Facility Security and Employees Under Duress in HUD 202 Housing

The shooting this week at Progressive Home for the Elderly in South Los Angeles—reported by KTLA after three staff members were critically injured inside the residential lobby—must be examined beyond the breaking news cycle.

It's more than just what we saw on the news about this week's shooting at Progressive Home for the elderly in South Los Angeles. Three employees were shot in the lobby of the senior living facility. After the incident, many officials praised the LAPD for arriving in a timely manner to help the more than 100 seniors who live there. We should look further at facility security at senior living homes funded by HUD and how we can better provide our employees with resources to prevent these situations. HUD provides housing for our senior citizens through its Section 202 program. We as public administrators know that most hospital facilities have security personnel on site. Most private businesses have some type of security protocol when having visitors come into their establishment. 

Many senior homes are built to allow senior citizens to feel at home and have access to their surrounding community. There are many cases where we see funding constraints at these facilities to provide adequate security for their tenants. When an active shooter occurs, we cannot expect our senior citizens to hide or take the proper actions to survive this situation. They may not even be able to evacuate if necessary due to medical issues or disabilities. Having law enforcement show up to these situations is not going to solve the problem; we need more security at these facilities. We should start providing more non-criminal-related funds to these facilities that would allow them to better secure their buildings. According to media outlets, the suspect in this case was one of the employees at the facility. The suspect was extremely upset before he committed this act of violence. There will always be people who commit violent acts, and we can't let that happen because we have not provided the right services for our employees. 

As public managers, we need to be aware of the stress our employees go through on a day-to-day basis. Employees who work in the field of senior living can become very emotional when caring for these individuals. Cleaning, cooking, and even office jobs all have their stress. These employees need to feel comfortable reaching out for help when they need it. Providing background checks on your employees is not enough. 

Some ways we can ensure our employees are getting help when they need it. 

Provide employees with an EAP (Employee Assistance Program) or mental health resources. 

Train supervisors on spotting behaviors that could lead to an incident like this. 

Have an open line of communication for employees who may be suffering from workplace violence. 

More importantly, we need to protect our elderly who depend on these facilities and also provide the tools to keep our employees healthy. It's better to have a facility that has the proper security and resources than to see what happened in Los Angeles this past week. 

The Euphemism Trap: Regulatory Loopholes and the Illusion of Competency in Cosmetology Licensing

When New York recently implemented its textured hair licensing mandate alongside California’s Assembly Bill 2166 (Weber Pierson, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2024), headlines heralded a major step forward for consumer equity. Both statutes aim to dismantle decades of Eurocentric bias in state-regulated beauty curricula. Yet, beneath the legislative optimism lies a glaring administrative loophole: the reliance on ambiguous, race-neutral statutory euphemisms.

By mandating instruction only on "varying hair types and textures, curl or wave patterns, and volumes," rather than explicitly codifying Afro-textured and Type 4 hair physiology, state policy designs an administrative escape hatch:

• Curricular Evasion: Under current California Business and Professions Code § 7362.5, accredited academies can satisfy curriculum audits using loose-curl (Type 2–3) mannequins, teaching basic blowouts while completely bypassing tightly coiled (4A–4C) hair.

• The Practical Testing Vacuum: Following California’s elimination of hands-on practical state board exams under SB 803, licensure relies 100% on a multiple-choice computer exam (BPC § 7338). A computer screen can evaluate memorized vocabulary, but it cannot measure physical touch, mechanical tension, or thermal regulation on fragile, elliptical hair fibers.

• Economic Inefficiency & Service Deserts: Despite Black consumers driving a multi-billion-dollar hair care economy, mainstream salon pipelines remain structurally ill-equipped to serve them, perpetuating service deserts and unnecessary consumer harm.

Closing this gap requires the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (BBC) to move beyond statutory ambiguity in its Title 16 rulemaking. True equity demands codified Type 4 technical standards, mandatory hands-on clinic-floor quotas with diverse hair models, and instructor recertification protocols.