase to the state gas tax this summer, backfilling more than $1 billion in revenue for transportation projects. Legislative leaders have been cold on the proposal to pause the gas tax increase since it was included in Newsom's budget in January.

Any relief is subject to negotiation with the Legislature and will likely arrive months from now through the state budget. Lawmakers must pass a balanced spending plan by June 15 or lose their paychecks.

A group of Democratic Assemblymembers put forward a more far-reaching proposal last week to send every California taxpayer a $400 check, a plan that supporters estimate would also cost about $9 billion.

Days later, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Lakewood Democrat, endorsed an idea to give $200 payments to each California taxpayer and their dependents. Unlike the governor's proposal, their approximately $7 billion plan would cap eligibility to households making less than $250,000 per year, a nod to concerns from some liberals that relief should be more targeted to the neediest Californians.

Support nonprofit journalism in California

We rely on your generous support to cover the stories that matter most to you. If you find our work valuable in these difficult times, please support our journalism.

"I appreciate Governor Newsom's work on developing another option to bring relief to Californians experiencing the rising cost of fuel and consumer goods," Atkins said in a statement. "The Senate is focused on ensuring that state money is targeted to those who actually need relief."

Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story

Race/Ethnicity

Voter Registration

Sen. Toni Atkins has taken at least $1.8 million from the Labor sector since she was elected to the legislature. That represents 20% of her total campaign contributions.

Race/Ethnicity

Voter Registration

Asm. James Gallagher has taken at least $411,000 from the Agriculture sector since he was elected to the legislature. That represents 11% of his total campaign contributions.

Republicans, who unsuccessfully pushed last week for the Legislature to immediately suspend the state gas tax, have slammed Democrats for not acting more swiftly as gas prices continue to rise. Earlier this week they debuted a timer tracking "how long it's been with no results since Governor Newsom promised relief in his State of the State address."

"July? Seriously?" Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City said in a statement. "Californians are struggling and Capitol Democrats are dragging their feet. How could it possibly take that long? Capitol Democrats are all talk and no action."

Gallagher said Republican lawmakers would bring up their gas tax suspension bill for another vote this week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsom makes his offer on gas tax rebate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes $11 billion in a California tax rebate to offset high gas prices, including $400 debit cards per vehicle. He must negotiate a final deal with the Legislature. Gov.

# data[].attributes.body
The article talks about how there has  been a spike of sexual assaults throughout California and the amount of women that has been assaulted and talks about ways to help prevent them.
-Paola P.

# data[].attributes.headline
Crime trends in california and sexual assaults have been an a crime increase.

# data[].attributes.subject
Crime trends in california and sexual assaults have been an a crime increase.

# data[].attributes.body
The article has shown how in the graphs and how the crime has increased in 2021 and has been increasing. This shows how there has been an increase in crime in 2021 and the type of crime rates that have been noted to be rising.
-Paola P.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given the limitations of the available data for 2021, this fact sheet provides preliminary 2021 trends and focuses on data from 2020.
In 2021, some crime rates seemed to increase, with homicides continuing to rise.

Preliminary data from four of California's major cities-Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco-show increases in property and violent crime numbers in 2021. In particular, the troubling increase in homicides that we saw in 2020 appears to continue-homicides in these cities were up by about 17% in 2021.

An increase in property crime in 2021, driven by car break-ins and auto thefts, returned property crime numbers close to pre-pandemic numbers. The need to continue monitoring crime trends, investigating underlying causes, and identifying effective solutions remains high.

While California's violent crime rate had decreased somewhat in 2020, homicides and aggravated assaults had increased.

California's violent crime rate decreased by 0.5% to 428 per 100,000 residents between 2019 and 2020, an unprecedented period marked by the global COVID-19 pandemic. This change was driven by declines in robberies (14.9%) and rape (9.5%).

Despite upticks in 2012 and from 2015 to 2017, the 2020 statewide violent crime rate was 2.6% below what it was in 2010, before California embarked on significant criminal justice reforms, and comparable to levels in the late 1960s. For 2020, California's violent crime rate ranked 16th nationwide and was higher than the national rate of 387 per 100,000 residents.

While robbery and rape decreased, homicides increased by 30% and aggravated assaults went up by 7.5%. In 2020, 65% of reported violent crimes in California were aggravated assaults, 26% were robberies, 8% were rapes, and 1% were homicides.

California's violent and property crime rates hit historic lows in 2020

The statewide property crime rate declined in 2020.

The 2020 property crime rate of 2,071 per 100,000 residents was down 8.9% from 2019, the lowest observed since 1960. California's property crime rate was above the national rate (1,958 per 100,000 residents) and ranked 18th among all states.

Larceny dropped sharply in 2020, by 18.4%, and burglary decreased by 4.9%; but motor vehicle theft jumped by 18.4%. Of all reported property crimes in California in 2020, 63% were larceny thefts, 17% were burglaries, and 20% were auto thefts.

Crime rates vary dramatically by region and category.

At 274 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2020, the lowest violent crime rate was on the southern coast and border (Imperial, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura Counties), while the Sierra region had the lowest property crime rate, at 1,510 per 100,000 residents.

The state's highest rate of violent crime was in the San Joaquin Valley, which had 559 violent incidents per 100,000 residents, while the highest rate of property crime occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area, which had 2,608 property incidents per 100,000 residents.

Violent crime increased in many counties, but property crime decreased in most counties.

A total of 37 of the state's 58 counties saw violent crime rise in 2020, with 16 counties experiencing increases of 20% or more. However, 12 of these 16 counties are smaller counties, which are especially susceptible to wide swings in crime rates due to small populations and rare instances of violent crime.

Of the state's 15 largest counties, 6 saw a rise in violent crime while 9 saw a drop in it.

A total of 45 counties-including 12 of the 15 largest-saw decreases in property crime rates in 2020. In 25 counties-including 6 of the 15 largest counties-the property crime rate fell by at least 10%.

Only 3 of the 15 largest counties experienced increases in property crimes: Fresno (by 6.1%), Ventura (3.6%), and Orange Counties (3.2%).

Among the 15 largest counties, only Fresno and Orange County saw both violent and property crime rates increase in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During a time marked by a global pandemic, some violent and property crime rates dropped for California in 2020. While homicides and aggravated assault rose, the violent crime rate fell somewhat, remaining at roughly where it was a decade ago. Property crime fell to the lowest rate in 60 years.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about lifting the vaccine verification mandate in LA and people's concerns about it. - Katana Lee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Los Angeles City Council members took the first step Wednesday toward lifting vaccine verification requirements at many indoor businesses, the latest in a slew of rule relaxations as the Omicron surge steadily fades.

While not yet final, the move would have a sweeping effect in the City of Angels: removing the mandate that establishments such as restaurants and bars, hair salons, gyms and movie theaters screen whether their indoor patrons are vaccinated against COVID-19.

Under an ordinance that will be drafted and come back to the council for final approval at a future meeting, verifying whether indoor customers are vaccinated would be voluntary. Operators of major outdoor events in L.A. also would no longer need to check if attendees are vaccinated.

The council voted 12 to 0, without discussion, to draft an ordinance amending the city rules.

Opponents of the vaccination rule, including leaders of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County, had been pushing to roll back the mandate through a ballot measure. Angela McArdle, chair of the county party, said if the rule is repealed, her group would seek to prevent any such requirements from being reinstated in the future. Several people who phoned in to the Wednesday meeting argued that the L.A. rules were overbearing and discriminatory.

"We're going to continue to fight, just to make sure that this never happens again," Shawn Osborne, a member of the Libertarian Party, told the council before the Wednesday vote. "Thank you - and to hell with tyrants."

Others have raised concerns about L.A. moving to drop the requirement. The city rules "forced people to be more responsible and take the virus seriously," said Emily Dibiny, who heads the community health team for People Organized for Westside Renewal.

Dibiny said that when spring break arrives, cases could resurge, and "next thing you know, they're going to say, 'No, now it's mandatory again.' "

L.A.'s vaccine verification requirement has been in place since November. Collectively dubbed SafePassLA, the rules ranked among the most wide-ranging implemented statewide - applying to restaurants, gyms, performing arts theaters, music and concert venues, convention centers, museums, nail salons, tanning salons, bowling alleys, card rooms and arcades.

Supporters have touted the move as an important added layer of safety in indoor public places, where the risk of coronavirus transmission is generally higher.

A little more than a month after the rules went into effect, California and the nation were struck by a viral tsunami spawned by the hyper-infectious Omicron variant of the coronavirus. However, that wave crested in late January, and the numbers of daily coronavirus cases and hospitalized COVID-19 patients have since tumbled back to pre-surge levels. Down from a January peak of 42,000 coronavirus cases a day, L.A. County is averaging 1,200 cases a day, a level not seen since the beginning of December, just days after Omicron's discovery was announced.

Under the ordinance, the verification requirement was to be enforced through tickets and an escalating series of fines, but officials said they would hold off on citations until February, instead focusing on education and outreach.

So far, no fines have been imposed: The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, which has been charged with enforcing the city rules, said it had sent notices to six businesses urging them to correct violations of the city requirements, but had not issued any citations as of Wednesday.

One politician has argued that the city should also scrap another requirement imposed during the pandemic: the one that requires Los Angeles city workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or obtain an exemption.

Councilman Joe Buscaino, who said last week that he wanted to offer "a testing alternative," introduced a motion Wednesday asking for city officials to report back on the feasibility and impacts of rescinding the vaccination requirement for city employees, saying that "much has changed" since it went into effect.

Given Omicron's pronounced pullback, officials in L.A. and throughout the state have said conditions have improved enough that it makes sense to relax some preventive measures.

California has scrapped public indoor mask mandates in most locations for everyone regardless of whether they've been vaccinated, though health officials continue to strongly recommend residents wear masks. The state will also lift its indoor masking mandate at schools and child-care facilities after Friday night.

The California Department of Public Health still requires proof of vaccination or a recent negative test at indoor mega-events - those with more than 1,000 people, such as NBA games at L.A.'s Crypto.com Arena. Vaccination verification also is required for healthcare workers and employees at nursing homes.

And while masking is now largely optional, there remain select settings where face coverings are mandatory - such as while aboard public transportation, including planes, or in healthcare settings, nursing homes, homeless shelters, jails, prisons and emergency shelters.

The L.A. County Department of Public Health last week rescinded its own limited vaccination verification rule, which applied to indoor portions of bars, wineries, breweries, distilleries, nightclubs and lounges. County health officials also have lifted the requirement that attendees of outdoor mega-events with more than 10,000 attendees show they're vaccinated or have recently tested negative for the coronavirus.

However, individual cities are allowed to have more-stringent requirements than the county's, which is why L.A.'s rules have applied to far more businesses and why the City Council needs to take special action to lift them.

Even if the city rule is revoked, businesses and venues can elect to continue screening patrons' vaccination status if they want.

The other city in L.A. County with its own vaccine verification rule at indoor restaurants and gyms is West Hollywood. There has been no formal move to ease that requirement.

San Francisco health officials announced Wednesday that the city will lift on Friday its vaccination-or-test requirement to enter indoor restaurants, bars, gyms, clubs, theaters and other venues that serve food or drink. Berkeley made a similar announcement Wednesday, saying it'll end its vaccine mandate for those settings Friday. Businesses can continue to require vaccine checks if they choose.

"With cases and hospitalizations continuing to fall and our high vaccination rate providing a strong defense against the virus, San Francisco is ready to further reduce COVID-19 restrictions and allow individuals to make their own decisions to protect themselves and their loved ones," San Francisco health officer Dr. Susan Philip said in a statement.

The vaccination-or-test requirements "served their purpose in keeping these spaces as safe as possible for staff and patrons. Rolling it back is part of coming-out-of-crisis mode and learning to live with the virus," Philip said.

San Francisco has a "moderate" level of coronavirus transmission, with a case rate of 37 new coronavirus cases for every 100,000 residents over the last week as of Wednesday afternoon, according to The Times' coronavirus tracker. That's about half the rate of L.A. County, which is reporting 76 cases a week for every 100,000 residents - a "substantial" level of transmission.

About 71% of L.A. County residents of all ages are considered fully vaccinated, while in San Francisco 83% of residents are fully vaccinated, according to their respective health departments.

The Bay Area's third-most populous county, Contra Costa, lifted its vaccine-or-test requirement in February after 80% of its residents were fully vaccinated.

Oakland has its own vaccine verification requirement for businesses such as indoor restaurants and gyms. Berkeley will retain an order requiring up-to-date vaccinations, including boosters if eligible, for workers in child-care facilities.

In an interview Friday, L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer - who backed vaccine verification rules in certain businesses last fall - said it was reasonable now to lift vaccine verification requirements in places like bars, given the pandemic's trajectory.

Ferrer said that it made sense to impose a vaccine requirement for businesses in high-risk environments when coronavirus case rates were high, and that it makes sense to relax them now that case rates have fallen. Lifting those rules is "a recognition that we're in a different place today than we've been before," Ferrer said.

Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, a UCLA epidemiologist and infectious-disease expert, agreed. He noted that hospitals are no longer in a position of being potentially overwhelmed, and the rollout of COVID-19 drugs such as Paxlovid - still in limited supply - will further reduce the risk of hospitalization.

And while it's still important to encourage vaccinations, "we're probably getting down to a core of people that are not going to be swayed about vaccination," Kim-Farley said.

Ferrer also said it's still necessary to require municipal employees who work with vulnerable people - such as police officers, sheriff's deputies and firefighters - to be vaccinated.

"If you're in the business of supporting the most vulnerable people in the county, then it makes sense for people to be fully vaccinated, especially during a pandemic," Ferrer said. With COVID-19 still more deadly than the flu, "I think with this higher mortality, and especially with all of the vulnerability that people can experience, I just think we're in a place where it still makes sense to get vaccinated."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
L.A. moves to lift vaccine verification mandate at indoor businesses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Los Angeles City Council members took the first step Wednesday toward lifting vaccine verification requirements at many indoor businesses, the latest in a slew of rule relaxations as the Omicron surge steadily fades.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sexual assault cases in California colleges

# data[].attributes.subject
Sexual assault cases in California colleges

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how there have been multiple sexual harassment claims and reports in a variety of circumstances across California colleges.
- Aryana G.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At UC Irvine, one employee left sex toys in another employee's work area.

He was fired.

At UC Riverside, a supervisor repeatedly stuck his face into a co-worker's neck to smell her perfume.

He was suspended for two days.

At UCLA, a married French professor professed his love to a graduate student and wrote her hundreds of poems.

He resigned, but was granted emeritus status on condition he not teach again.

These and other reports of sexual harassment at four University of California schools in the Los Angeles and San Diego region were included among 113 cases released this month by the University of California system. Overall, the documents cover a three-year period, from Jan. 1, 2013 to April 6, 2016, in which employees in the 10-campus system were found to have violated the system's sexual violence and sexual harassment policies for that period.

Related: UCLA student felt victimized twice, she said

The 52 allegations at the Southern California schools ranged from inappropriate sexual innuendos to unwanted touching to sexual assault.

Accusers included students and cafeteria workers, subordinates and co-workers; nurses and even a child patient. Offenders ranged from custodians to professors to a UC Irvine dean.

The documents, gathered through a public records request by the Bay Area News Group and other media, offer an unprecedented but limited glimpse at sexual harassment claims and how they are investigated in one of the most prestigious university systems in the country. The heavily redacted paperwork reflects only completed investigations involving University of California employees, so open investigations and student-on-student accusations weren't included.

Some critics and observers say punishments meted out in the cases that were made public reveal power dynamics unique to academia, with rock star faculty - who bring in money and prestige - receiving different treatment than lower-tier workers. Officials who track harassment claims for the system deny that any double-standard exists.

As much as anything, the documents, and interviews with more than a dozen experts, reveal an evolving approach to investigating complaints.

In 2015, the University of California came under fire after high-profile sexual harassment allegations at UC Berkeley, including a case involving a law school dean.

Since January of last year, the system has beefed up its efforts to prevent, investigate and adjudicate sexual violence and harassment through a new systemwide policy prohibiting sexual harassment and sexual violence.

Faculty, staff and studentswithin the UC system now are required to undergo annual sexual harassment prevention training. Support services for victims have been expanded. The UC system streamlined how it responds to harassment claims, using a team-based approach that includes investigators, a sworn police officer and a Title IX compliance officer at each school. And UC created a system-wide office to oversee UC campuses on the issue and assure a uniformed approach to how complaints are processed.

The system last year set a 60-day deadline to complete investigations. It also now provides both sides complainants and the accused of copies of investigation reports, and tells both parties about any outcome, including discipline. And by this summer, every school will create a peer review committee to advise on cases involving faculty, somewhat similar to another system-wide peer review committee created last year to review and discipline its most senior staff members, like a chancellor.

"Every case is significant," said Claire Doan, a UC spokeswoman. "We strive to be fair and to be timely and transparent in dealing with these cases, and to impose discipline that matches the seriousness of the behavior."

The documents don't show if sexual harassment is or isn't particularly rampant within University of California system.

About 200,000 people work at the ten UC campuses, making the University of California system the state's third biggest employer. Doan, among others, points out that 113 cases in over three years probably isn't out of line with other organizations of similar size.

But other system officials, as well as lawyers and others who work on harassment claims, say the documents made public reflect only a sliver of the harassment that actually takes place.

"For the (UC system) to suggest that 'our numbers aren't that bad' really illustrates how they are woefully blind or just can't see what's in front of them," said John Kristensen, a Los Angeles attorney who represented a UC Santa Cruz student who said she was raped by a professor who took her off campus for wine tasting, got her drunk and assaulted her.

Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, a non-profit that advocates for girls and women, said the number was "extremely high and unacceptable."

"If you were a parent sending your child to one of the campuses, would this information matter to you in entrusting your child to this campus?" Farrell asked.

Attorney Leslie Levy, who represented the executive assistant of former UC Berkeley Law School Dean Sujit Choudry in a lawsuit that prompted publicity and his resignation as dean, said sexual harassment is grossly under reported at UC campuses.

"They know damn well they are getting nothing but the tip of the iceberg."
More than sex
Sexual harassment is not just about sex, but about power. And in a university setting, where young adults are getting their first footing in life - and where aspiring academics often move up based on recommendations and reputation - many argue that students can be particularly vulnerable.

"The power dynamic is profound," said Equal Rights Advocates' Farrell.

