The City of Los Angeles Housing and Homelessness Committee on March 28 reviewed a long-awaited Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) report that evaluates options for coordinating homeless outreach citywide and asked staff to return with an updated version that reflects recent budget decisions, staffing impacts and more detailed maps of outreach teams.

The CLA presentation and a sustained committee discussion focused on whether outreach should be consolidated under a single model or remain distributed among multiple teams. Councilmember John Lee urged the committee to adopt Option 3 from the CLA report — a consolidated citywide outreach model — but with specific safeguards: preserving effective existing teams (including street medicine and some Skid Row outreach), eliminating duplicative city-funded outreach contracts, and creating citywide protocols for information-sharing, documentation and rapid placement when interim beds open. Lee said those safeguards, paired with Option 3, would give outreach teams “real-time” access to placements and ensure people in interim housing receive help obtaining documents needed to move into permanent housing.

Why it matters: committee members and staff said the CLA report offers a framework for reducing duplication and increasing placement rates, but budget cuts enacted in the most recent fiscal cycle altered the landscape the CLA studied. Multiple council members, staff and providers said they need fresh, operational data — including which teams remain funded, vacancy rates, and a live map of teams and their geographic coverage — before making a policy decision about consolidation or a district-based model.

Committee discussion and staff briefings

John Wicken of the Chief Legislative Analyst’s office summarized the report’s scope and reiterated that the analysis began after a council instruction from October 2023. The CLA team inventoried existing outreach programs and tested five structural options for outreach delivery, ranging from preserving most current teams to consolidating outreach in district or citywide models. Wicken and CLA staff emphasized that the options are illustrative and could be mixed or combined.

David (department staff identified in the record) and Sofía Prost (city coordination staff) described operational changes since the report’s initial drafting. Speakers said the county’s new multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and other county resources are being phased into district-level coordination; staff reported they began formal coordination calls with the county roughly three weeks earlier and are working to share higher-level information while preserving individual privacy.

Staff described technical changes intended to speed placements. Officials said a new inventory-and-notification module is under construction and scheduled to start July 1; that module includes an automated bed-availability notification and a daily reporting requirement for providers. Staff explained a short daily window — currently described as 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the presentation — when outreach teams could identify participants as ready and accept immediate interim placements, reducing missed placement opportunities. Staff cautioned that full functionality depends on enrolling providers and participants into the new inventory module.

Public comments and provider concerns

More than a dozen members of the public spoke during public comment, raising three recurring themes: (1) frustration that people remain in interim shelters for months or years without help obtaining documents needed for permanent housing; (2) concerns that outreach teams overlap and do not share information; and (3) requests for stronger, faster coordination between city outreach teams and county MDTs and LAHSA. Public commenters who identified themselves in the record included Jason Ready and Mark Gayner (DSA Los Angeles), among others who described personal experiences with shelters and outreach.

Council and staff requests for follow-up

Committee members requested several specific follow-ups from CLA, the mayor’s chief operations office and relevant departments: an updated CLA report that reflects the most recent budget decisions; a digital map listing every outreach team and the geographic areas they cover (including which teams are funded by the city, by LAHSA or by other sources); an accounting of staffing and vacancy rates and the expected number of affected employees after recent cuts; a summary of bed-vacancy reporting and how HMIS/HMIS-like inventory data will be shared subject to confidentiality; and inclusion of provider representatives and at least one county or public health representative (LHD/DMH/MDT) at the next meeting. Committee members said those materials are necessary to evaluate the trade-offs among the CLA’s options.

Votes at a glance

• Item 0.2 (consent): committee moved to place item 0.2 on the consent calendar and approved the consent item by roll call. Votes recorded in the transcript: Roman — yes; Herradon — yes; Tulmenfield — yes. Tally: 3 yes; item approved.

Next steps and staff direction

Committee members agreed to continue this topic to a future meeting after staff provide the requested updates. CLA and city staff were asked to return with: an updated report showing how the options interact with the current budget; a map and roster of outreach teams and providers by geography; documentation of enrollment progress in the bed-inventory module; staffing/vacancy figures and estimated employee-notice impacts; and representatives from LA County MDT/DMH or local public health to discuss intergovernmental coordination. The committee also asked that providers be invited to offer operational feedback when the report is revised.

Ending note: the committee framed the CLA report as a starting point for policy decisions rather than a final recommendation. Members emphasized that accurate, operational data and provider input are prerequisites to any major restructuring of outreach.