This fact sheet uses data from the 2025 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to describe which adults report avoiding public programs out of fear it could impact their own immigration status or that of a family member. It also examines associations between avoiding public programs and access to healthcare, food security, and housing security. Because these data were collected largely before the new public charge rule was proposed, they offer a view of the chilling effect on program participation in the period leading up to the policy change.

Findings:

• About 1 in 7 (15%) immigrant adults with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level (low-income immigrants) reported avoiding public programs in the past year because they worried it could negatively impact their or a family member's immigration status, a significant increase from 2024 (11%). 
• Avoidance of public programs in the past year was highest among adults ages 18–39, families with children, non-citizens, and those living in the U.S. for less than 10 years.
• Low-income immigrants reported delays in needed medical care and filling prescription medications that were more than twice as high among those who avoided public programs in the past year (26% vs. 12% and 20% vs. 8%, respectively).
• More than one-third (36%) of low-income immigrants who avoided public programs reported no preventive visits in the past year compared with one-quarter (24%) who did not avoid programs.
• Nearly 1 in 3 (32%) low-income immigrants who avoided public programs visited an emergency room in the past year compared to 1 in 5 (20%) who did not avoid public programs.
• More than half of low-income immigrants who avoided public programs experienced food and housing insecurity compared to about one-third of those who did not avoid programs (60% vs. 38% and 51% vs. 33%, respectively).

California's nearly 40 million residents embody a rich tapestry of cultures, races, ethnicities, ages, and communities, mirroring the diverse landscapes of mountains, farmlands, coasts, and deserts they call home.

Using data from the 2021–2022 California Health interview Survey (CHIS), researchers at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research have identified key differences and similarities in seven selected regions across the state concerning demographics, health status, experiences with health care, access to food and housing, and civic engagement.  

Understanding the unique characteristics and health experiences of each region studied can help policymakers and health advocates to tailor their efforts for improved community well-being.
 

Read the publications, by region

Northern (Shasta, Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, Lassen, Trinity, Modoc, Plumas, and Sierra counties). Home to 450,000 people or 1% of the state's population.

Sacramento and Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties). Eleven percent – nearly 4.3 million people – of the state's population lives here.

Northern Central Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and Madera counties). Contains 5% of the state's population, or more than 1.7 million people.

Southern Central Valley (Fresno, Monterey, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties). Home to 7% of the state's population, nearly 2.9 million people.

Los Angeles. Houses nearly 10 million residents, one-fourth of the state's population.

Inland South (Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties). This region is home to 4.7 million residents, 12% of the state's population.

South Coast (Orange and San Diego counties). Home to 6.3 million people, 16% of the state's population.

Food insecurity and hunger are important issues that impact a significant number of students across the United States. Food insecurity refers to lacking reliable access to enough food to lead a healthy life.

This report provides evidence on effective campus-based and program practices in California for connecting students to CalFresh, the state’s version of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The evidence can inform multiple audiences including campus administrators and staff, CalFresh leadership, and policy leaders in California. Other states considering similar SNAP rule changes can benefit from the lessons learned in California.

The study team worked with basic needs offices at institutions in the three public higher education systems in California: University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges. Authors recruited schools with on-campus basic needs programs that connect qualifying students to the CalFresh application process. In addition to the home institutions of the study team, UCLA and Cal State Fullerton, authors engaged the study sites of UC Davis, Fresno State, Los Angeles Mission College and Napa Valley College.

The authors identify effective campus-based and CalFresh program practices for connecting students to CalFresh and other food assistance programs and make recommendations for SNAP/CalFresh policy, administrative practice, and institutional programs.

Addressing food insecurity on college campuses can have a dramatic impact on the health and educational outcomes of students. The federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), called CalFresh in California, is a primary means of addressing food insecurity on college campuses.

Findings: Based on a survey of students at six college campuses (UCLA, Cal State Fullerton, UC Davis, Fresno State, Los Angeles Mission College, and Napa Valley College), authors of this fact sheet found that half of those college students reported experiencing food insecurity, including 28% who skipped meals because they couldn't afford food.

Authors analyze what characterizes a well-run campus-based CalFresh program for students and the challenges those programs face. They make recommendations to campus administrators on how to build successful programs and promote student use of CalFresh.