"In some ways, it is not just extremely harmful in the moment, but it can have consequences on someone's life."

A university also offers ample opportunity for bad actors.

In one investigation, an academic adviser at UC Irvine admitted to campus investigators that he asked students to show, photograph and describe their penis and kept a list of students with whom he had compared penis sizes. The adviser - whose job was to "counsel students about school and help them choose appropriate courses" - is believed to have involved at least 39 students, according to the documents.

Though the documents don't show if that case sparked a criminal investigation, it's UC policy to have a sworn police officer review every claim. But in many cases, it's up to individuals to pursue prosecution.

"We don't make that report on behalf of the victim," said Kathleen Salvaty, UC's Title IX Coordinator. "It's their choice."

The counselor in the UC Irvine case, Andrew Simmons, resigned before complaints against him were concluded, according to documents. He could not be reached for comment.

Sexual harassment can sometimes cost the university a lot of money.

In the UC Santa Cruz rape accusation, attorney Kristensen said his client recently accepted a $1.15 million settlement. It's unclear how much the system has spent - if anything - to settle other accusations, but documents show the system is spending more on sexual harassment.

As part of Title IX - the federal anti-discrimination law that's better known for mandating gender equality in athletics, but which also applies to harassment claims - the system has hired Salvaty and investigators. In the 2013-14 school year, the system's Title IX spending on sexual harassment was $67,327. That jumped to $342,000 the next year and, this year, it's expected to reach $1.6 million. That doesn't include spending on related efforts in student affairs and other departments, or what individual universities spend to prevent or track harassment, UC spokeswoman Doan said. At UCLA, for example, the number of investigators has been bumped from two to seven.

Still, some critics say it's not enough.

Irene Morrison, a UC Riverside doctoral candidate and past southern vice president of the student's union, which falls under the United Auto Workers and represents 16,000 student workers across the UC system, questioned the sincerity of the system's push against harassment.

"These efforts are geared toward reducing the university's legal liability."
Stubborn problem
Harassment and assault on campus have gained a lot of media attention in recent years, but the problem isn't going away.

A 2015 survey by the American Association of Universities found 48 percent of students, male and female, indicated that they have been victims of some form of sexual harassment. More than 60 percent of female undergraduates reported being harassed, with the most common behavior being inappropriate comments about their body, appearance or sexual behavior, followed by sexual remarks, or insulting or offensive jokes.

Overall, more than 91 percent of perpetrators were other students, while 9 percent were identified as faculty, according to the survey. Graduate students were more likely to report harassment by a faculty member, the survey found.

Some argue the punishments aren't severe enough.

At UCI, one staff member filed 26 allegations against Joseph Lewis, the former dean of the Claire Trevor School of the Arts.

The staff member - who the Register is not identifying because she is a victim in a sexual harassment case - said Lewis gave her unwelcome sexual attention, pressured her to go to lunch and commanded her to "get up, turn around" so he could look at her body.

In one instance, according to the documents, the woman said Lewis "drew his initials on (her) neck with his finger," and when she asked what he was doing he said 'branding you.' She later said his actions became "a pattern of behavior," and that she changed her work life - and even the way she dressed - to avoid him.

Lewis did not reply to e-mail requests for comment. But in UC's investigation, he denied most of the allegations and offered a different view or explanation on others. Lewis told investigators that the woman who filed the claim did it to distract attention from verbal counseling he had given her.

Lewis was demoted from his role as dean, but remains employed as a professor. State records show that Lewis earned $238,000 in 2014, the same year he was disciplined. In 2015, the most recent year available, his pay was cut to $205,000, records show.

Last year, the UC Board of Regents voted to fire a tenured instructor - UC Riverside Professor Robert Latham - after he was accused of making inappropriate sexual remarks as well as kissing and touching students without consent. Latham argued that his remarks and actions were misinterpreted, but was unable to convince the regents.

Eric Buskirk was let go by the university after an August 2014 staff retreat to Big Bear Lake that included a boat outing where those on board were drinking and engaging in sexual repartee. Buskirk was also accused of touching the breast of one of his bikini-clad co-workers.

In another incident, Martina Villalba, a food services administrator, was accused of verbal sexual harassment and trying to kiss one of her subordinates. She was fired.

James Grant, a spokesman for UC Riverside argues that actions taken in the eight incidents reported by his school - seven of which resulted in employee terminations - shows the system is working.

"If you look at the entire UC system, our campus included, we have been enhancing resources," he said.

Farrell, of the Equal Rights Advocates, said the UC system "has been vocal about wanting to embrace change."

Salvaty, who runs the new UC statewide Title IX office, said she'd welcome something that might be counter-intuitive: more complaints. She said more claims would signal that the new policy is working and more people feel comfortable reporting sexual harassment and sexual violence.

"At the outset, you're actually looking for more people to report, so you can address the behavior," Salvatysaid.

"The ultimate goal is to change the culture."
Staff writer Mark Muckenfuss contributed to this report.
Contact the writer: rkopetman@scng.com and twitter@roxanakopetman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At UC Irvine, one employee left sex toys in another employee's work area. He was fired. At UC Riverside, a supervisor repeatedly stuck his face into a co-worker's neck to smell her perfume. He was suspended for two days.

# data[].attributes.body
The article describes how there has been an increase of crime occurring over the past year and how there is a spike of sexual assaults  have increased.
-Paola P.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sexual assault cases in California colleges

# data[].attributes.subject
Sexual assault cases in California colleges

# data[].attributes.body
An article from UCI’s newspaper that describes the SA situation that happened between some of its own students in 2020, and how it hasn’t been handled correctly 2 years later.
- Aryana G.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gina Duong was sexually assaulted by Gilberto Jijon in her on-campus apartment at Vista del Campo (VDC) on Oct. 26, 2020. The assault occurred on the night of Duong's 19th birthday, after a surprise party thrown by her close friends Elena Bock, Arielle Domingo, Anthony Antonyan and Jijon himself. Nine months later, it has been determined by UCI that Jijon has served a fair amount of his 12 month suspension and is fit to return to campus fall 2022.

Both second year social policy and public service majors, Duong and Jijon shared a close friend group and were housemates at the time Jijon assaulted Doung. They, along with Bock, Domingo and Antonyan became acquainted in fall 2019 through their freshman dorm, Jardin, in Mesa Court.

The New University was able to speak with Duong and three witnesses - Bock, Domingo and Antonyan - for further comment regarding the case.

"I didn't think he would be capable of doing something like that by looking back. There are a ton of red flags that we just kind of glossed over," Antonyan, roommate and friend to Duong, said.

During their time together, the three witnesses said that they had noticed these "red flags," such as Jijon's tendency to act in a sexually suggestive manner with the females within their friend group. According to witnesses, Jijon would carry out these sexually suggestive actions, such as stroking his female friend's hair, lifting them over his shoulder without their consent and making salacious comments. Although these red flags gave Bock, Domingo, Antonyan and Duong pause, they ultimately trusted Jijon due to his friendly and non-threatening demeanor.

"I really genuinely worry about the safety of everyone on this campus because I thought he was one of my best friends," Duong said. "If he was capable of manipulating me, and I knew him for a whole year, who is to say that other women on this campus aren't in danger?"

On Duong's 19th birthday, Jijon, Domingo and Antonyan, along with other neighboring friends, had a get-together at Duong's apartment in celebration.

"We started drinking. My roommate, [Domingo], did not drink at all because she had a midterm the next day. So she was sober ... She and I ended up leaving at around midnight to go out to our apartment. I was really drunk ... and [Jijon] was trying to pressure me to spend the night in his bed. He was like, oh, you can crash in my room," Bock said.

Bock said no and left the apartment with Domingo, who had stayed sober, to their shared apartment in Plaza Verde. Duong, Jijon and Antonyan remained in the VDC apartment.

Directly after the assault, Antonyan responded to cries from Duong's room, initially unaware of what had transpired between his two roommates. Antonyan responded by creating a separation between Jijon and Duong, telling Jijon to shut his bedroom door while he went to comfort Duong. It was then that Antonyan had learned of the assault.

Domingo received a call from Duong, in which she said that Jijon had assaulted her in his bed when she was inebriated and asleep. Duong, who according to Domingo was obviously shaken, had asked her friend what to do following the assault. Domingo suggested that Duong call UCIPD, and Jijon was arrested shortly after. Jijon was released from custody the following morning.

"I feel like it could have easily been me. I feel like it was entirely circumstantial, that it just happened to be [Duong]," Bock said.

An Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was issued on Oct. 26 by UCIPD. UCIPD then notified the UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) of the assault on Oct. 27. The notification was shortly followed by Duong with a request for an official investigation to be conducted on Oct. 28.

Duong was able to receive an emergency protective order (EPO), which is equivalent to a temporary restraining order, against Jijon once it became clear that UCIPD's involvement would not extend beyond the ongoing investigation. Antonyan and Duong were moved into a temporary apartment for two weeks following the EPO. During this time, Jijon was asked to clear out all his belongings.

Although Duong had the relief of the EPO, she described having a heightened sense of anxiety due to the prospect of Jijon being able to re-enter the apartment that they once shared to obtain his belongings. For this reason, she requested that she and Antonyan be moved into a temporary apartment away from the scene of the assault to avoid the possibility of facing Jijon again.

In accordance with the UC's Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (SVSH) Policy, which was implemented on Aug. 14, 2020 in response to the U.S. Department of Education's Title IX regulations, a grievance process was initiated on Nov. 13, 2020.

The grievance process was not completed until April 26, 2021. Duong took her experiences public in hopes of gaining the attention of UCI and convincing the school to permanently expel Jijon. She created a petition, which has garnered much support and attention via social media. The Instagram post of the petition has over 20,000 likes and over 800 comments, and the petition itself has received almost 35,000 signatures, which is more than the undergraduate population of 29,638 students at UCI.

According to Duong's Instagram post caption, which was addressed directly to UCI, "You wasted 6 months investigating how much I drank that night - as if that would somehow justify what he did to me - instead of investigating what really mattered."

The investigation resulted in the decision to suspend Jijon for 12 months, allowing him to return to campus in fall 2022.

"I expressed to you REPEATEDLY how concerned I was for my own safety and how concerned I was for the other femmes on this campus ... You know we felt that our safety was in danger, and you have the audacity to allow him to return to campus after just one year?" Duong wrote in her Instagram caption.

According to data analyzed by the Huffington Post from 2011 to 2013, less than one-third of sexual assault cases on college campuses result in the explusion of the assaulter.

In a 2020 report by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), "[a]lmost one in four undergraduate women experienced sexual assault or misconduct at 33 of the nation's major universities." UCI is included in the NSVRC's listed 33 major universities.

As reported in the UCI and UCI Health 2020 Annual Security Report, which contains 2020-2021 policy information and crime statistics from 2017 to 2019, there were 14 total rapes in 2017, 18 total rapes in 2018 and 16 total rapes in 2019, most of which occured in on-campus student housing. The report also detailed that there were two cases of fondling in 2017, 14 cases of fondling in 2018 and 14 in 2019.

According to the UCI and UCI Health 2020 Annual Security Report in the Prohibited Conduct

Section, "[c]onduct that meets the definition of both sexual assault-contact and sexual assault- penetration with be charged as sexual assault- penetration."

Throughout the grievance process, Duong and Jijon were placed under a "No Contact Order" which specified that "[they] are not permitted to contact or communicate with [each other] ... Furthermore, [they] are not to attempt to monitor, gather or share information about [each other]." While the contact order remains in place to this day, the wording was modified on June 4 to replace "monitor, gather, or share information" with the terms "monitor or gather information."

On June 4, 2021, Duong posted a brief statement on her Instagram sent to her by UCI's Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Willie L. Banks. In the letter, Banks stated that the respondent, Jijon, "accepted full responsibility for his conduct" by admitting his behavior and by complying with the consequences of his actions.

According to Banks, the "sanction the Respondent received was proportionate to the Preliminary Determination." The charge for Jijon's actions carries a suspension for one calendar year, disciplinary probation, along with supporting documents and meetings upon return to campus. In fall 2022, Jijon will be allowed to enroll and attend classes at UC Irvine.

"We're angry. We want something better, a suspension for a year is not enough, and I think the cherry on top of this is the fact that they're still allowing him to be a student here is on its own awful. But also continuing to be a public policy major here at UCI," Antonyan said. "That's a profession that people who have been abused, people who have been marginalized, oppressed, are going to benefit from. How is he in any way supposed to do that if he's part of the problem? It makes no sense."

"I will never understand why you went to the ends of the Earth to protect him, to stick by him after you've heard what it's caused me and other students when you could've used that energy doing your job," Duong wrote on an Instagram story post on June 8. "All my healing those 6 months after, all the therapy, the tears, the weeks at a time in bed was in the hopes that you'd do your [job]."

The New University reached out to Jijon for a statement, to which he declined to comment in keeping with the "No Contact Order" issued between himself and Duong. The VDC Housing Office, OEOD, and UCIPD declined to comment on the case. UCI Care could not be reached for comment.
Dhanika Pineda is a 2021-202 2 Campus News Editor. She can be reached at campusnews@newuniversity.org
Sydney Charles is a 2020-2021 Campus News Editor. She can be reached at campusnews@newuniversity.org

Tatum Larsen is a 2020-2021 Campus News Editor. She can be reached at campusnews@newuniversity.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexual Assault Offender Allowed on Campus in Fall 2022 After 12 Month Suspension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gina Duong was sexually assaulted by Gilberto Jijon in her on-campus apartment at Vista del Campo (VDC) on Oct. 26, 2020. The assault occurred on the night of Duong's 19th birthday, after a surprise party thrown by her close friends Elena Bock, Arielle Domingo, Anthony Antonyan and Jijon himself.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sexual assault cases in California colleges

# data[].attributes.subject
Sexual assault cases in California colleges

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes how some college SA reports either doubled or fluctuated high from 2016-2018, with the help of the Clery Act.
- Aryana G.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of sexual assault cases reported on college campuses in Orange County has risen over the last three years. Chapman University and California State University, Fullerton, have seen double the number of incidents reported while University of California, Irvine, numbers fluctuated over that period.
Editors' Note: This dispatch is part of the Voice of OC Youth Media program, working with student journalists to cover public policy issues across Orange County. If you would like to submit your own student media project related to Orange County civics or if you have any response to this work, contact Digital Editor Sonya Quick at squick@voiceofoc.org.
According to the reports from the Jeanne Clery Act, which requires colleges and universities across the United States to disclose the crime statistics on campus, Chapman had nine reported instances of sexual assaults in 2016 but a total of 18 in 2018. Fullerton had 20 cases on campus in 2016 but 40 last year. Irvine, however, had 66 occurrences in 2016 that went down to 46 in 2017, then back up to 64 in 2018.

In recent years, revelations of rape and sexual assaults by public figures have strengthened the #MeToo movement, which was founded in 2006. It gained popularity in 2017 when 22 women came forward to accuse Harvey Weinstein, a former Hollywood producer, of sexual assault. Since then, the movement has become a staple in many women's lives, sparking conversations around the world, especially on college campuses.

However, experts attribute the rise in sexual assault reports on college campuses to universities increasingly disclosing accurate numbers.

According to an article published in the Journal of School Violence in July 2017 by Kaitlin Boyle, a sociology professor at Virginia Tech, colleges across the country have historically underreported the incidents.

"There are a multitude of incentives for university officials to withhold high rates of rape, such as maintaining a safe image and not deterring applicants or alumni donations," Boyle writes.

According to studies cited in Boyle's article, institutions in the United States are finally complying with the reporting mandate, reflecting more accurately what has always been occurring.

The Clery Center in Pennsylvania echoes Boyle's sentiments, stressing that the Clery Act has always strived for accurate reporting of sexual assaults and other crimes on campuses. The nonprofit works with schools across the country to provide resources for them to achieve compliance with the law.

Laura Egan, the senior director of programs at the Clery Center, saw the same trends in her work as Boyle did.

More sexual assaults aren't occurring all of a sudden, according to Egan. People are just more aware of what can be reported and are more trusting of the reporting systems in place.

Though there has been an increase in the number of sexual assaults reported, rapes have trended down over the same years.

Both Chapman and Irvine saw the number of rape reports decrease steadily over the last three years. Fullerton, however, had a decrease in the first year that rose back up last year. Along with people feeling freer to speak up, there has also been greater education on consent and sexual assault prevention on campuses. In 2013, former President Barack Obama signed into law the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act which requires colleges to have prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students.

Egan has seen an increase in student awareness and interest in campus safety as well. "There's been an increase in student advocacy... with students asking for articles, reports, and more from the Clery Center," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Universities More Rigorously Reporting Sexual Assaults on Campuses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of sexual assault cases reported on college campuses in Orange County has risen over the last three years. Chapman University and California State University, Fullerton, have seen double the number of incidents reported while University of California, Irvine, numbers fluctuated over that period.

# data[].attributes.body
- Jessica H
shows a chart of how long it takes for litter items to decompose. The majority of them take years. Very harmful to the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Litter, litter, everywhere! We see litter on our streets, playgrounds and parks everyday. Some litter lasts a few weeks and some litter can hang out for over 1 million years.

Look at the lifespan of some commonly littered items:
Source: California Waste Management Bulletin Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items!

Adopt-A-Highway - Volunteers remove litter from California's Highways.

Storm Water Pollution & Litter - Our storm drains don't just empty water into our oceans and rivers, litter goes there too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Litter, litter, everywhere! We see litter on our streets, playgrounds and parks everyday. Some litter lasts a few weeks and some litter can hang out for over 1 million years. Look at the lifespan of some commonly littered items: Source: California Waste Management Bulletin Cigarette butts are one of the most littered items! Adopt-A-Highway - Volunteers remove litter from California's Highways.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Overview of Poverty and Inequality in California

# data[].attributes.subject
An Overview of Poverty and Inequality in California

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article about how people's lives have been and are in a bad state after the Covid 19 pandemic and the money brought by the government is completely not enough to keep them alive because of the devices. The machines are damaged a lot and that's why we need to fix them - An Nguyen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Overview of Poverty and Inequality in California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Far too often, existing laws, policies, and regulations trap many Californians in poverty, preventing them from fully participating in the benefits of the state’s economy.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides an opposite argument.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freelance music Journalist Eve Barlow said Tuesday she was a victim of "woke" cancel culture over a 2020 tweet condemning the vandalism of U.S. synagogues during the George Floyd protests.
SCHOOLS ACROSS AMERICA IMPLEMENT BLM WEEK OF ACTION THAT CALLS FOR 'DISRUPTION OF WESTERN NUCLEAR FAMILY'
The tweet condemning antisemitic graffiti painted outside L.A. synagogues read, "woke up to see that synagogues in LA have been graffiti'd during the riots with the words FREE PALESTINE and F--- ISRAEL, and that dua lipa is spreading antisemitic posts on her IG feed,

"How dare you bring the jewish nation and community into the killing of black american lives."

