How Many California Funeral Establishment Records Are in DCA Data?

Direct answer and scope

The direct answer is 1,127 raw Funeral Director Establishment records in the immutable DCA snapshot obtained on August 25, 2026. That snapshot came from Funeral_Data00.xls, which DCA had updated on August 1, 2026. The full funeral file contained 6,137 records, while the narrower control total includes only records identified by the applicable Funeral Director Establishment license-type filter.

No status filter was applied to produce 1,127. The count therefore retains records carrying the raw statuses represented in the source, including Current, Delinquent, and Inactive. It answers a precise data question: how many records of the specified license type appeared across all statuses in that dated snapshot. It does not answer how many records remain under one selected status at a later date.

The unit being counted is the record. A record total does not, by itself, identify distinct economic entities or consolidate entries that might appear related. Names, public addresses, managers, brands, or websites are not sufficient evidence for joining records into ownership groups. The control total consequently remains a record-level measurement rather than a company-level or owner-level measurement.

How to use the supplied evidence

Use 1,127 when the question is explicitly limited to the raw, all-status Funeral Director Establishment record total in the August 25 snapshot of the August 1 DCA file. Keep the license-type filter, all-status basis, snapshot date, and source update date attached to the number. Removing any of those qualifiers changes how a reader may understand the measurement.

For reproducibility, the archived Funeral_Data00.xls file contained 6,137 records and had the SHA-256 checksum 62f35460f34dd8748672f889839c03dde187891922d0837f08b615b4bcf3be50. The checksum identifies the exact archived bytes used for the snapshot. It does not demonstrate that each underlying record stayed unchanged, complete, or correct after the source file’s August 1 update.

DCA describes its public-disclosure files as being refreshed automatically at the beginning of each month. That cadence makes the source a monthly snapshot rather than a real-time view. The documented layout includes license type, license number, whether the named licensee is recorded as an individual or organization, dates, raw license status, and public-address values such as City and County.

Those fields should be interpreted according to their documented purpose. City and County are values within the public address of record. They should not be transformed into claims about where services are performed, which consumers are served, or what activity occurs at an address. Similarly, the individual-or-organization indicator is a source field, not a complete map of related companies or controlling interests.

Decision framework

Begin by defining the measurement question. If the question asks for the number of records of one license type across every status in the specified snapshot, use the 1,127 control total with its dates and scope. If the question asks about one or more statuses, do not reuse the all-status figure as the answer. Apply an explicit status rule to the raw values and report the resulting subset as a separate, derived measurement.

Next, choose the intended counting unit. A record count can be supported by the file and its license-type field. A distinct-company, distinct-owner, or operating-location count would require evidence that establishes which records should be combined or separated. The supplied public fields do not establish those relationships, so 1,127 must remain a record count unless an independently governed method and supporting evidence are supplied.

Then separate regulatory data from operational questions. The snapshot can show what was recorded in the dated file, but it cannot establish whether an establishment is conducting business, taking new cases, providing a particular arrangement, or operating at the public address at the time of inquiry. Those questions call for current verification from the appropriate official record and, where relevant, direct confirmation of present operations.

Finally, keep descriptive counting separate from evaluation. The number does not measure service quality and does not support ordering providers by merit. It also cannot determine referral suitability, market share, or a legal conclusion. Those are different questions requiring different evidence and methods.

Limits and what to verify next

Anyone using the count after August 1, 2026 should verify whether DCA has issued a newer public-disclosure file. For a particular license record, consult the current official source and confirm the exact license type, license number, raw status, and verification date. A newer inquiry should not be represented as though it were answered by the archived snapshot.

For a derived status count, disclose every included and excluded raw value rather than silently translating status terminology. In particular, the all-status total cannot be relabeled as a subset. Any normalization should preserve the original value alongside the mapping rule, dates, and coverage explanation so readers can distinguish source data from the derived classification.

Questions about a business identity require evidence beyond similarity in names or addresses. Questions about current consumer access, services, capacity, hours, or where work is performed require separate current confirmation. Public-address fields and license records should remain what the source documents them to be, without extending them into operational assertions.

The snapshot is useful as a fixed reference point because its provenance is documented, but immutability is not the same as continuing accuracy. Its appropriate role is to support a reproducible historical count as of the supplied dates. Current requirements and individual records should be checked with the responsible California authority.

Evidence behind this page

Each point below is restricted to what the cited primary source supports. Administrative listing status is not a quality endorsement.