LA committee hears that cuts to time‑limited rental subsidies could put hundreds of households at risk

The Los Angeles Housing and Homelessness Committee heard a briefing on Sept. 17 on steep cuts to time‑limited rental subsidy funding and a related city plan to meet a court-ordered bed target.

City and Los Angeles Service Agency staff told the committee that changes to federal, state and county funding have reduced available support for the city’s time‑limited rental subsidy program and that the city faces a shortfall that could leave hundreds of households without a permanent placement.

Regina Joy Alcázar, Department of Housing staff, said LASA and city teams were asked to analyze how the time‑limited subsidy program is performing, workforce constraints and possible strategies to prevent people from returning to homelessness. Alcázar and LASA presenters described the program as designed to provide up to 24 months of rental assistance and case management so participants can transition to independent housing, but said recent funding reductions are forcing changes.

Savik Kenzov, a presenter identified with the program analysis, told the committee, “nuestro fin con este programa es proporcionar 24 meses de apoyo del alquiler,” and described a progressive subsidy model in which assistance tapers as participants’ incomes increase. Staff said the program currently serves about 2,822 adults and 1,985 families and that roughly 60% of the program slots are allocated to people experiencing homelessness in the City of Los Angeles.

Presenters said the program had $240,000,000 in funding in the prior fiscal year and now operates with $123,000,000 for the current fiscal year; staff said funding is projected to decline again in the next fiscal year. They reported that, without replacement funding or alternative placements, about 800 to 900 households now matched for long‑term supportive housing may not receive continued assistance through these programs.

The committee also heard a city presentation on a court‑related bed plan. Cindy Mainy Trade Poviser (presenter identified in the record) said the court ordered an updated plan on June 24 requiring the city to demonstrate how it will provide roughly 12,900 beds or units. Poviser said the city has identified existing and in‑production units but still faces a gap of about 2,093 beds to meet the court-related target. She said the three‑year cost of the proposed additions in the plan is roughly $112,000,000 and that the city will need additional funds to sustain all current services and new capacity beyond the near term.

Committee members repeatedly pressed staff for more granular cost comparisons across interventions (for example, motel/hotel placements, interim housing and permanent supportive housing), asked whether master‑lease units could close gaps, and sought clarity on the availability and legal permissibility of Measure A and other local funds for specific subsidy uses. Several members said they were uncomfortable authorizing a bed plan without a clearer accounting of per‑bed and per‑night costs and of which current beds or services might be discontinued.

Staff recommended several near‑term steps: 1) prioritize and advocate for Measure A and other state funds, 2) develop and pilot a more intensive case‑management model to improve exits to permanent housing, 3) improve data on case‑management contacts and vacancy rates, and 4) pursue regional alignment and contractual mechanisms (including a fiscal agent option) to better manage rental payments.

Public commenters urged the committee to protect people who have been housed and to prioritize long‑term rights and services. At the end of the briefing, committee members agreed to continue discussions; no vote was taken on the bed plan during the committee meeting.

Votes at a glance: At the start of the meeting, the committee placed agenda items 2–5 on the consent calendar and the committee approved those consent items (vote: 2 yes, 0 no, 1 absent). No other committee votes were recorded on the time‑limited subsidy briefing or the bed plan during this meeting.

The committee asked staff to return with additional analyses on fund sources, costs per bed and options for master leases or other placements before committee members commit to a final bed plan or to reallocating locally controlled funds.