The Jewish journalist from Scotland shared her story with "Fox & Friends First" host Todd Piro, saying the " woke mob" attacked her for speaking out during a "very incendiary moment."

"I am someone who has regularly, consistently advocated for the Jewish people and advocated for Zionism and the state of Israel," said Barlow, who explained in a piece for Bari Weiss' "Common Sense" Substack that she lost work after the tweet. Barlow had been writing previously for GQ and New York Magazine.

"And this was a moment in which that collided with a huge tribal instance in America in which anyone who said anything critical of the BLM movement was seen as some kind of pariah or as somebody who was opposed to people who were rightfully taking a stand against systemic racism in America."

After tweeting "how dare you" to those electing to drag the Jewish community into Black Lives Matter's rhetoric, "all hell broke loose," Barlow wrote in an online blog post.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Barlow said she strove to promote the idea that fighting "hate with another form of hate" was not the solution to America's problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jewish journalist says she was 'canceled' after tweet condemning vandalism of synagogues during BLM protests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freelance music Journalist Eve Barlow said Tuesday she was a victim of "woke" cancel culture over a 2020 tweet condemning the vandalism of U.S. synagogues during the George Floyd protests. SCHOOLS ACROSS AMERICA IMPLEMENT BLM WEEK OF ACTION THAT CALLS FOR 'DISRUPTION OF WESTERN NUCLEAR FAMILY' The tweet condemning antisemitic graffiti painted outside L.A.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows that graffiti is vandalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. cities fear its spread

March 23, 1996
Web posted at: 5 p.m. EST

From Reporter Kathleen Koch

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Graffiti is spreading from cities to rural America.

An estimated $6 billion was spent nationwide in 1994 alone on cleaning up and preventing more of the bright, sometimes threatening, scrawl.

They spray and run. Some are gangs marking territory, but most are just taggers scrawling their names or symbols to gain personal recognition.

Experts and city leaders gathered near Washington this week to form a battle plan against graffiti. They fear graffiti is threatening the survival of entire communities.

"The neighborhood begins to deteriorate, and then that invites first minor crime and then major crime," said Richard Condon, who organized the graffiti conference. "We can see this in a lot of our cities where graffiti has just taken over."

Getting kids to clean up their graffiti doesn't work. Experts say they only learn how to do it better so it can't be removed as easily next time.

Murals help -- to a point -- keeping one wall clean, but not those around it.

Washington D.C.'s transit authority agrees with most that the best approach is zero tolerance -- removing graffiti within 24 hours.

"If we allow graffiti to stay on the car, then it encourages others to vandalize and mark the cars with graffiti," said Lem Proctor of the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority

Los Angeles is trying a different approach: covering the taggers' canvases.

"You plant these quick-growing vines that take very little maintenance or very little water," said Gary McAdam of Operation Clean Sweep in Los Angeles. "The vines grow up the building and they just don't touch them."

A sociologist with the Graffiti Task Force in Suffolk County, New York, Vicki Wilson, says some are looking to cyberspace for a graffiti alternative to concrete space.

"They're saying scan your tags, achieve your fame over the Internet, but then stay off the streets," said Wilson.

Tougher laws, such as making parents responsible for some of the billions of dollars in yearly cleanup costs, are making a difference.

But not when police departments are already stretched to the limit addressing violent crime.

"Sometimes it's difficult to go out of service, lock up a person doing graffiti," said Sgt. Donald Lyddane of the Washington Metropolitan Police. "Especially if it's some kid with no criminal record."

One former tagger insists kids who spray graffiti don't need to be jailed.

"They are just basically telling you, 'Hey, I need some help. I need you to pull me in,'" said Luis Cardona, Executive Director of D.C. Barrios Unidos. "But they are not going to tell you that. That's how I used to feel." ( 85K AIFF sound or 85K WAV sound)

Call it vandalism or call it art -- graffiti seems to be an addictive habit.

Some fear that the bright spray is a symbol of the inner decay of a generation of young people that can only find fulfillment on the run.

Related Sites

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 23, 1996 Web posted at: 5 p.m. EST From Reporter Kathleen Koch WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Graffiti is spreading from cities to rural America. An estimated $6 billion was spent nationwide in 1994 alone on cleaning up and preventing more of the bright, sometimes threatening, scrawl. They spray and run.

# data[].attributes.body
This source shows that grafitti despite how some depict it is vandalizing public property.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Graffiti Is Always Vandalism - NYTimes.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No museum that has celebrated graffiti in recent years would allow its own premises to be defaced for even one minute.

# data[].attributes.headline
Health Coverage for the Undocumented in the US

# data[].attributes.subject
Health Coverage for the Undocumented in the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

In 2020, there were 22.1 million noncitizens in the United States, accounting for about 7% of the total U.S. population. Noncitizens include lawfully present and undocumented immigrants. Many individuals live in mixed immigration status families that may include lawfully present immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and/or citizens. One in four children has an immigrant parent, and the majority of these children are citizens.

Noncitizens are significantly more likely than citizens to be uninsured. In 2020, among the nonelderly population, 26% of lawfully present immigrants and about four in ten (42%) undocumented immigrants were uninsured compared to less than one in ten (8%) citizens. Among citizen children, those with at least one noncitizen parent were significantly more likely to be uninsured as those with citizen parents (10% vs. 4%).

Research suggests that the changes to immigration policy enacted during the Trump administration contributed to increased fears among immigrant families about participating in programs and seeking services, including health coverage and care. These included policies focused on curbing immigration, enhancing immigration enforcement, and limiting the use of public assistance among immigrant families. The Biden administration reversed many of these changes and recently proposed a new rule that excludes non-cash benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) from public charge determinations. However, ongoing efforts will likely be needed to reduce fears and rebuild trust among immigrant families.

The pandemic likely contributed to increased health and financial needs and declines in health coverage among immigrant families. Immigrants' work, living, and transportation situations put them at increased risk for potential exposure to coronavirus. Noncitizen immigrants also faced risk of financial difficulties due to the pandemic, as many work in service industries, such as restaurants and food services, that suffered cutbacks during the early phases of the pandemic. At the same time, immigrants have had more limited access to COVID relief, and data suggest that immigration-related fears may have contributed to reluctance accessing COVID-19 vaccines.

Recent federal and state activity has focused on expanding access to health coverage for immigrants, but broad sustained efforts to rebuild trust and reduce fears also will be important for supporting the health and well-being of immigrant families. At the federal level, legislation has been proposed that would expand eligibility for health coverage for immigrants, though it faces no clear path to passage in Congress. In addition, states are continuing to take up federal options to expand Medicaid and CHIP coverage for lawfully present immigrant children and pregnant people. Moreover, several states have recently proposed or taken action to expand state-funded coverage to low-income people regardless of immigration status. Other recent activity may help increase enrollment among immigrants who are eligible for coverage options. As noted, the Biden Administration proposed new public charge rules, which may help reduce fears among immigrant families about participating in non-cash assistance programs, including health coverage. Further, the Administration increased funding for Navigator programs, which provide enrollment assistance to individuals. However, even with these actions, it will likely take time and sustained community-led efforts to rebuild trust and reduce fears surrounding the use of services among immigrant families.

Overview of Immigrants

In 2020, there were 22.1 million noncitizens and 22.7 million naturalized citizens residing in the U.S., who each accounted for about 7% of the total population (Figure 1). About six in ten noncitizens were lawfully present immigrants, while the remaining four in ten were undocumented immigrants (see Text Box 1). Many individuals live in mixed immigration status families that may include lawfully present immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and/or citizens.

A total of 19.2 million or one in four children had an immigrant parent as of 2020, and the majority of these children were citizens. About 9.7 million or 13% were citizen children with a noncitizen parent.
Text Box 1: Overview of Lawfully Present and Undocumented Immigrants
Undocumented immigrants are foreign-born individuals residing in the U.S. without authorization. This group includes individuals who entered the country without authorization and individuals who entered the country lawfully and stayed after their visa or status expired.

Health Coverage for Nonelderly Noncitizens

In 2020, more than three-quarters (76%) of the 27.3 million nonelderly uninsured were U.S.-born and naturalized citizens (Figure 2). The remaining 24% were noncitizens.

However, noncitizens, including lawfully present and undocumented immigrants, were significantly more likely to be uninsured than citizens.Among the nonelderly population, 26% of lawfully present immigrants and approximately four in ten (42%) undocumented immigrants were uninsured compared to 8% of citizens (Figure 3).

These differences in coverage also occur among children, with noncitizen children more likely to lack coverage compared to their citizen counterparts. Moreover, among citizen children, those with at least one noncitizen parent were significantly more likely to be uninsured as those with citizen parents (Figure 4).

Barriers to Health Coverage for Noncitizens

The higher uninsured rate among noncitizens reflects limited access to employer-sponsored coverage; eligibility restrictions for Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA Marketplace coverage; and barriers to enrollment among eligible individuals.

Although most nonelderly noncitizens live in a family with a full-time worker, they face gaps in access to private coverage. Nonelderly noncitizens are as likely as nonelderly citizens to be living in a family with at least one full-time worker, but they are more likely to be low-income (Figure 5). They have lower incomes because they are often employed in low-wage jobs and industries that are less likely to offer employer-sponsored coverage. Given their lower incomes, noncitizens also face increased challenges affording employer-sponsored coverage when it is available or through the individual market.

Lawfully present immigrants may qualify for Medicaid and CHIP but are subject to certain eligibility restrictions. In general, lawfully present immigrants must have a "qualified" immigration status to be eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, and many, including most lawful permanent residents or "green card" holders, must wait five years after obtaining qualified status before they may enroll. Some immigrants with qualified status, such as refugees and asylees, do not have to wait five years before enrolling. Some immigrants, such as those with temporary protected status, are lawfully present but do not have a qualified status and are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid or CHIP regardless of their length of time in the country (Appendix A). For children and pregnant people, states can eliminate the five-year wait and extend coverage to lawfully present immigrants without a qualified status. As of January 2022, 35 states have taken up this option for children and half have elected the option for pregnant individuals.

Lawfully present immigrants can purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces and may receive subsidies for this coverage. These subsidies are available to people with incomes from 100% to 400% FPL who are not eligible for other coverage. In addition, lawfully present immigrants with incomes below 100% FPL may receive subsidies if they are ineligible for Medicaid based on immigration status. This group includes lawfully present immigrants who are not eligible for Medicaid or CHIP because they are in the five-year waiting period or do not have a "qualified" status.

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid or CHIP or to purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces. Under rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status are not considered lawfully present and remain ineligible for coverage options. Medicaid payments for emergency services may be made on behalf of individuals who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid but for their immigration status. These payments cover costs for emergency care for lawfully present immigrants who remain ineligible for Medicaid as well as undocumented immigrants. Since 2002, states have had the option to provide prenatal care to people regardless of immigration status by extending CHIP coverage to the unborn child. As of January 2022, 18 states have adopted this option. Unlike other pregnancy-related coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, which requires 60 days of postpartum coverage, the unborn child option does not include this coverage. However, several states provide postpartum coverage, regardless of immigration status, either through a CHIP state plan amendment or using state-only funding. In addition, some states have state-funded health programs that provide coverage to some groups of immigrants regardless of immigration status. There are also some locally-funded programs that provide coverage or assistance without regard to immigration status.

Many uninsured lawfully present immigrants are eligible for coverage options under the ACA but remain uninsured, while uninsured undocumented immigrants are ineligible for coverage options. Prior to the pandemic many uninsured lawfully present immigrants were eligible for ACA coverage. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) enacted in 2021 further increased access to health coverage through temporary increases and expansions in eligibility for subsidies to buy health insurance through the health insurance marketplaces. It also includes incentives to states that have not yet adopted the ACA Medicaid expansion to do so and provides a new option for states to extend the length of Medicaid coverage for postpartum women. With the temporary changes under ARPA, approximately three-quarters (77%) of uninsured lawfully present immigrants were eligible for coverage, including 31% who were eligible for Medicaid and 46% who were eligible for ACA subsidies (Figure 6). Uninsured undocumented immigrants are ineligible for coverage options due to their immigration status. In the absence of coverage, they remain reliant on safety net clinics and hospitals for care and often go without needed care.

Many lawfully present immigrants who are eligible for coverage remain uninsured because immigrant families face a range of enrollment barriers, including fear, confusion about eligibility policies, difficulty navigating the enrollment process, and language and literacy challenges. Research suggests that changes to immigration policy made by the Trump administration contributed to growing fears among immigrant families about enrolling themselves and/or their children in Medicaid and CHIP even if they were eligible. In particular, changes to public charge policy that allowed federal officials to consider the use of certain non-cash programs, including Medicaid for non-pregnant adults, when determining whether to provide certain individuals a green card or entry into the U.S., likely contributed to decreases in participation in Medicaid among immigrant families and their primarily U.S.-born children. The Biden administration reversed many of these changes, including the changes to public charge policy, and recently proposed new public charge regulations that exclude use of Medicaid and CHIP, except for coverage of long-term institutionalized care, from public charge determinations.

The pandemic likely contributed to increased health and financial needs and declines in health coverage among immigrant families. Immigrants' work, living, and transportation situations put them at increased risk for potential exposure to coronavirus and its variants. Noncitizen immigrants also faced financial difficulties due to the pandemic, as many work in service industries, such as restaurants and food services, that suffered cutbacks. Initial job losses at the start of the pandemic were particularly high among immigrants, which likely contributed to increased financial stress and potential loss of health insurance, although many employment losses have rebounded since earlier in the pandemic. At the same time, immigrants faced limits on access to COVID-19 relief, and ongoing immigration-related fears made some reluctant to access assistance, services, and COVID-19 vaccines. Some states and localities, such as California and New York, created programs to provide assistance to immigrants who were excluded from federal sources of COVID-19 assistance.

Proposals and Recent Actions to Increase Access to Health Coverage for Immigrants

Recent federal and state activity has focused on expanding access to health coverage for immigrants. Moreover, other recent activity may help increase enrollment among immigrants who are eligible for coverage options. However, beyond these actions, broad sustained community-led efforts will likely be key for reducing fears and rebuilding trust among immigrant families.

In December 2020, Congress restored Medicaid eligibility for citizens of Compact of Free Association (COFA) communities. Compacts of Free Association are agreements between the U.S. government and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. Certain citizens of these nations can lawfully work, study, and reside in the U.S., but they had been excluded from federally-funded Medicaid since 1996, under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). As part of a COVID-relief package, Congress restored Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens who meet other eligibility requirements for the program effective December 27, 2020.

Recent federal legislation has been proposed that would expand immigrant eligibility for health coverage, though there is no clear path to passage in Congress. In 2021, the Health Equity and Access Under the Law (HEAL) Act and Lifting Immigrant Families Through Benefits Access Restoration Act (LIFT the BAR) Act were introduced into Congress. Both acts would remove the five-year waiting period for health coverage and other assistance programs that currently apply to many lawfully present immigrants under the 1996 PRORWA rules. They also would expand the definition of lawfully present immigrants to include Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and certain other immigrants who are authorized to be in the U.S., so that they could qualify for federally funded health care programs. In addition, the HEAL Act would allow undocumented immigrants to access health insurance coverage through the ACA Marketplaces and to be eligible for subsidies to offset the cost of this coverage. Both acts also would ensure that lawfully present immigrants with incomes below 100% FPL may receive subsidies if they are ineligible for Medicaid based on immigration status if they live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid.

Several states have proposed or taken action to expand coverage for immigrant children and pregnant individuals. Currently, six states ( California, DC, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington) provide comprehensive state-funded coverage to all income-eligible children, regardless of immigration status. Massachusetts provides primary and preventive services to all children, regardless of immigration status or income. Several states will extend Medicaid-like, state-funded coverage to immigrant children, including Maine and Vermont in July 2022, and Connecticut to children under age nine in January 2023. New Jersey has also proposed to expand coverage to children currently ineligible due to immigration status in the FY 2023 Governor's budget. A number of states also provide state-funded pregnancy coverage regardless of immigration status, including DC, New Jersey, and New York. DC plans to adopt the CHIP unborn child option in 2022 along with Connecticut and Maine, and Vermont will extend state-funded Medicaid-like coverage to pregnant individuals regardless of immigration status in July 2022. The American Rescue Plan Act gives states the option to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months beginning in April 2022. Five states-California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington-that are planning to take up this option will also extend the coverage to postpartum individuals who are not eligible due to immigration status. California and Illinois recently implemented 12 months postpartum coverage regardless of immigration status through CHIP Health Services Initiatives amendments.

Some states are also taking action to expand fully state-funded coverage to adult immigrants. California Governor Gavin Newsom's 2022-2023 proposed budget would provide fully state-funded Medicaid coverage to all income-eligible adults, ages 26 to 49, regardless of immigration status, no sooner than January, 1 2024. The state previously extended state-funded Medicaid coverage to young adults ages 19-26 regardless of immigration status, and adults ages 50 and older will become eligible on May 1, 2022. In December 2020, Illinois extended state-funded coverage to low-income individuals ages 65 and older who were not eligible due to their immigration status. As of May 2022, coverage will also be extended to low-income immigrants ages 55 to 64, regardless of immigration status, and proposed legislation would further expand this coverage to all adults ages 19 and older. In Oregon, the Cover All People Act, will extend state-funded coverage to all low-income adults who are not eligible due to immigration status, starting on July 1, 2022, subject to available funding. Prior to this recent state activity, only the District of Columbia's locally-funded Healthcare Alliance program, created in 1999, provided health coverage to low-income residents regardless of immigration status. States can also provide state-funded premium subsidies to immigrants who are ineligible for federal premium subsidies in the Marketplace due to their immigration status. In Colorado, beginning in 2023, state residents with income up to 300% FPL who do not qualify for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act or other public programs because of their immigration status will be eligible for state-funded premium subsidies to assist them in purchasing individual coverage.

