Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board restores short-term funding for youth and legal services as debate over unspent CareFirst/Measure J dollars continues
Summary
The Board restored interim funding April 15 for transitional-age-youth programs and for legal services that help prevent homelessness after hours of public testimony and a prolonged debate over unspent CareFirst/Measure J dollars and who should decide how those funds are spent.
The Board of Supervisors voted April 15 to restore interim funding for several homelessness-prevention and youth programs after an extended public comment period that featured dozens of service providers, program graduates and legal advocates. The motion co-authored by Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger (motion in chief) preserved roughly $5.6 million for transitional-age-youth (TAY) programming, secured a near-term allocation for legal services used to prevent or end homelessness, and directed the Chief Executive Office to provide follow-up reporting and options to restore additional funding in later budget phases.
Why it mattered: The funding fight at the April 15 meeting focused on unspent funds connected to CareFirst Community Investments (CFCI) and Measure J — the voter-approved initiative that redirected county funds to community alternatives to incarceration and to supportive services. Community members and the CFCI advisory committee told supervisors they had identified more than $200 million in unspent CFCI dollars and urged the board to allocate those funds to community-based organizations. The county CEO’s office proposed reallocating some unspent balances toward county departments’ priorities, prompting debate about process and community control.
Board action and next steps: The board-approved motion required the CEO to report back on available fund balance and to return with options for supplemental funding restoration; it also directed County counsel and county staff to review limits on which entities (for example, the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, “La Casa”) may or may not execute prevention funding under state law. Members of the CFCI advisory committee — and members of the public who testified — urged the board to preserve the advisory committee’s central role in recommending how community-investment dollars are spent.
Public testimony: Dozens of public commenters urged restoration of specific community programs and legal services. Dozens of LA:RISE participants and staff told the board the county should not cut the employment-first transitional-work program (LA:RISE). One participant testified, “LA RISE is a pathway to possibility,” and multiple legal-aid providers warned that PEP (Preventing and Ending Homelessness legal services) prevents evictions, secures benefits and avoids placements in shelters. The board’s motion protects those priorities in the near term and directs follow-up reports to the board.
Process tensions: The April 15 exchange exposed friction between the CEO’s office and the CFCI advisory committee over how unspent dollars should be reallocated. The advisory panel and community advocates said the CEO proposed reallocations without fully following the board’s Measure J process; the CEO and budget staff said they needed to consider countywide obligations and timing constraints to avoid contract gaps on July 1. The board’s motion asks the CEO to return with a written plan that clarifies what can and cannot be funded through La Casa and how remaining unspent funds can be moved to community priorities in line with board policy and state law.
Ending: The motion passed with recorded support from the supervisors present at the time of the vote, and the board asked the CEO to deliver written follow-up within two weeks and additional options during the supplemental budget phase.