The Biden Administration has proposed changes to public charge policies that are intended to reduce fears of enrolling in health coverage and accessing care. As noted, after taking office, the Biden administration reversed public charge policies implemented by the Trump Administration that had made some immigrant families more reluctant to access health coverage and care for themselves and their children. More recently, on February 24, 2022, the Administration proposed new public charge regulations that would exclude use of Medicaid and CHIP, except for coverage of long-term institutionalized care, from public charge determinations. The proposed rule would largely codify the 1999 field guidance that has been guiding public charge determinations since the Biden Administration reversed the 2019 Trump Administration changes to public charge policy. The rule would define a public charge as someone "likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense,". It also specifies factors that can be considered in public charge determinations and notes that public charge determinations must be made on the totality of circumstances. The proposed rule will be in a 60-day public comment period, until April 25, 2022, prior to it being finalized.

The Administration has also increased funding for outreach and enrollment assistance, which may help eligible immigrant families enroll and stay enrolled in coverage. In August 2021, CMS announced $80 million in funding for 60 Navigator programs in 30 states with Federally-Facilitated Marketplaces for the 2022 plan year, significantly higher than the annual funding awarded in 2018-2020. Navigator programs must provide information that is culturally and linguistically appropriate and can assist individuals with renewing Medicaid coverage and help those who are no longer eligible for Medicaid transition to coverage through the marketplaces. This assistance may be particularly important for helping immigrant families enroll in and maintain coverage given the complex eligibility requirements for immigrants and potential linguistic barriers and fears of negative immigration consequences.

Looking Ahead

Although noncitizen immigrants are as likely as citizens to work, they are significantly more likely to be uninsured due to more limited access to both public and private coverage. The pandemic has likely worsened the health and financial challenges faced by immigrants, as they have been at increased risk for exposure, have had more limited access to assistance, and have more limited access to health care. Recent federal and state activity has focused on expanding immigrant eligibility for health coverage. Moreover, the Biden Administration's changes to public charge policy and increased funding for outreach and enrollment assistance may help increase access to health coverage for immigrant families. However, even with increased eligibility and enhanced outreach and enrollment assistance, it will likely require time and sustained work, including community-led efforts, to rebuild trust and reduce fears among immigrant families about accessing health coverage and care.

Qualified Immigrant Categories Other Lawfully Present Immigrants

Lawful permanent resident (LPR or green card holder)

Refugee

Asylee

Cuban/Haitian entrant

Paroled into the U.S. for at least one year

Conditional entrant granted before 1980

Granted withholding of deportation

Battered noncitizen, spouse, child, or parent

Victims of trafficking and his/her spouse, child, sibling, or parent or individuals with pending application for a victim of trafficking visa

Member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or American Indian born in Canada

Citizens of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau who are living in one of the U.S. states or territories (referred to as Compact of Free Association or COFA migrants) (Effective December 27, 2020, COFA migrants are considered "qualified noncitizens" and are eligible for Medicaid, if they meet all of the eligibility criteria for their state.)

Granted Withholding of Deportation or Withholding of Removal, under the immigration laws or under the Convention against Torture (CAT)

Individual with Non-Immigrant Status, includes worker visas, student visas, U-visa, and other visas, and citizens of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)

Deferred Action Status, except for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) who are not eligible for health insurance options

Lawful Temporary Resident

Administrative order staying removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security

Resident of American Samoa

Applicants for certain statuses

People with certain statuses who have employment authorization

SOURCE: "Coverage for lawfully present immigrants," HealthCare.gov, https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immigrants/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2020, there were 22.1 million noncitizens in the United States, accounting for about 7% of the total U.S. population. Noncitizens include lawfully present and undocumented immigrants. Many individuals live in mixed immigration status families that may include lawfully present immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and/or citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
This article should be showed to anyone who is affected with racism so they can be prepared and to know their rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Everyday Way to Fight Racism - Elimination of Racial Discrimination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many survivors of domestic violence also face racism and other forms of oppression. We must recognize and support survivors' unique experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
this source shows the statistics about how homelessness is in California - jashley s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homeless in California Statistics 2018. Homeless Estimation by State | US Interagency Council on Homelessness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out homeless population statistics for the state of California, get the data on families, veterans, chronic and youth...

# data[].attributes.body
-jennifer A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is estimated that about a third of people in the UK sleep poorly most nights, due to combination of stress, partner disturbance or lack of comfort. But, on any given night, a significant group of people have an added reason for insomnia - homelessness.

In September 2017, more than 300,000 people in Britain were homeless. More than one-third of these were children. These figures are a stark reminder of the relative poverty in which some in Britain live. Against such figures, whether the homeless might not be getting a good night's sleep may seem a somewhat trivial issue. But it's not.

There is increasing evidence that sleep is critical for physical health and mental wellbeing - and, for children, school performance. For most of us, a single night of very poor sleep will affect memory, concentration, attention and decision making. Our mood will get less positive, our energy and motivation are depleted and our resistance to disease and infection will weaken.

It struck me when asked to take part in a recent charity event, that as a sleep researcher I had never considered whether the homeless might be particularly disadvantaged. As World Sleep Day approached, I thought I should.

Most of the third of a million or so homeless live in temporary accommodation provided by the council - about 80,000 "households", three-quarters of which comprise dependent children and one or more adults. The majority of these households have their own cooking and bathroom areas, but others, in Bed & Breakfast accommodation, may have to share these facilities.

More than 20,000 adults sleep in more transient circumstances, mainly in (presumably crowded) homeless hostels - and an estimated 5,000 people are sleeping rough in any given night.

Sleep hygiene

Sleep hygiene regimes summarise advice about how to get a good night's sleep. These do vary, but all emphasise the importance of consistency during our approach to sleep - preparing to sleep at the same time, in as similar circumstances as possible. We learn what works for us - or those we care for. Our beds, bedrooms, pre-bed routines establish strong associations which, we learn, are predictive of sleeping successfully. A gradual reduction of light, temperature and increasing fatigue from the day all help our engagement with sleep.

Before most of us sleep successfully we reduce sources of stimulation and rely on familiar routines - brushing teeth, removing makeup, going to the bathroom. Ordinarily, all of these establish an unhurried, consistent and routine disengagement from our waking life. These predictable habits are accompanied by a strong biological pressure to sleep, typified by the rise in melatonin secretion, making falling asleep more likely.

But there is an inherent unpredictability when sleeping rough. Studies show that rough sleepers choose where to sleep very systematically - usually in order to maximise their personal safety. For the homeless who do not sleep rough, life is also unpredictably unsafe, and sleep is very likely to be disrupted when sleeping in close proximity to unknown others in hostels.

Of course, we all know that sleep can be easily interrupted, even when we are not feeling threatened, such as when sharing limited bed space with a snoring partner or the interruption of a crying child. And we are all familiar with the damage done to getting to sleep easily by some emotional upset - a disagreement with a loved one, worry about what happened earlier in the day, or the fear of what might happen tomorrow. When we wake in the night these upsets, worries and fears are readily available in our minds - and dwelling on them may summarily end what was probably a fretful sleep.

For the homeless, these unstable conditions frequently endanger the consistency we must recreate in order to sleep well. There may also be worries about safety and the discomfort of uncontrollable temperatures or unpredictable noise.

Transitory disruptions delay, if not prevent, falling and staying asleep. Poor nourishment and reliance on legal and illegal drugs will also profoundly affect sleep. Alcohol and nicotine reduce the quality of rest, while cocaine, cannabis and painkillers all have a detrimental effect. Generally, these effects intensify after periods of chronic use, or during withdrawal.

Despite all this, there is no formal evidence that sleep is a particular problem for the homeless. However, as a sleep scientist, I believe there is every reason to believe the homeless will sleep less - and less well. If this is true, the issue of homelessness becomes even more urgent.

For those enduring sleep challenges, physical and mental health will be worse - and the prospects for recovery and rehabilitation of the homeless will be drastically reduced. For the homeless child, the long-term prospects are likely to be very bleak indeed. Sleep is critical for the development of cognitive skills, mental health and social engagement.

But sleep can be improved - and improving sleep may be the basis of a very real change in the prospects of the homeless.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The homeless need more than shelter: they need a good night's rest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is estimated that about a third of people in the UK sleep poorly most nights, due to combination of stress, partner disturbance or lack of comfort. But, on any given night, a significant group of people have an added reason for insomnia - homelessness.

# data[].attributes.body
This article states the action plan that the Governor of California will do with the homeless issue - Brian Mariano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 2022-23 Budget: The Governor’s Homelessness Plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This brief provides an update on some major recent state budget actions related to homelessness, describes the Governor’s homelessness budget proposals, and raises issues for the Legislature’s consideration.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes over the cause and effects and provides the path for many other solutions to this issue. - Michael Ngo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.body
This article also goes on to the cause and effects but gives more details of the effects of global warming. - Michael Ngo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole. Since 1906, the global average surface temperature has increased by more than 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius)- even more in sensitive polar regions. And the impacts of rising temperatures aren't waiting for some far-flung future-the effects of global warming are appearing right now. The heat is melting glaciers and sea ice, shifting precipitation patterns, and setting animals on the move.

Many people think of global warming and climate change as synonyms, but scientists prefer to use "climate change" when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet's weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. All of these changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Scientists already have documented these impacts of climate change:

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. In Montana's Glacier National Park the number of glaciers has declined to fewer than 30 from more than 150 in 1910.

Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise. Global sea levels are rising 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year. The rise is occurring at a faster rate in recent years and is predicted to accelerate in the coming decades.

Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats. Vanishing ice has challenged species such as the Adélie penguin in Antarctica, where some populations on the western peninsula have collapsed by 90 percent or more.

As temperatures change, many species are on the move. Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have migrated farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.

Some species-including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests-are thriving. Booming populations of bark beetles that feed on spruce and pine trees, for example, have devastated millions of forested acres in the U.S.

Other effects could take place later this century, if warming continues. These include:

Sea levels are expected to rise between 10 and 32 inches (26 and 82 centimeters) or higher by the end of the century.

Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Floods and droughts will become more common. Large parts of the U.S., for example, face a higher risk of decades-long "megadroughts" by 2100.

Less freshwater will be available, since glaciers store about three-quarters of the world's freshwater.

Some diseases will spread, such as mosquito-borne malaria (and the 2016 resurgence of the Zika virus).

Ecosystems will continue to change: Some species will move farther north or become more successful; others, such as polar bears, won't be able to adapt and could become extinct.

Read next: Is Global Warming Real?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the cause and effect of global warming - Michel Ngo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth's local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term.

Changes observed in Earth's climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere, raising Earth's average surface temperature. Natural processes, which have been overwhelmed by human activities, can also contribute to climate change, including internal variability (e.g., cyclical ocean patterns like El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and external forcings (e.g., volcanic activity, changes in the Sun's energy output, variations in Earth's orbit).

Scientists use observations from the ground, air, and space, along with computer models, to monitor and study past, present, and future climate change. Climate data records provide evidence of climate change key indicators, such as global land and ocean temperature increases; rising sea levels; ice loss at Earth's poles and in mountain glaciers; frequency and severity changes in extreme weather such as hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, and precipitation; and cloud and vegetation cover changes.

"Climate change" and "global warming" are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Similarly, the terms "weather" and "climate" are sometimes confused, though they refer to events with broadly different spatial- and timescales.

What Is Global Warming?

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, with the year 2020 statistically tying with 2016 for hottest on record (Source: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies). Learn more about global surface temperature here. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Global warming is the long-term heating of Earth's surface observed since the pre-industrial period (between 1850 and 1900) due to human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere. This term is not interchangeable with the term "climate change."

Since the pre-industrial period, human activities are estimated to have increased Earth's global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a number that is currently increasing by more than 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. The current warming trend is unequivocally the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over millennia.

Weather vs. Climate

"If you don't like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes."

Weather refers to atmospheric conditions that occur locally over short periods of time-from minutes to hours or days. Familiar examples include rain, snow, clouds, winds, floods, or thunderstorms.

Climate, on the other hand, refers to the long-term (usually at least 30 years) regional or even global average of temperature, humidity, and rainfall patterns over seasons, years, or decades.

Find Out More: A Guide to NASA's Global Climate Change Website

This website provides a high-level overview of some of the known causes, effects and indications of global climate change:

Evidence. Brief descriptions of some of the key scientific observations that our planet is undergoing abrupt climate change.

Causes. A concise discussion of the primary climate change causes on our planet.

Effects. A look at some of the likely future effects of climate change, including U.S. regional effects.

Vital Signs. Graphs and animated time series showing real-time climate change data, including atmospheric carbon dioxide, global temperature, sea ice extent, and ice sheet volume.

Earth Minute. This fun video series explains various Earth science topics, including some climate change topics.

Other NASA Resources

Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio. An extensive collection of animated climate change and Earth science visualizations.

Sea Level Change Portal. NASA's portal for an in-depth look at the science behind sea level change.

NASA's Earth Observatory. Satellite imagery, feature articles and scientific information about our home planet, with a focus on Earth's climate and environmental change.
Header image is of Apusiaajik Glacier, and was taken near Kulusuk, Greenland, on Aug. 26, 2018, during NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) field operations. Learn more here. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is climate change? What is global warming? The terms are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Similarly, the terms "weather" and "climate" are sometimes confused, though they refer to events with broadly different spatial- and timescales.

# data[].attributes.body
This source has many statistics on how much students dislike the school lunches also on why they'd rather not eat it.- Gilbert Martinez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to a 2008 study published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, diets with high levels of saturated fats may impair learning and memory. Many foods commonly served during school lunch, such as French fries, cheeseburgers, and chicken nuggets, are loaded with saturated fat. Aug 29, 2018

Why are school lunches so unhealthy?

Effects of poor nutrition from school lunches go beyond weight gain. A child who eats too much fat, sugar, sodium or processed food and too few vitamins and minerals is likely to develop a higher risk over time for several chronic health problems.

What is the problem with school lunches?

"The report finds that there were 676,899,359 fewer total meals (breakfasts and lunches) served in 2020-21 [school year] as compared to 2019-20 [school year]. This amounts to a 10.94% loss in meals served. The largest loss by meal type was for lunches, which were down 17.76%, or 692,975,102 lunches."

What percent of students hate school lunches?

' " Part of the study involved polling students, parents and school staff about the current cafeteria options. About 77 percent of 1,300 high school students surveyed said that they did not like the food, and about half said they ate school lunch two days a week or less.

Are school lunches bad for kids?

The USDA says more than 90% of schools are serving meals that meet these higher nutritional standards. Children who eat meals at school have better nutrition than those that eat other meals.

Horace Mann
Credit for our modern version of the school system usually goes to Horace Mann. When he became Secretary of Education in Massachusetts in 1837, he set forth his vision for a system of professional teachers who would teach students an organized curriculum of basic content.

Should school lunches be healthier?

School lunch is critical to student health and well-being, especially for low-income students-and ensures that students have nutrition they need throughout the day to learn. Research shows that receiving free or reduced-price school lunches reduces food insecurity, obesity rates, and poor health.

Lunch shaming highlights the connection between nutritious meals and academic performance. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is intended to help schools provide balanced meals to children during the school day.

Is school food bad for students?

Obesity, diabetes and even preliminary high blood pressure and eventual heart problems can begin with poor nutrition in schools. Additionally, kids eating high-fat, low-nutrition foods are more likely to perform less effectively on academic work at school.

Is fast food healthier than school lunches?

Fast food meat is safer than school lunches. Fast food is notorious for its high calories and fat content; however, a new study has found the meat served by restaurant chains, such as McDonald's, is actually safer than the hamburgers served in school lunches. ... The first McDonald's opened in 1940 in San Bernardino, CA.

Where can I get the most food for $5?

How To Get The Most For $5 At Fast Food Chains

Smashburger. What $5 can get you at Smashburger Thrillist. ...

Taco Bell. A $5 meal from Taco Bell Thrillist. ...

Wendy's. A $5 meal from Wendy's Thrillist. ...

Arby's. A $5 meal from Arby's Thrillist. ...

Panda Express. A $5 meal from Panda Express Thrillist. ...

McDonald's. ...

Chipotle. ...

Burger King.

Are school lunches too expensive?

School lunch costs for students vary by state and district, but on average, a single meal costs students $2.48 at the elementary-school level and $2.74 at the high-school level. One school in California reportedly charges its students up to $6.80 for a single meal. ... For schools, too.

Why do schools block everything on the Internet?

The Children's Internet Protection Act, passed by Congress in 2000, requires public schools that receive broadband access at a federally discounted rate (that's almost all of them) to protect young people from online content that is obscene or otherwise "harmful to minors." Nervous school administrators have additional ...

Which country has the healthiest school lunches?

Which country has the best school lunches?

France. ...

Ukraine. ...

Greece. ...

Brazil. ...

Finland. ...

Italy. ...

South Korea. Broccoli and peppers, fried rice with tofu, fermented cabbage and fish soup. ...

USA. Popcorn chicken with ketchup, mashed potato, green peas, a fruit cup and a chocolate chip cookie.

Why fast food should not be allowed in schools?

When junk foods are available in schools, then it exposes children to products that are highly habit forming. ... With the higher levels of fat, salt, and sugar these foods contain, their unique taste can make it difficult for children to resist eating more of them than they should.

The first modern equivalent of numeral zero comes from a Hindu astronomer and mathematician Brahmagupta in 628. His symbol to depict the numeral was a dot underneath a number.

Who created Achieve 3000?

Saki Dodelson is the Founder of Achieve3000, the leader in differentiated instruction, and was CEO since its inception until she resigned in 2018.

Why is school 5 days a week?

Compared to a 6 day week, you can say that a 5 day week keeps students fresher and more motivated to learn. Because they have two days off each week they do not get so bored of school. They have some time off to relax and become motivated again to go to school.

Why is cafeteria bad for food?

Any type of fruit or dairy or meat can go bad, quickly and unnoticeably. Sour foods can lead to sickness just as much as stomach cramps but its so much of a problem, kids go home from school. The saturated fats in food in the cafs lead to clogging that eventually lead to heart disease.

Pizza can help you absorb the antioxidant Lycopene. Lycopene is found in tomatoes, which are used to make the base sauce for pizzas. Lycopene helps to lower blood pressure and bring down high cholesterol. It's also more easily absorbed from cooked tomatoes as opposed to fresh tomatoes.

What is school lunch made of?

What we found: The vast majority (94%) of school lunch entrées offered in California feature animal protein and 16% of entrées contain processed meat, while just 4% of entrées are plant-based.

Can a teacher deny bathroom?

It is not illegal for a teacher to "not allow" a student to use the restroom. A teacher must manage students and their learning and more than not a student can wait for the appropriate time for a restroom break.

Can schools deny students at lunch?

Schools serve students a meal that meets U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines regardless of whether the student has money to pay or owes money. Schools may not throw away a meal after it has been served to a student because the student does not have the money to pay or owes money.

How much is student lunch debt?

These Photos Show Just How Bad School Lunches Really Are in the U.S.

Related Searches

bad facts about school lunches
school lunch controversy
are school lunches healthy
percentage of students who don't like school lunch
unhealthy school lunches causing obesity
unhealthy school lunches statistics
michelle obama school lunch
american school dinners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why Are School Lunches So Bad?According to a 2008 study published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, diets with high levels of saturated fats may impair learning and memory. Many foods commonly served during school lunch, such as French fries, cheeseburgers, and chicken nuggets, are loaded with satura

# data[].attributes.body
Manuel Urbalejo
https://askinglot.com/is-fast-food-healthier-than-school-food

Fast food meat is safer than school lunches. Fast food is notorious for its high calories and fat content; however, a new study has found the meat served by restaurant chains, such as McDonald's, is actually safer than the hamburgers served in school lunches.
It's crazy how fast food restaurants are even much safer than school lunches. How are the students able to grow healthy if they continue to give us this nasty food. I think we should be able get fast food while we are in school. We have freedom to eat whatever we want. If they change this, the school is just going to loss a lot of money for student not eating school lunches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal government has a variety of rules and regulations that apply to school lunches. These mandates are designed to make sure that healthy lunches are available in school, but in reality, what ends up on a child's plate isn't always nutritious. A junk meal or two won't have a permanent impact on a child, but eating unhealthy lunches for years can take a seriously negative toll on both mental and physical health.

Lunch Standards

In early 2012, the U.S. government updated the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Changes included counting fruits and vegetables as separate meal groups, offering fruit every day, making half of grain choices whole grains, giving different grades different meal sizes and reducing sodium and trans fat in meals. However, not all schools implement the NSLP and not all students eat the healthier choices schools do provide.

Obesity and Other Weight Issues

One major risk of unhealthy school lunches is a contribution to obesity and other weight problems in children across the nation. According to the Weight-Control Information Network, about a third of kids and adolescents in the United States are overweight or obese. Even if the government regulates the number of calories a child's school lunch has, as it does with the NSLP, many schools allow children to purchase a la carte foods on top of the lunch that are calorie-rich and high in fat, sodium, sugar or all three.

Physical Effects

Effects of poor nutrition from school lunches go beyond weight gain. A child who eats too much fat, sugar, sodium or processed food and too few vitamins and minerals is likely to develop a higher risk over time for several chronic health problems. These might include diabetes, kidney stones, bone loss, cancer and heart disease. Active kids who need more calories than the federal limits are also at risk, and may end up feeling weak, fatigued or nauseous during sports and exercise.

Mental Effects

Proper nutrition is also tied to better academic performance, so kids who eat unhealthy lunches are more likely to score lower on tests and have a harder time with schoolwork. There are long-term effects as well. According to a 2012 article written by registered dietitian Timi Gustafson, not getting enough essential nutrients at meals may lower kids' IQ scores, memory capacities, fine motor skills, social skills and languages skills into early adulthood and beyond. A child's poor dietary habits can even influence his sleep patterns, which may have an effect on cognitive behaviors and academic abilities. According to the results of a research review published in 2004 in the "British Journal of Nutrition," children who are micronutrient-deficient may exhibit more aggressiveness, less mental endurance and lower intelligence test scores.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Children Eating Unhealthy School Lunches | Livestrong.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal government has a variety of rules and regulations that apply to school lunches. These mandates are designed to make sure that healthy lunches are available in school, but in reality, what ends up on a child's plate isn't always nutritious.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The massive sorting floor at the Republic Services recycling facility in Milpitas, which processes up to 1,000 tons of household recyclables each day. (Monica Lam/KQED)

California dumps more than 12,000 tons of plastic into landfills every day - enough to fill 219 Olympic-size swimming pools, according to CalRecycle, the state's recycling and waste management agency. The state boasts one of the highest recycling rates in the country, especially of cans and bottles, but despite decades of investment in infrastructure and machinery, the system remains overwhelmed by plastic.

A trip to a recycling processing center helps explain why.

"Even with our super-duper Democratic majority and consistently two-thirds of Californians saying this is a huge problem that needs to get addressed, we have really struggled to get enough votes," said Jennifer Fearing, an environmental lobbyist who helped promote AB 1371.

More incremental efforts to reduce plastic waste, however, have proved fruitful, including a "Truth in Labeling" bill, approved by lawmakers last year, which prohibits manufacturers from calling their products recyclable or using recycling symbols or other suggestions of recyclability unless they meet CalRecycle's criteria. The agency has until Jan. 1, 2024, to formalize a list of products it deems recyclable.

Tim Shestek, the American Chemistry Council's senior director of state affairs, said his organization opposed SB 54 and several other bills last year because they failed to recognize why so many businesses use plastic over other materials in the first place: its durability and value.

"One of the reasons that plastic in drinking water has received recent attention, especially by California's legislators, is that we know that the amount is increasing," said Scott Coffin, a senior scientist with the state water board. "Additionally, plastic never goes away. So these two factors, they necessitate some concern."

Coffin's team is tasked with eventually establishing safety thresholds for the level of microplastics in the state's water supply. He estimates that there are more than 2,400 chemicals commonly added to plastic that are potentially dangerous for human health, including known toxins like bisphenol A (commonly known as BPA), phthalates, and a class of flame retardants called PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

An increasing number of studies draw a connection between the production of plastic and climate change. One report from a Vermont-based environmental group found that "as of 2020, the U.S. plastics industry is responsible for at least 232 million tons of CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalent] gas emissions per year. This amount is equivalent to the average emissions from 116 average-sized [500-megawatt] coal-fired power plants."

At Fillgood's small storefront in Berkeley, customers can refill their own containers with common household products like dish detergent and shampoo, while LimeLoop, another Bay Area-based start-up, makes reusable packaging for shipping - among the growing number of novel business ventures offering alternatives to plastic.

This fall, Californians will get to weigh in directly on just how much the state should regulate and limit plastic production and consumption. The California Plastic Waste Reduction Regulations Initiative, which has qualified for the statewide ballot in November, would not only push through some of the efforts legislators failed to pass last year, but also levy a $0.01 fee - which critics call a tax - on all plastic packaging and disposable food service items.

The ACC's Shestek said the ballot measure is "flawed" and hopes instead to work directly with lawmakers "to hash something out that gets to the same objective, but in a fashion that isn't so punitive."

But Allen, the state lawmaker, sees the initiative as a good opportunity to advance his SB 54 legislation, banning single-use plastic products that aren't recyclable or compostable. He's confident, he said, the business community will work with him to avoid the costly political hurdle of winning a statewide vote. He's already moved the bill out of the inactive file and back to the Senate floor to be considered during the 2022 legislative session.

"The ballot measure polls very well. It's very popular," Allen said. "And while it's true [that] industry could raise a lot of money and try to defeat it, I think there's also going to be some serious money raised on the environmental side. It could really be a knock-down-drag-out fight at the end of the day."
KQED's Crystal Consaul and Kat Shok contributed to this story. Want more? Check out our half-hour documentary on this topic, California's Plastic Problem. Are you a teacher? Here's more about Jacqueline Omania's curriculum.
New opportunities

Entrepreneurs have been tapping into growing public awareness about plastic waste. Dispatch Goods, a San Francisco-based start-up, is partnering with local restaurants, like Zuni Cafe and Mixt, to provide reusable takeout containers made of stainless steel. Customers must pay extra for the service, which includes picking up the used containers from their homes, but many do it willingly because it alleviates "eco-guilt," said company CEO Lindsey Hoell.

It's like an "avocado upcharge," she said.

"We have data showing that we're driving business to restaurants that are making that shift," she added. "It's not just a sustainability decision, but it's a good business decision."

"You can think of plastic as a carrier for other chemicals, and in many ways, it's like a sponge," Coffin said. "Once it's in the environment, it can pick up all of the other pollutants that are already there."

Some microplastics are even small enough to enter into our cells, he noted. One German study found microplastics in the placentas of pregnant women - on both the maternal and fetal side.

"The smaller the particle, the deeper it's going to make it into our bodies, and the more likely it is to interact with our cells, causing toxicity," Coffin said.

One major study published in 2019 by the San Francisco Estuary Institute found microplastics throughout the San Francisco Bay - in the water, the mud, and both stormwater runoff and treated wastewater. The study's authors concluded that the bay likely has higher levels of microplastic pollution than most major water bodies in the United States because it's surrounded by dense, urban areas and has a relatively restricted water flow. The two most common particles found were fibers from clothing and bits from tires.

"We found microplastics in just about every sample we collected," said Rebecca Sutton, who led the three-year study. "This is pretty consistent with what you see all around the world. Pretty much everywhere you look for it, you are going to find microplastics."

Coffin echoed that sentiment.

"I think a better question would be, where have microplastics not been found?" he said. "We've found them from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench. Every organism that we've ever looked at, we've found some levels, and at this point, I'm not sure that there exists a place that is not impacted by plastic pollution."

The climate change impact

With that grim assessment in mind, the students in Jacqueline Omania's fifth grade class at Oxford Elementary in Berkeley have set themselves an ambitious goal: to make so little trash over the course of the school year that the entire class's garbage fits into a tiny little container about the size of a jam jar.

"The larger issue is that these youth are growing up in a climate crisis," said Omania.

The main type of trash that ends up in the class's container is plastic, so for starters, every student brings a reusable cutlery kit to school to use while eating lunch. Inside the classroom, they use unpainted pencils so that the shavings can be composted. Birthday parties feature home-baked treats instead of anything that comes in a plastic wrapper.

Omania's students were part of a successful campaign to pass a citywide ordinance in 2019 limiting single-use plastics in Berkeley restaurants. Her students even showed city councilmembers the tiny container they were using as a garbage can.

"I believe the adults need to step up so we don't make the environmental waste in the first place," Oxford student Jae Marie Howard told a crowded council meeting on the night the ordinance was approved.

More recently, Omania's students helped successfully push the Berkeley Unified School District to include climate literacy in the K-12 curriculum.

"Does it go too far? Does it provide opportunities for the business community to comply in a reasonable fashion?" Shestek said. "In our view, it didn't take into account some of the other trade-offs that we like to discuss: lightweighting, fuel efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions associated with potential alternatives."

Still, Shestek acknowledged that more can be done to cut down on plastic waste. His group, for example, has set goals for its members to produce 100% recyclable plastic packaging containing at least 30% recycled plastic by 2030.

"Our focus is trying to get that circular loop completely closed and to be part of the solution," he said. "I think we recognize that we have a role to play."

Microplastics and human health

Since plastic was first invented in the mid-1800s, worldwide production has grown to an estimated 400 million tons annually. In the U.S., less than 9% of plastic gets recycled, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Meanwhile, the production of plastic, which is made from petroleum and natural gas, is projected to increase as the fossil-fuel industry faces competition from alternative energy sources. Dozens of plastic plants are currently being built or planned, most of them on the Gulf Coast and in the Ohio River Valley.

While a fair bit of attention has been paid to the impact of plastic pollution on marine animals, who often ingest it, research on human health has only recently started to ramp up. In 2018, California legislators directed the State Water Resources Control Board to start studying levels of microplastics - plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters - detected in municipal drinking water supplies. Some microplastics, like those used in adhesives or paints, are manufactured at a small size, while some are generated when larger pieces of plastic degrade over time.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, last year shelved SB 54, his bill to ban all single-use plastic products that aren't recyclable or compostable - opting to buy more time to work out details with various stakeholders, in the face of formidable industry opposition.

'Deeply outgunned'

The list of trade groups that weighed in against the bill underscores the depth of plastic's reach within multiple industries. During an early hearing on SB 54, associations representing farming and agriculture, pet food, personal care, household products and restaurants voiced their opposition - in addition to the Plastics Industry Association, the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment, and the Flexible Packaging Association.

"I can't tell you and point to a particular member of the Legislature who's been 'bought,'" said Fearing. "But I can tell you, we are deeply outgunned on the environmental front."

Inside one of Republic Services' massive facilities in Milpitas, an impressive array of high-tech machines sort through tons of material from residents' recycling bins, separating metal from plastic from paper. Some of the machines use magnets, eddy currents or puffs of air blown through hundreds of nozzles to sort the materials; others identify different kinds of plastic with optical scanners. Whizzing conveyor belts ferry it all from one machine to the next, until the recyclables are sorted, baled, and eventually shipped and sold.

Not all plastic is created equal

One of plastic recycling's success stories is HDPE, or high-density polyethylene, the translucent plastic commonly used in milk jugs, shampoo bottles and cutting boards.

"In today's marketplace, this is the most valuable commodity that we produce at this location," said Pete Keller, the company's vice president of sustainability. "These materials are non-pigmented, so any downstream consumer of this material could turn it into any color they want to."

HDPE is currently fetching a price of $1 per pound, or over $2,000 per ton, according to Keller. "I wish we had more of it," he said.

That price is partially driven by demand resulting from so-called sustainability commitments major manufacturers have made to use recycled plastic. Naked Juice, for instance, makes its juice bottles from 100% post-consumer recycled plastic, while Danone has pledged to make all of its evian water bottles from 100% recycled plastic by 2025.

In a push to boost demand for plastic that is recycled, like HDPE, California lawmakers in 2020 passed a "minimum recycled content" bill. Assembly Bill 793, which went into effect on Jan. 1, mandates that most plastic beverage bottles contain a minimum amount of recycled content. Specifically, all plastic bottles that can be redeemed for $0.05 or $0.10 must contain no less than:

15% recycled plastic starting Jan. 1, 2022

25% recycled plastic starting Jan. 1, 2025

50% recycled plastic starting Jan. 1, 2030

The law, one of the first of its kind in the nation, is targeted at bottle manufacturers, most of whom still use new plastic - or "virgin resin" - which is typically cheaper than recycled plastic.

In addition to HDPE, PET plastic, or polyethylene terephthalate, can be recycled into clamshells - the clear boxes that strawberries are often packed in - or spun into polyester for clothing. Some denser plastics can also be recycled into pipes, plastic lumber, carpets or buckets.

But current recycling markets only accept a fraction of the plastic that's marked with the three-arrow recycling symbol. Until a few years ago, this problem was largely concealed because the U.S. shipped most of its plastic waste to China, where it was ostensibly being recycled. But in 2018, citing its own environmental concerns, China began banning imports of most solid materials, including most plastics.

That's forcing domestic recyclers to confront the real challenges of recycling plastic. For one, plastic comes in a myriad of chemical formulations, densities, transparencies and colors. Many products are made of mixed materials: a bottle of hand soap, for example, might contain four different kinds of plastic, plus a metal spring nestled inside the pump.

Even if there were markets for all these different kinds of plastic, sorting and separating them would be a gargantuan task.

"There's just so many types of plastic. We can't recycle them all. We can't manage them all," said Robert Reed, public relations manager for Recology, which handles San Francisco's waste and recycling. "You can't recycle your way out of the larger plastic problem."

So most plastic - in fact, almost all of it - ends up in landfills: plastic forks and knives, coffee cups and takeout boxes, used cosmetics, styrofoam trays, and most kinds of plastic bags, from shopping bags to those used for frozen peas.

Legislative efforts bogged down

San Francisco Democratic Assemblymember Phil Ting, who introduced AB 793, has tried to expand the law's reach by proposing a similar bill requiring the recycling of thermoform plastic, a group of plastics formed using heat. That legislation, however, got bogged down last year over concerns that infrastructure wasn't yet in place to accommodate an additional plastic recycling mandate.

In fact, many of the more ambitious plastic recycling-related bills floated last year didn't survive, including AB 1371, introduced by state Assemblymember Laura Friedman, D-Burbank, which would have banned the use of plastic packaging for online purchases. The bill failed to receive the 41 votes necessary to make it out of the Assembly.

"Globally, the e-commerce industry uses nearly 2.1 billion, with a 'B,' pounds of plastic packaging. ... With almost a third of the world's population now buying online, the amount of plastic packaging generated is estimated to double by 2025," Friedman told the Assembly Natural Resources Committee last April. "This is low-hanging fruit, members, and something that is really, really a scourge."

'I can't tell you and point to a particular member of the Legislature who's been 'bought,' but I can tell you, we are deeply outgunned on the environmental front.' Jennifer Fearing, president, Fearless Advocacy

'I think a better question would be, where have microplastics not been found? We've found them from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench. ... I'm not sure that there exists a place that is not impacted by plastic pollution.' Scott Coffin, senior scientist, California State Water Resources Control Board

'The larger issue is that these youth are growing up in a climate crisis.' Jacqueline Omania, teacher, Oxford Elementary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'You Can't Recycle Your Way Out': California's Plastic Problem and What We Can Do About It | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The massive sorting floor at the Republic Services recycling facility in Milpitas, which processes up to 1,000 tons of household recyclables each day. (Monica Lam/KQED) California dumps more than 12,000 tons of plastic into landfills every day - enough to fill 219 Olympic-size swimming pools, according to CalRecycle, the state's recycling and waste management agency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Increase access to mental health resources in schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Increase access to mental health resources in schools

# data[].attributes.body
"By supporting students who are experiencing mental health challenges, schools can help foster a sense of safety and promote better academic and behavioral outcomes." - Kattya Canseco

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Make schools safer by improving access to mental health services. Students often come to school with complex physical and mental health concerns or social service needs. Access to mental health services helps to create a positive school climate, prevents worsening of mental health conditions, and leads to better outcomes for students.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows how horrific things can be when our water sources are destroyed by our own neglect and awareness. -Alexis Luu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Pollution: Everything You Need to Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our rivers, reservoirs, lakes, and seas are drowning in chemicals, waste, plastic, and other pollutants. Here’s why―and what you can do to help.

# data[].attributes.body
The article lists the states from highest to lowest homeless population in 2022. - Jocelyn Oxlaj

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the United States, there are over half a million people experiencing homelessness. These individuals live in a temporary shelter or transitional housing or sleep in a place not meant for habitation (like an abandoned building). The top four causes of homelessness, in order, are: lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, and low wages.

Overall, 66.7% of the total homeless population of the United States is single individuals, with the remaining 33.3% being families. In recent years, homelessness increased nationally by almost one percent. This number comprises unaccompanied children and young adults, single adults experiencing chronic homelessness, and people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Some populations have seen a decrease in homelessness. Dramatic reductions are amongst families and the veteran community.

The state of California currently has the highest homeless population, with about 151,278 homeless people. This is about one-fifth of the total homeless population in the United States. This figure is attributed to issues with providing affordable and adequate housing opportunities, current drug laws, and the inaccessibility of important mental health resources.

Another alarming statistic comes from New York City. In recent years, homelessness in this city reached the highest levels since the Great Depression in the 1930s, reaching its highest point under Mayor Bill de Blasio. However, this year saw the second year in the decline of the homeless or unsheltered population, attributed to the creation of safe havens, or specialized shelters, that have a streamlined process of getting people into permanent housing. As of May 2020, there were 59,308 homeless people in NYC.

The state with the lowest percentage of the homeless population is experiencing an increase as well. Due to an oil and gas boom, North Dakota now has the fastest-growing economy. With this comes a rush of people coming to the state for work, but surging housing prices has made it difficult to find a home. For a state-by-state look at homeless statistics, take a look at the table below. Data from this table was retrieved from the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nuclear energy is the best source of energy.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nuclear energy is the best source of energy.

# data[].attributes.body
Compared to other available sources of producing energy, Nuclear power plants happen to be the most reliable with the least amount of backlash. - Derek Moran-Berbaez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years).

Natural gas and coal capacity factors are generally lower due to routine maintenance and/or refueling at these facilities.

Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (i.e. wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale)-or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). Natural gas and coal capacity factors are generally lower due to routine maintenance and/or refueling at these facilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
More trash bins in southern California  

# data[].attributes.subject
More trash bins in southern California  

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ecubelabs.com/why-are-there-so-few-trash-bins-in-major-cities/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You're walking on the streets of a busy city and you've just finished your cup of take-out coffee. You want to rid your hand of the trash, so naturally you look for where you can throw it. Although you certainly can and will find street side bins, too often you have to walk awhile to see one, or worse yet, have to keep holding onto it until you've entered a building that has a trash bin.

Why is it so difficult to find bins on the streets of major cities? To give you some exact figures, the city of London (not the whole metropolis, but the Square Mile) has 46 bins in its 2.90 km ² area (or in its 'square mile'). That's about 15 bins per square kilometer. Let's look at some figures over larger areas: the city of Los Angeles, which had over 6000 bins at one point, maintained only about 1000 street bins in an area of 1213.8 km ² (less than 1 bin per square kilometer) in 2015. It was one of Mayor Garcetti's platforms to make that number 5000, a goal towards which the city is making steady progress. The city of Seoul had 6940 bins in an area of 605.21 km ² (just shy of 11 bins per square kilometer) and recently, in November 2019, hosted a discussion and debate session with 100 individuals including citizens, environment and sanitation experts, and city officials on the issue of trash bins. The decision to increase or decrease the number was on the agenda, especially since the initial attempt to reduce trash bins (7607 in 1995 to 3707 in 2007) eventually resulted in the gradual reinstalling of bins over a period of the decade, bringing the numbers back to the original.

In the cases of Los Angeles and Seoul, why were trash bins removed in the first place only to be installed again? While many would welcome installation of bins on the street and do file complaints or requests asking for more bins, others are simultaneously filing complaints or requests asking for the very opposite - removal of existing bins. Perhaps there's a conflict of interests between those who walk around in cities and store owners who do not want to have overflowing trash bins in front of their stores. City management generally doesn't always welcome street bins either; although trash bins consolidate waste into one area, that causes problems such as illegal dumping, unpleasant sight, and vermin.

There's also a security issue. London, Tokyo, and Boston are some of the cities that have unfortunately experienced incidences of terrorism by bombs placed in public trash bins. Cities removed the bins after such tragedies and many have followed suit as a precautionary measure, although whether or not the bombs were placed in the bins is up to debate in some cases.

Prioritizing safety, some big cities decided to sacrifice pedestrians' convenience and reduced the number of street bins. However, over the past several years, some cities have been looking for an alternative solution that can satisfy both parties-pedestrians who want more street bins out of convenience and store owners who want less bins to keep their storefronts clean and neighborhoods safe. In the case of Baltimore, the city was looking for a smart bin that can reduce waste overflow by compacting the waste. Ecube Labs' CleanCUBE was just the right solution for the city.

The solar-powered bin has a patented x-frame drive compactor that compresses waste so it can hold up to 8 times the standard capacity. It also measures fill-level and sends that data to our software platform, where predictive analysis provides optimized collection times so collectors can make sure to collect before there is overflow. The street cleaners do not have to collect the garbage nearly as much as they used to, and yet they are able to eliminate waste overflow. Furthermore, a flap-opening hopper aperture prevents the entry of critters and can be locked remotely, allowing the city to prevent the placement of dangerous materials inside bins during public events. In the end, the city of Baltimore prevented waste overflow and protected the citizens' safety, without having to get rid of street bins.

With the push toward smart city initiatives, there is a vision for cities to be more convenient, clean, and safe. Street bins and public waste management play a crucial role in this vision. We hope to see more efficient waste management systems get implemented, such as smart street bins that made both pedestrians and store owners happy.

Clarification: London refers to the City of London

References:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why are there so few trash bins in major cities?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You're walking on the streets of a busy city and you've just finished your cup of take-out coffee. You want to rid your hand of the trash, so naturally you look for where you can throw it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As California burns, some ecologists say it’s time to rethink forest management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Logging and thinning trees isn’t stopping wildfires, ecologists say. Focusing on homes can help avert more tragedies like Paradise and Greenville.

# data[].attributes.headline
Three in Four Family Shelter Applications Rejected in 2021, Setting Record

# data[].attributes.subject
Three in Four Family Shelter Applications Rejected in 2021, Setting Record

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/1/30/22909663/family-shelter-applications-rejected

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three in four applications by families seeking homeless shelter got rejected last year - the most since the Department of Homeless Services started disclosing numbers a decade ago.

Families and shelter providers describe an arduous eligibility review process that became even more unnavigable during the pandemic. The state's public assistance agency is seeing a surge in families appealing their rejections - and a record number of cases reversing DHS decisions, ordering the city to provide families with shelter or reevaluate applications.

"The city has made it virtually impossible to get into a family shelter," said Craig Hughes, a senior social worker at the Urban Justice Center's Safety Net Project.

It took seven attempts for Ms. D and her family to get approved for shelter, which only happened after a lawyer got involved, she told THE CITY.

Ms. D, her fiancé and their 1-year-old daughter had their application repeatedly rejected starting in July because DHS investigators concluded that the family still had housing options available and could return to their previous residence - the home of her soon-to-be mother-in-law, who had already demanded they leave.

"We told them numerous times that the person don't want us here. The person kicked us out and there were threats involved," said Ms. D, 27, who asked to remain anonymous. "And they still denied us."

PATH to Holding Pattern

Like thousands of other families from all five boroughs, the Manhattan couple and their daughter made their way to the Department of Homeless Services' Prevention Assistance and Temporary Housing (PATH) intake center on 151st Street in The Bronx, where families obtain an emergency placement while their applications are investigated.

From a pool averaging about 2,000 applications a month from families seeking shelter in 2021, just 24% were accepted, according to DHS figures.

After years of hovering between 40% and 50%, the share of applications accepted began to decline during the pandemic, with 34% admitted in an average month during 2020, down from 40% two years ago.

The shelter acceptance rate plummeted even as the number of applications declined with the help of New York's eviction moratorium, THE CITY's analysis of Department of Homeless Services data shows.

DHS staff - with the job title of "fraud investigator" - demand family shelter applicants provide a two-year history of recent housing situations, along with emergency contacts. The investigators then decide, within 10 days of the family being placed in a temporary shelter, whether they have a place other than a homeless shelter where they can live.

Prior to the pandemic, when a family was rejected they had to gather their belongings and return to PATH to begin the process again. But pandemic-era changes allow families to reapply remotely from their temporary shelter.

Ms. D had reapplied over and over again from the Queens shelter where she and her family had been living when, in a stroke of luck, she connected with a social worker during a pediatric visit who told her that she could receive free legal assistance to help make her case to DHS.

With help from a lawyer from the New York Legal Assistance Group, the family was finally approved in October.

"That's the only way you're going to get out of that shelter. If you don't have anybody, they're going to make it hard for you. They're going to make it really hard," Ms. D said.

DHS did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The wave of rejections coincides with a drop in the number of families in homeless shelters.

Asked by Gothamist a year ago as acceptance rates began to plummet, then-Social Services Commissioner Steve Banks pointed to the pandemic pause on requiring families to leave and head back to PATH with their kids before trying again.

"The eligibility rate reflects the fact that individuals who are in the shelter system and not being asked to leave are continuing to reapply," he said.

Overturned on Appeal

New York City is legally required to provide shelter to all families with children as dictated by the judgment in a landmark 2008 case that ensured their right to shelter.

Banks, with the Legal Aid Society at the time, was the lead attorney who filed the suit against the city.

Kathryn Kliff, a Legal Aid attorney monitoring that case, said that the eviction moratorium has, in some cases, made it harder for applicants to prove they have nowhere else to go. At the same time, pulling together the necessary paper trail has not become easier.

"The families that we speak to, they're really struggling to provide the documents PATH needs. It's especially difficult to get some of those things during the pandemic," Kliff said.

Judge Jacqueline Silbermann in her decision warned New York City never to reject families solely "because of the non-cooperation of third parties" or "based on their inability to provide requested documentation where the family has otherwise cooperated with the investigation."

Former Mayor Bill de Blasio promised in his 2013 campaign to "reform unfair and overly punitive eligibility review rules that deny shelter to too many needy families." New state rules opened the door wider in 2015, allowing refusals by friends and relatives to house them as proof that a family needed shelter.

For a time, as many as 61% of applicants prevailed, helping drive a record number of families into shelter. But in 2016, at the city's request, the state gave the city more leeway to reject applications and put the burden of proof on families. Acceptance rates started dropping.

Appeals decisions from hearing officers at the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance show myriad reasons why DHS staff say they're rejecting families.

Often, it's because investigators can't verify their place of residence, sometimes rejecting applications because of a gap of mere days in documentation.

Missing shelter records, illegible letters and difficulties reaching relatives and friends to confirm the applicants lived with them also show up frequently as reasons.

The state heard 1,389 "temporary housing assistance" appeals last year - 470 more than in 2020 and nearly triple the number in 2019. The hearings are now being conducted by phone as a pandemic measure, which Kliff said has made the formerly in-person appeals process more accessible to more people.

In 523 of the hearings in 2021 - 38% of the cases - the court ruled DHS decisions "not correct" and ordered the department to admit families to shelter. The rate of reversals in 2021 was nearly double the rate in previous years, dating back to 2012.

"The documentation standards can be very challenging for people who maybe didn't have a formal lease," said said Jacquelyn Simone, a policy director at Coalition for the Homeless. "So many people who enter shelters, prior to entering shelters, they might have been doubled up or couch surfing."

The reversed cases show technicalities or DHS missteps can kill an application.

In July, a couple in their mid-20s with a 3-month old child had their application denied because the Department of Homeless Services was unable to verify where the family had been residing for six days in July and for a month and a half in the fall of 2020, despite a letter from her aunt confirming they had been staying with her and a letter from a case manager stating that the family had been residing in a DHS shelter in July.

The applicant was told that her aunt's letter was "too dark and illegible." When investigators spoke with the aunt, she confirmed that the family stayed with her - prompting the state to order DHS to reevaluate the application.

The state ordered DHS to provide shelter to a 45-year-old father, who had been living on the No. 4 train, utilizing public restrooms to wash up and panhandling to earn enough money for food. The man told an investigator that he had no way of proving his residence.

While he and his 13-year-old son had been staying at a city shelter since September of last year, city officials declared they couldn't verify the family's residence for the bulk of November.

The man testified that he did not understand "why the agency did not acknowledge that he is residing there."

And applicants who were kicked out of a prior residence can't necessarily count on their hosts to cooperate with investigators.

Another father and his 17-year-old daughter were turned away on Christmas Day, after getting into a fight with the work friend they'd been staying with - and she "declined to cooperate" with the investigation.

The 41-year-old applicant testified that "he and his friend had gotten into a fight and that is why he left her apartment and that she is not going to answer the phone for DHS since she is still mad at him."

In yet another case reversed by the state, a mother with two children attested that her former host would be likely to call the cops if she tried to move back into the home DHS demanded she return to, also putting her on the radar of child welfare authorities.

In these three cases and many more, DHS did not send a representative to the hearing to defend its reasoning for the rejections.

Advocates for homeless families say the system puts an unfair burden on applicants.

"It's not the client's fault. The third party has no obligation to pick up the phone. And so often, they're calling people who are at work during the day over and over again," said Deborah Berkman, an attorney with the New York Legal Assistance Group.

Try, Try Again

Shelter providers say they are also noticing an increasing number of families who have to apply more than once before they are deemed eligible - an observation borne out in the numbers.

In November, 515 families were accepted for shelter out of 2,292 applicants. Of the ones found eligible, 62% had to apply more than once before the DHS found them eligible, while 31% had to submit more than three applications.

A year earlier, 53% of the accepted families had submitted more than one application.

Although reapplying does allow families to extend their temporary shelter stays, it also prolongs instability for children and their parents, who cannot access aid to obtain permanent housing. Homeless advocates say it doesn't bring any stability to the children or their parents.

In a report last year recommending reforms, the shelter provider WIN described the shelter eligibility review as "traumatic."

WIN CEO Christine Quinn, a former City Council speaker, said families repeatedly go through the PATH intake system "because they have no other option."

"This is taking people who have been in trauma and making them go through more trauma. And by denying them shelter, you are putting the children through even more trauma, which is just unconscionable," Quinn said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three in Four Family Shelter Applications Rejected in 2021, Setting Record

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three in four applications by families seeking homeless shelter got rejected last year - the most since the Department of Homeless Services started disclosing numbers a decade ago. Families and shelter providers describe an arduous eligibility review process that became even more unnavigable during the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Not Satisfied With Quality Of School Lunches 

# data[].attributes.subject
Not Satisfied With Quality Of School Lunches 

# data[].attributes.body
Schools around the country are facing problems with school lunches thanks to supply chain and labor shortages caused by the pandemic. Causing lunches to be either repetitive or "incomplete" due to the lack of actual foods thereof. - Rhomaelyn Eleazar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS New York

BRENTWOOD, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) -- Parents in a Long Island school district are upset about what their kids are getting served for lunch, and they may not be alone.

Schools around the country are facing problems with school lunches thanks to supply chain and labor shortages caused by the pandemic.

An egg sandwich with a side of one fry was posted online with the caption, "So this is my high school lunch today." Another photo sent with a text read, "This is our breakfast."

Parents on the receiving end of pictures like these aren't satisfied.

One mother, who wanted to remain anonymous, shared her concerns with CBS2's Jenna DeAngelis.

" Brentwood, do better," she said. "That's not a lunch. These kids go to school from 7 a.m. sometimes 'til 2, 3 o'clock in the afternoon. If this is all they're getting to eat, how are they supposed to be productive?"

As another parent points out, many kids rely on school meals.

"We are fortunate enough to be able to send our kids to school with a lunch from home, but there's a lot of people in this community that can't do that, and their kids are either forced to either eat the food or wait 'til they get home," Jon Bruzzi said.

Brentwood Superintendent Richard Loeschner says the district is having trouble getting certain foods and items thanks to a supply chain problem created by the pandemic.

"We're having some difficulty getting some meats in. Orders get canceled literally the night before. Sometimes we're expecting a larger shipment and their truck pulls up and there's only one box," he said.

He outlined those issues in a letter to the community regarding the free meals, explaining they meet nutrition guidelines set by the USDA to feed the 19,000 students the district serves.

Loeschner added, "I'm extremely proud of our food service workers. We have 19 kitchens and last year during the pandemic, we served about 60-90,000 meals a week to the Brentwood, Central Islip, Bayshore communities."

"I think they're just passing the buck," the anonymous parent said. "This has been an ongoing issue."

Parents shared pictures of expired food and tough toast served to students in years past.

"My concerns are that all of this is being ignored. Parents are constantly complaining," Bruzzi said.

The superintendent says he meets with parents and listens to student input and the district is working on improving its special grab-and-go program some high school students are enrolled in.

"Unfortunately, there are some mistakes along the way, but nothing that we don't address, nothing that we don't take seriously and nothing that we won't solve in the very near future," Loeschner said.

"I hope that they fix the menu, I hope they give our children the proper nutritious food they deserve," the anonymous parent said.

These parents will believe it when they see it on their kids' plates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Brentwood, Do Better': Some Long Island Parents Not Satisfied With Quality Of School Lunches Being Served To Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBS New York BRENTWOOD, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) -- Parents in a Long Island school district are upset about what their kids are getting served for lunch, and they may not be alone. Schools around the country are facing problems with school lunches thanks to supply chain and labor shortages caused by the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
hen California shut down in March 2020, advocates for unhoused people thought the state might finally be forced to solve its homelessness crisis. To slow the spread of Covid, they hoped, officials would have to provide people living outside with stable and private shelter and housing.

But in the two years since, California's humanitarian catastrophe has worsened: deaths of people on the streets are rising; college students are living in their cars; more elderly residents are becoming unhoused; encampment communities are growing at beaches, parks, highway underpasses, lots and sidewalks.

California has the fifth largest economy in the world, a budget surplus, the most billionaires in the US and some of the nation's wealthiest neighborhoods. Yet the riches of the Golden State have not yielded solutions that match the scale of the crisis that's been raging for decades. Pandemic-era programs have had some success for a slice of the unhoused population, but many measures have fallen short.

Meanwhile, homelessness has become the top issue in political races. Polls in Los Angeles, which is home to 40% of the state's unhoused population, suggest that a majority of voters want their governments to act faster, and that residents are angered by the immense human suffering caused by a seemingly intractable crisis. ​​

Unhoused and unequal: a California crisis. The pandemic brought money, political will and public support to tackle California's longstanding homelessness crisis. Instead, things got worse. In a new series, the Guardian's west coast team reports from across the state, exploring what it would take to address a seemingly intractable problem

In response, governments across the state are increasingly cracking down on people sleeping outside. Out of the 20 largest cities in California, the majority have either passed or proposed new laws banning camping in certain places or have ramped up encampment sweeps. LA and Oakland passed laws meant to prohibit camping in certain zones; San Francisco's mayor has pushed for a police crackdown on unhoused people using drugs in the Tenderloin neighborhood; Fresno adopted a law to fine people up to $250 for entering certain restricted areas; and Modesto, Bakersfield and Riverside are pushing to expand the number of park rangers in an effort to enforce anti-camping rules and related restrictions.

Some unhoused people and civil rights activists warn that those escalating efforts to force people off the streets are only further hurting the most vulnerable.

"We have failed in so many respects," said Theo Henderson, a Los Angeles advocate for the unhoused, who was himself living outside until recently. "There are families with children living in automobiles. There are elderly and the infirm on the streets ... It's a dark time right now, and unhoused residents are very afraid."

'Unacceptable' numbers

In a new series that will be published over the next several months, Guardian US is examining California's homelessness crisis across the state.

While homelessness remains concentrated in major metro areas like Los Angeles, San Jose, the San Francisco Bay area and San Diego, communities from the north to the Mexico border are facing their own emergencies.

Bar chart showing the 31% increase in California's total unhoused population, largely driven by a 57% increase in those that are unsheltered, or living on the streets, since 2010.

California counted 161,548 unhoused people in the state in January 2020, the most recent count data available. The count is a "point in time" estimate that tallies people living on the street or in shelters. Since it's a rough snapshot of a single day, and doesn't account for people who are hidden from public view or are unhoused but couch-surfing that night, it is considered a significant undercount.

At least 113,660 of those counted were classified as "unsheltered", making California home to more than half of all people without shelter in America and the only state where more than 70% of the homeless population is unsheltered (by comparison, just 5% of New York's homeless population was unsheltered.

A treemap area chart that shows California has up over 50% of the US's unsheltered population.

The consequences of so many people living outside are severe and fatal. In 2015, the LA county coroner's office recorded 613 deaths of unhoused people. That number has steadily climbed each year, rising to 1,609 fatalities in 2021, a spokesperson said. Those figures are an undercount, because the coroner only tracks fatalities considered sudden, unusual or violent. A report by the University of California, Los Angeles last year estimated that overdoses were a leading cause of death of unhoused people during the pandemic.

Deaths of unhoused people in LA county up 160% since 2015. Bar chart showing the increase in LA county unhoused deaths from 2015 to 2021.

Data analyses have revealed other disturbing trends: one UCLA study estimated that at least 269,000 students from kindergarten to grade 12 in the state were experiencing homelessness before the pandemic; in LA county, Black residents were four times as likely to be unhoused; and also in LA, there was a 20% jump in the number of unhoused seniors, with nearly 5,000 elderly people living outside before Covid arrived.

"It's just not acceptable," said Wendy Carrillo, a state assemblymember who represents parts of LA and chairs a budget committee on homelessness. As a kid, she would pass by Skid Row and struggle to understand why so many people were forced to live outside, she said. The crisis has grown since: "We've become so disconnected as a society, so cold to the issue that people are OK with stepping over someone who is passed out on the floor."

A $14bn investment - and a crackdown on camping

California's catastrophe stems in part from a longstanding, statewide housing affordability crisis. Californians spend significantly more of their income on housing compared with the rest of the nation. More than 1.5 million renters spend half of their earnings on rent, leaving them potentially one medical emergency or crisis away from homelessness. In recent years, income inequality has only worsened.

UCLA research on the residents of one LA encampment found that people cited a range of factors that led them to become unhoused, including eviction, job loss, domestic violence, former incarceration, family conflict and low wages in gig economy jobs.

Responding to the crisis, California is pouring billions of dollars into housing and related services, but the success of new programs meant to expand affordable housing and emergency shelter has been mixed.

"One of the challenges of housing policy is that it's like turning around a giant ship. It's a slow process," said Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project. The state has made significant progress in recent years in investing in housing, he noted, but the benefits can sometimes take more than a decade to materialize.

There are also systemic and historical problems that housing programs can't solve, including the loss of social safety nets, the dissolution of redevelopment programs, and a controversial state tax measure passed in 1978 that has created significant obstacles for new home ownership, Roller said.

And some regions have invested more in temporary shelter programs than in permanent housing, making it hard for people to transition out of shelters, especially as the housing market worsens and as more people newly become unhoused, advocates said.

Emblematic of the challenges is California's signature homelessness response during the pandemic: Project Roomkey. The program temporarily provided motel rooms to an estimated 50,000 people living on the streets. But the program was administered at the local level and some counties fell short of their goals or failed to meet the demand in their regions; participants reported struggling to find housing after hotel stays ended and some returned to the streets because of the strict rules in the program, advocates said.

This year, the California governor, Gavin Newsom, is pushing a $14bn investment in homelessness solutions, meant to create 55,000 new housing units and treatment slots. His Homekey initiative, the successor to Project Roomkey, allows local governments to buy motels to use as temporary or permanent housing for unhoused people. As of last week, the state has awarded $695m for more than 2,400 units.

While the programs could be transformative for some participants, advocates worry their impact for many could come too late, especially with statewide eviction protections expiring at the end of the month and pandemic-era rent relief efforts winding down. Even with a partial eviction moratorium in place, sheriffs enforced lockouts of thousands of households in the first year of the pandemic, according to a CalMatters analysis.

"We are getting a lot of calls from tenants who are being evicted," said Jovana Morales-Tilgren, housing policy coordinator with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, a Central Valley-based organization. "A lot of undocumented folks don't have the resources to battle an eviction notice ... and then there are not enough shelters for the unhoused people."

Meanwhile, advocates warn, conditions for those living on the streets are only getting harder amid increasing restrictions on camping. A proposed state law would also allow courts to force some people with severe mental illness into treatment.

The crackdown on tent living and fear of possible forced treatment can lead people to scatter into more hidden locations where it can be harder for them to access services and get into programs, advocates say.

"Using law enforcement to respond to houselessness is both counterproductive and ineffective," said Eve Garrow, policy analyst and advocate at the ACLU of Southern California. The expansion of criminalization was overwhelming, Garrow said. "And people are experiencing compassion fatigue, and they want something done. Local public officials are responding with what they see as 'quick fixes' that aren't fixes at all and are completely misguided."

'I don't want to die on the streets'

People living on the streets or in temporary shelters waiting for housing said they were worried and exhausted by the increasingly hostile rhetoric of politicians and communities.

"Unhoused people are blamed for every social ill," said Henderson, who regularly talks to unhoused residents on his podcast. "There's an uptick in burglaries, and then the response is, 'Can we get the unhoused removed?' Every unhoused person has those stories - as soon as something happens, here comes the police looking at them as the prime suspect."

Kenneth Stallworth, who has been living in a group shelter since his Venice Beach encampment was shut down in a high-profile dispute last year, said he didn't mind the shelter and appreciated the electricity, but also noted that he had seen several people die or have health emergencies in the facility.

"The people are getting what they want," he said of his fellow Angelenos. "The homeless are getting moved away from areas where there were the most complaints."

Dawn Toftee, 57, was living at an encampment near the stadium where the Super Bowl was held in LA last month, until she was forced to leave in advance of the big game. Officials said the residents were offered housing, but a month later, Toftee is camping down the street - and is still waiting for a housing voucher that could subsidize a rental.

"I'm getting old and I don't want to die on the streets," she said, adding that she didn't think officials cared whether people like her got housing: "They just want us out of eyesight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'We have failed': how California's homelessness catastrophe is worsening

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new Guardian US series reports on a seemingly intractable crisis, and hears from those living on the edge in one of America's richest states

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.anaheim.net/4991/Addressing-Homelessness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anaheim's Community Care Response Team works seven days a week to provide pathways out of homelessness and address neighborhood complaints. You can contact the team at (714) 820-9090
or file a complaint at Anaheim.net/Anytime.

Click here for more on the Community Care Response Team.

Chrysalis is Anaheim's nonprofit partner offering employment and job training services to those living in homelessness in Anaheim and Orange County. Learn morehere.

You can see our fact sheet and all we're doing to transition people from homelessness and address impacts on our city here.

Click here to read Anaheim's homeless policy framework from 2017's Homeless Policy Working Group.

Click here to see a map of Anaheim areas where homeless shelters are allowed in accordance with California Senate Bill 2, a 2007 law seeking to streamline the process of opening emergency shelters.

You can help us address impacts to your business or property by having a trespassing letter on file with the Anaheim Police Department. A letter on file helps police enforce trespassing laws. You can find details here. You can submit a letter online here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Addressing Homelessness | Anaheim, CA - Official Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anaheim's Community Care Response Team works seven days a week to provide pathways out of homelessness and address neighborhood complaints. You can contact the team at (714) 820-9090 or file a complaint at Anaheim.net/Anytime. Click here for more on the Community Care Response Team.

# data[].attributes.headline
kidnappings and child safety after school

# data[].attributes.subject
kidnappings and child safety after school

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/01/anaheim-police-seek-help-in-finding-suspect-in-attempted-teen-abduction/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Students Are Saying About Improving School Lunch, ‘#Megxit’ and Emoji Fun. (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teenage comments in response to our recent writing prompts, and an invitation to join the ongoing conversation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conflict and Violence are all over the world right now

# data[].attributes.subject
Conflict and Violence are all over the world right now

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.un.org/en/un75/new-era-conflict-and-violence

# data[].attributes.body
https://thehill.com/regulation/3199743-federal-judge-rules-florida-voting-limits-had-intent-to-discriminate-against-black-voters/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal judge rules Florida voting limits had ‘intent to discriminate against Black voters’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal judge in Florida issued a forceful ruling Thursday that blocked parts of Florida’s controversial election law, finding that some of the GOP-crafted restrictions it contained were passed “…

# data[].attributes.body
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
This article talks about the causes, effects, and shows evidence on Climate Change negatively affecting our planet.
- David Cruz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Trajectory

Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound

The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions, and an increase in the wind intensity and rainfall from tropical cyclones. Credit: left - Mike McMillan/USFS, center - Tomas Castelazo / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0, right - NASA.

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth's climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

" The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change - modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

A Degree of Difference

So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?

Read more

The IPCC's Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900. The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

What's the difference between climate change and global warming?

"Global warming" refers to the long-term warming of the planet. "Climate change" encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet, including rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times.

detailed answer

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

" The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future." ²

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Future Effects in the U.S.

U.S. Regional Effects

U.S. Regional Effects

Climate change is bringing different types of challenges to each region of the country. Some of the current and future impacts are summarized below. These findings are from the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

detailed answer

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose increasing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Farmers can explore new crop options, but these adaptations are not cost- or risk-free. Moreover, adaptive capacity, which varies throughout the region, could be overwhelmed by a changing climate. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of peak flows in rivers and streams are reducing water supplies and worsening competing demands for water. Sea level rise, erosion, flooding, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire incidence and severity, heat waves, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread forest die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region's economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also worsen a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Climate change has caused increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks. In turn, these changes have made wildfires more numerous and severe. The warming climate has also caused a decline in water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and triggered heat-related health impacts in cities. In coastal areas, flooding and erosion are additional concerns.

References
References
Header image shows cracked mud stretches across sections of the Panamint Valley. Credit: NPS/Kurt Moses; A degree of concern thermometer image credit: Pixabay/geralt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
intergovernmental panel on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Long-term effects of global climate change in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edsource.org/updates/critical-race-theory-debate-takes-root-in-orange-county-schools
https://voiceofoc.org/2022/01/two-orange-county-schools-grapple-with-racism-and-battles-over-sexual-orientation/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Column: Racism in O.C. schools is nothing new — but it’s surprisingly diverse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Racism in Orange County high schools is nothing new — but who’s doing the hate now is.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ktvu.com/news/unintended-consequences-of-californias-litter-problem

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/why-is-housing-so-expensive-in-california/509-e463dd3f-4041-43b9-8983-4226caee88e2

https://lajolla.com/article/why-property-values-so-high-in-california/#:~:text=It%20is%20more%20expensive%20to,making%20it%20harder%20for%20developers.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.kqed.org/news/11666284/5-reasons-californias-housing-costs-are-so-high&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1649182887235170&usg=AOvVaw1kP3blQ_U575YwXBkuB1Rv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tenants and landlords are hurting, homelessness is skyrocketing and the housing market is out of control. The COVID-19 pandemic isn't the only reason for that, but it's making California's longstanding housing crisis even worse.

In 2021, nine out of ten Californians consider housing affordability a problem, and nearly one in three Californians are considering leaving the state because of it, according to a March survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

So how did things get so bad? Here's what you need to know about California's housing costs.

Just how hard is it to buy a home in California?

Hard. Really hard. Both compared to how difficult it is in other states, and how challenging it was for previous generations of Californians.

In the late 1960s, the average California home cost about three times the average household's income. Today, it costs more than seven times what the average household makes.

While it's always been more expensive to be a homeowner in California, the gap with the rest of the country has grown into a chasm. The median California home is priced nearly 2.5 times higher than the median national home, according to 2019 Census data.

The pandemic hasn't cooled the housing market, either. Demand has long exceeded supply of homes for sale in California, and that's especially true now. But while many families are suffering the economic impacts of COVID-19, wealthier households with money to spend and capitalizing on low interest rates have driven up prices even more. In September 2020, California's median home price reached $712,430 - a historic high.

Who owns their house?

Despite relatively low mortgage rates, however, exploding housing prices have caused California's overall homeownership rate to dip significantly. Just more than half of the state's households own their homes - the third lowest rate in the country and the lowest rate within the state since World War II.

And those homeowners skew significantly white. White Californians are twice as likely as Black Californians to own their home, according to 2019 Census data. The racial gap in homeownership has widened over the years, which also means Black Californians are less likely to build wealth over time, said Carolina Reid, associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley.

But racial disparities are true in all dimensions of housing.

"Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be cost burdened, more likely to live in overcrowded conditions, more at risk of eviction, and displacement," she said.

Rents dipped with the pandemic, but are still soaring

Rents are among the highest in the country in California, home to seven of the ten most expensive cities for tenants. The pandemic has changed things up - driving down rents in some of the most expensive cities and hiking rents in some more affordable ones. But affordability overall has only worsened with COVID-19.

San Francisco remains the most expensive city to rent in the United States, with the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment at $3,500 a month, according to Zillow. That's even after a 23% drop from last year. Fresno, at one point considered on the more affordable end of California housing, has seen a 39% hike in average rent since 2017, including a 12% increase during the pandemic.

The drop in homeownership plays a role here. As it has become more difficult to buy a home, wealthier people have remained stuck in the rental market - and driven up rent prices.

Wages can't keep up with rental costs

Median earnings for Californians are higher than the national average, and are significantly higher in certain regions like the Bay Area. But on average, income over the past two decades has not kept pace with escalating rents.

Before the pandemic, about half of California renters were rent burdened, which means that more than 30% of their income went toward rent, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Nearly a third of Californians were severely rent-burdened, which means that more thanhalf of their income went toward rent.

The numbers are worse for families of color. A California Housing Partnership analysis found that in 2019, Black renter households were about twice as likely as white renter households to be severely cost burdened.

The pandemic only worsened these numbers. As unemployment skyrocketed and families lost wages, roughly one of every six tenants fell behind on rent payments, according to a study by the Little Hoover Commission.

The extremes of California's housing crisis are concentrated in the Bay Area and greater Los Angeles, but the challenge is statewide. While San Diego, San Francisco and L.A. top the list of toughest rental markets in the country, cities including Sacramento and Fresno recently have experienced the largest year-over-year rent increases.

In most Central Valley cities, the majority of very low-income families are spending more than 30% of their paycheck on rent.

Homelessness is on the rise

The number of people experiencing homelessness is notoriously hard to track, but estimates are getting more accurate - and show that the problem is big, and worsening.

Newly released state numbers show that throughout 2020, nearly a quarter of a million people accessed homeless services through local agencies. About 160,000 were single adults, and nearly 85,000 in families with kids. Los Angeles County has the highest number of people experiencing homelessness, with about 90,000 people who accessed services in 2020.

That data - submitted by 42 of the 44 local agencies that manage homeless dollars and services across the state - was not previously compiled or made public. That number is dynamic, because someone may have been homeless at the start of the year, but housed by the end - or vice versa.

The data also fails to count some individuals who never interacted with homeless providers and survivors of domestic violence who are omitted for safety purposes, according to Ali Sutton, the state deputy secretary for homelessness.

According to the state, nearly 40% of those people, or 91,626 individuals, moved into permanent housing last year - which could mean anything from moving back in with a family member to getting their own place. This overlaps with an unprecedented amount of funding going to fix the issue - $13 billion over the last three years.

Previous estimates of people experiencing homelessness were much lower. Every two years, the federal government mandates a tally of the number of people on the streets on a single night in January. Advocates and experts have long clamored that the count is not accurate.

The point-in-time count was last taken in January 2020 - before COVID-19 ravaged the economy - and showed 161,548 people experienced homelessness in California. The January 2021 count was postponed due to COVID-19.

But that doesn't stop lawmakers from trying, and trying again.

2020 was supposed to be a big year for housing legislation. Lawmakers proposed a slew of housing bills, including a measure that would have forced cities to allow more mid-rise apartment buildings, convert big-box retail property into housing, and limit the restraints of environmental law on housing projects.

None of those bills passed. Democratic squabbling and the global pandemic, among other factors, were to blame.

Key legislators are back at it this year. The bills are mostly designed at easing zoning and environmental restrictions to allow for more dense housing, funneling more money into affordable housing production and trying to force local governments to comply with state goals.

Here are a just a few of the bills we're watching this year:

AB 215, by Assemblymember David Chiu, would essentially give teeth to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, a law designed to increase housing production but that has done little to mandate it. Cities would need to check in with the state halfway through their eight-year housing approval process. If they're behind on their goals, the state would force them to approve more pro-housing policies.

SB 9, by Senate leader Toni Atkins of San Diego, bears some resemblance to last year's SB 50. The bill would allow homeowners to put a duplex on single-family lots or split them without requiring a hearing or approval from the local government. Affordable housing and rental properties would be exempt from the changes.

SB 10, by Sen. Scott Wiener, would allow cities to rezone transit centers and job hubs to allow as many as 10 units per parcel. Proximity to public transit would theoretically lead to fewer cars on the road, bringing the state closer to its goals to reduce climate change.

SB 478, also by Wiener, takes aim at local ordinances that limit the construction of housing based on lot size, which effectively erases any chance of building small apartment buildings on land that is already zoned for multi-family housing.

Senate Bill 50, proposed last year by Sen. Scott Wiener, would have forced cities to allow more mid-rise apartment buildings around public transit and next to some single-family homes. Proponents believe this is the best and quickest way to come close to meeting the state's housing needs.

A host of political interests supported the bill - developers, landlords, environmental groups, big city mayors and even Facebook wanted to see it pass. But the bill failed to get enough votes in the Legislature to s u rvive in 2020 before time ran out. Among the opponents were Los Angeles Democrats, spurred by low-income tenant advocacy groups.

That wasn't the first time the legislation failed.

Similar versions of the bill had been blocked twice before, with strong opposition from suburban homeowners, local governments and community groups who contended the proposal would destroy neighborhood character and gentrify lower-income communities.

"As disappointing as it was not to pass ( Senate Bill 50), it left me quite optimistic about what we will be able to do in the future," Wiener told CalMatters. "The fact that a bill four or five years before (SB 50) would not have probably even gotten a hearing in a single committee, but then we were able to get it through two committees and almost off the Senate floor (means) there is actually very, very broad and deep support for a pro-housing agenda."

Many of the same ideas proposed in SB 50 will be up for debate again this year.

The housing crisis has major repercussions for the economy

Big business is also feeling the pinch of California's housing crisis.

The McKinsey Global Institute found that housing shortages cost the economy between $143 billion and $233 billion annually, not taking into account second-order costs to health, education and the environment. Much of that is due to households spending too much of their incomes on the rent or mortgage and not enough on consumer goods.

Even the attractive salaries and lavish perks of Silicon Valley struggle to overcome the local housing market, as young tech talent flees to the relatively inexpensive climes of Austin or Portland. Nearly 60 percent of Los Angeles companies in a recent University of Southern California survey said the region's high cost of living was affecting employee retention.

California just doesn't have enough housing to keep up with demand.

Over the past 10 years, California's population grew by about 6.7%, while new housing grew by only 4.8%, according to data from the California Department of Finance.

Population growth has slowed down significantly. In 2019, the state for the first time added more housing units than people. But the picture might be less rosy than the numbers suggest.

A lot of people are still coming to California, but many of those leaving are likely being priced out, according to Department of Finance research data specialist John Boyne.

"I'm sure housing is a pretty major factor," he said.

Unlike at the start of the decade, when California was on a single-family homebuilding binge, the recent increase in housing production consists mainly of multi-family housing and accessory dwelling units in the downtown areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, Boyne said.

That doesn't mean they're more affordable: Only 7% to 10% of the new units are designated as affordable, Boyne said.

Part of the problem boils down to the (literal) nuts and bolts of housing development. Over the last decade, the cost of building multifamily housing in California has spiked by about 25%, according to a 2020 report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley.

On average, each square foot cost $44 more to build in 2018 than it did a decade ago across the state. In the Bay Area, however, that cost jumped up by $81 a square foot, according to the Terner Center. And affordable housing was more expensive to build than market rate housing.

The reasons are many and complicated, but two big ones are more expensive materials and a shortage of labor. While permitted units spiked by 430% between 2009 and 2018, the number of workers has grown by only 32%. Experts attribute the lack of construction labor to anti-immigration rhetoric, a tighter overall labor market and depressed wages.

But construction costs are only part of the problem. And sometimes a relatively small part at that.

In most of the state's major urban areas, the bulk of a single-family house's price is locked into the land it sits on. That high price tag on the cost of actually buying a parcel and prepping it for construction not only makes new housing more expensive, it influences what kind of housing gets produced: developers prioritize high-end projects, since even the cheapest pre-fab unit will come stuck with a steep fixed cost.

What makes land expensive? When it's in shortest supply. Take San Francisco: Seven-by-seven miles of hillside penned in by water on three sides. Of the top 15 most physically constrained metro areas in the country, seven dot California's oh-so-desirable coast. But many of those same coveted locales place additional limits on where-and when and how and how much-construction can take place. That all makes it that much harder for housing to keep up with population growth. And over the last decade, it has not.

Who has cause to celebrate when a new housing project goes up in your neighborhood? Young homebuyers, nearby businesses, new arrivals to the area, and, of course, developers. But people who have been living in the neighborhood for years may worry that the new development will depress the value of the homes they own, or trigger increases in the rent they pay. Those who prefer not to live next door to a construction site, or watch their zucchini garden wither in the shadow of a garish new condo building, have plenty of reasons to object.

And object they do. With the exception of one irregularly enforced state law, land use planning in California is a local process-and one that affords opponents of change ample opportunity to stall, stymie, or scale down. The tool kit of local obstruction includes zoning restrictions, lengthy project design reviews, the California Environmental Quality Act, parking and other amenity requirements, and multi-hurdled approval processes. In California, you're most likely to find these extra restrictions where developable space is already scarcest - in coastal urban enclaves.

Local pushback might be rooted in concerns about the environment, about congestion, about the creep of gentrification, or in a desire to preserve the "character" of the neighborhood (however that might be defined). But whatever the flavor of NIMBYism and whatever its ultimate goals, higher hurdles to development in the state's most desirable locations mean many cities have failed to add new units fast enough to keep up with population or job growth.

And that inevitably means higher prices.

A little recent history: In 2012, California began unwinding its redevelopment agencies, the local investment organizations tasked with revitalizing "blighted" areas across the state. By law, redevelopment agencies were supposed to provide a guaranteed stream of cash to cities for subsidized housing - 20% of any increase in property tax payments.

Much - in many cities, most - of that money didn't end up going into the construction of new housing, but was instead siphoned off to pay for broadly defined "administrative activities." Still, with the end of redevelopment came the end of the single largest source of non-federal money for affordable housing in the state. California lawmakers never plugged that hole.

Between 2013 and 2018, state investments in affordable housing dropped from an annual average of $1.3 billion to less than $500 million, according to the California Housing Partnership.

The state began reversing that trend in 2019, thanks to funding from SB 2, which dedicated about $250 million in annual revenues for affordable housing; about $5 billion worth of housing bonds from Proposition 1 and 2; and $500 million in state low-income housing tax credits.

But the new dollars will dry up by 2022, leaving developers without a stable funding source, said California Housing Partnership CEO Matt Schwartz.

"Politically you can understand the attraction," Schwartz said. "At a mechanical, functional level, it creates huge amounts of extra work particularly for the nonprofit housers we assist."

It's hard to get people to agree on a solution when they don't even agree on the problem.

Ask some politicians and much of the blame for California's housing woes lies with local obstructionists. Take away the NIMBYs' favorite procedural tools and the housing market will eventually build its way out of the shortage. President Biden, in his $2 trillion infrastructure plan, says that restrictions on multi-family zoning "drive up the cost of construction and keep families from moving to neighborhoods with more opportunities."

But red tape has a powerful constituency. Its members include:

City governments, which generally like having a say in what does and doesn't get built within their borders. The powerful League of California Cities has opposed several measures to streamline the local housing approval process. It has called such efforts counter to the "the principles of local democracy and public engagement."

Environmentalists, who don't want the Legislature tinkering with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pro-housing advocates argue that environmental concerns can be used as a pretext to hold up a project for any number of unrelated reasons. Cases in point: The law has been used in the past to block high-density housing and bike lanes. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, CEQA appeals delay a project by an average of two-and-a-half years.

Building trade groups also benefit from the status quo. Any developer that uses public funds (in other words, anyone building affordable housing) is required to pay workers the most common rate for that job across the region. That "prevailing wage" tends to be set by the union rate. Labor groups have lobbied lawmakers to make prevailing wage restrictions a part of any housing fix. How much more expensive do union-level wages make housing projects? Experts differ with estimated cost increases ranging from 0 to 46 percent.

Anti-gentrification activists, who often argue that developers should be saddled with more restrictions, not fewer. New houses may bring down prices over time, they argue, but for those who are facing eviction or displacement today, new, high-end development only makes a particular locale more attractive to outside investors and wealthy house hunters.

Good old fashioned NIMBYs. In 2017, Marin County got a special exemption from the state's housing development quota. What was the justification? According to one county supervisor, ramping up affordable housing construction wasn't consistent with Marin's "suburban character."

What about Prop. 13?

You'd be hard pressed to find a single aspect of California life that isn't affected by Proposition 13. Naturally, it gets blamed for an awful lot of the state's problems.

So what about the cost of housing? After all, Prop. 13, California's 1978 tax revolt initiative, capped property taxes at 1 percent of a home's purchase price and limited the rate taxes can tick up each year by 2 percent. From a city's perspective, giving your available land to new housing doesn't make much sense if a sales-tax-paying restaurant or clothing store is waiting in the wings.

The Legislative Analyst's Office looked into the question of whether the state's capped property taxes distort local land use decisions. Their conclusion: a resounding "probably not." In short, a city's dependence on property taxes or sales taxes didn't predict much about its land use decisions.

Even so, there are other ways in which Prop. 13 could be contributing to our affordability crisis. Another consequence of capped property taxes is that local governments have to scramble for other sources of cash. One of those sources is housing developers. On average, California levies the highest developer fees in the country, making it that much more difficult to build new housing.
Want more insights on California's housing crisis? And what the state is currently doing to try to fix it? Resuming soon: "Gimme Shelter: The California Housing Crisis Podcast." CalMatters housing reporter Manuela Tobias and Los Angeles Times housing reporter Liam Dillon will bring you the latest in California housing politics and policy. Listen to past episodes here, and subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher and your favorite podcast platform.
WATCH: Housing Prices in San Diego 1979

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Californians: Here's why your housing costs are so high

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tenants and landlords are hurting, homelessness is skyrocketing and the housing market is out of control. The COVID-19 pandemic isn't the only reason for that, but it's making California's longstanding housing crisis even worse.

# data[].attributes.body
https://redorangepeach.com/animal-cruelty/testing-in-usa/

https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/product-testing-cosmetics/animal-testing-cosmetics

https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-testing-faq

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Best estimates suggest the US performs well over 100 million animal tests each year

And the USDA's manipulative animal testing figures from 2019 show under 1 million animal tests

Only 5 states have passed a ban on cosmetic animal testing (California, Illinois, Nevada, Virginia & Maryland)

Is Animal Testing Illegal in America?

There is no nationwide ban on cosmetic animal testing across the USA as of June 2021.

Whilst 5 states have banned it and there have been significant improvements in humane testing and the treatment of animals across other developed nations particularly, the USA lags well behind in its treatment of animals.

What States have Banned Animal Testing in America?

5 US states have completely banned animal testing on cosmetics: California, Illinois, Nevada, Virginia and Maryland.

California was the first to do so and that was as recently as 2018.

Animal Testing in the USA broken down by State

The US states that performed the most recorded tests on animals in 2019 are New Jersey (61,895), Ohio (62,300), California (62,338), Kansas (76,302) and Massachusetts (84,798).

California is the only one of these states that has banned cosmetic animal testing.

What are The USAs Animal Testing Laws?

Currently the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) only protects mammals

The USDA inspectors are in charge of inspecting over 100 animal testing facilities each year

The PHS also rarely performs in-person checks

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) - 1966

The Animal Welfare Act is still the only federal law in the USA the regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport and dealers.

Whilst there are other acts that deal with specific details of animal welfare, all refer back to this as the standard bearer.

The AWA does require each institution using species covered under the bill to maintain an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which is responsible for local compliance. These institutions must be audited and inspected at least annually.

The Health Research Extension Act of 1985

The Health Research Extension Act directed the National Institute of Health ( NIH) to write the Public Health Service Policy (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Essentially any scientist or institution that gets federal funding for animal testing must have an IACUC. And a department within the PHS (The Office of Laboratory Welfare) enforces the recommendations for animal care made in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition.

The Farm Security Act - 2002

The Farm Security Act - the 5th amendment to the AWA - specifically excluded purpose-bred birds, rats, and mice (as opposed to those captured in the wild) from regulations.

And who are the USA's Animal Testing Agencies?

The Public Health Service

The Public Health Service ( PHS) isn't a law as such, but an organisation that overseas the two agencies that facilitate the most testing on animals - The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

The PHS primary policy when it comes to animal welfare centres around dictating vertebrate animal care for federally funded labs. Unfortunately it rarely performs in-person checks and requires only written assurance.

The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)

The USDA is the federal agency responsible for overseeing laboratories - and those who sell to labs - that experiment on animals.

According to its own data, the USDA employs 120 staff who are required to inspect more than 12,000 facilities - laboratories, zoos, research facilities, circuses et al.

So each inspector is in charge of over 100 facilities - hence its obvious inadequacies.

Animal Testing and Cosmetics in America

Animal testing on cosmetics isn't illegal in the USA (except in 5 states)

The FDA is responsible for assuring that cosmetics are safe and properly labelled

Companies can choose to perform animal testing to assure product safety and efficacy

Is Animal Testing on Cosmetics a Legal Requirement in the USA?

Animal testing on cosmetic products is not a legal requirement for products to be sold in the USA.

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, prohibits the sale of mislabelled and 'adulterated' cosmetics, but does not require that animal tests be conducted to demonstrate cosmetics safety and efficacy. It utilises animal testing alternatives in the majority of cases.

5 Terrifying Animal Testing Statistics in America

1. 111,500,000 estimated procedures on animals in 2018

2. 797,546 animals tested on according to USDA 2019 figures

3. 7% animals that received no pain relief

4. 19% primates, dogs and cats used - of documented figures

5. $19.6 billion of taxpayer money was spent on animal testing in 2019

The USA records less than 1% of all animal tests in official statistics each year as the AWA doesn't include the animals most commonly tested on - rats, mice and fish.

And of the $41.7 billion taxpayer funding the National Institute of Health (NIH), 47% is spent on animal testing specifically.

The Top 3 Reasons why America should ban Animal Testing

1. The USA Performs the Most Animal Tests each year

The USA performs the most animal tests each year around the world - significantly more in fact. Our best estimates believe it could be as many as 4-5 times more than China.

You can see the other worst offenders over on our animal testing statistics page.

2. Animal Testing is Highly Ineffective

Recent estimates claim that animal testing trials have a 96% failure rate.

That means that for every 100 drugs or ingredients that go through animal testing, only 4 actually make it through.

3. Animal Testing is Incredibly Expensive

For starters America spent almost $20 billion of taxpayer money on animal testing according to the most recent NIH figures.

At a 96% failure rate. Let that sink in.

Alternatives to animal testing are significantly more time and cost efficient. In the case of multi-year, multi-animal bioassay vs Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation tests, the SHE test is 97% more cost effective.

Even simple tests like the draize rabbit eye test ($1800) is more expensive than it's in vitro counterpart ($1400) - a whole 29% more expensive.

Animal Testing in the USA FAQs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing in the USA - Cruelty Free in 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Best estimates suggest the US performs well over 100 million animal tests each year And the USDA's manipulative animal testing figures from 2019 show under 1 million animal tests Only 5 states have passed a ban on cosmetic animal testing (California, Illinois, Nevada, Virginia & Maryland) There is no nationwide ban on cosmetic animal testing across the USA as of June 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/santa-ana-reverses-decision-that-would-have-made-it-illegal-to-watch-street-racing/

https://patch.com/california/orange-county/santa-ana-police-look-combat-illegal-street-racing

https://www.wesh.com/article/street-racing-could-be-cause-of-deadly-hit-and-run-crash-in-orange-county-officials-say/38067584

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Santa Ana City Council reversed itself this week and voted against a proposed new law that would make it illegal to be a spectator at street races.

Council members overturned Tuesday night their initial approval of an ordinance targeting onlookers at illegal street races and intersection takeovers with penalties that range from an administrative citation to a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail.

When the council gave its first nod to the proposed law on May 18, it added some language that prior to issuing an administrative fine, citing an infraction or filing a misdemeanor charge, police must prove that the person previously received a written warning.

Councilman Phil Bacerra, revisiting that language Tuesday night, asked: "How can the city demonstrate that a written warning was issued?"

Do police track written warnings, Bacerra asked Police Chief David Valentin.

"No, it would be quite difficult actually to track that information," Valentin replied.

Bacerra sought to remove the added language about written warnings but his motion failed in a 4-3 split. Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and council members Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Jessie Lopez and Thai Viet Phan voted against it. Bacerra and council members Nelida Mendoza and David Penaloza voted for it.

The council then voted again, this time on the ordinance with the written warning language included. Bacerra voted against it, joining three on the dais - Hernandez, Lopez and Sarmiento - who opposed the ordinance but for different reasons: concerns about its constitutionality and whether it would criminalize innocent bystanders.

The law is "going to make you feel good, but it's not going to solve the problem," Sarmiento said. Among the questions he raised: How would police decide which spectators to arrest when illegal street racing often draws 200 to 300 people to each event?

But Penaloza, who supported the law, said it would serve as a deterrent.

Street racing is a problem across Orange County, where 11 police agencies last fall formed a task force that led to more than 2,300 citations and 206 racing or reckless driving arrests or citations.

Bacerra said "there should be consequences" for people gathering to watch or enable the illegal events.

"Street racing is not an activity that doesn't have major impact. Just ask the family of former OC Register editor Eugene Harbrecht," Bacerra said.

Harbrecht, a Santa Ana resident, was killed on July 30, 2020 after the truck he was driving was struck by a driver police said was involved in a street race with another car. That same month, another Santa Ana resident, Cirilo Adan, also was killed as he was crossing the street and struck during another suspected street race, police said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Santa Ana backs away from street racing law, votes it down

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Santa Ana City Council reversed itself this week and voted against a proposed new law that would make it illegal to be a spectator at street races. Council members overturned Tuesday night their initial approval of an ordinance targeting onlookers at illegal street races and intersection takeovers with penalties that range from an administrative citation to a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail.