City Council directs 30-day report on homelessness spending and LASA transition

The Los Angeles City Council voted to request a rapid report on the city’s homelessness spending and the roles of agencies after the county altered its funding for LASA, approving a motion and a 30‑day amendment.

Councilmember Abraham introduced the motion asking staff to analyze how the city can centralize, track and audit homelessness dollars and how responsibilities between the city and county should be allocated as LASA’s funding changes. Councilmember Park offered a friendly amendment to deliver the report within 30 days; Councilmember Rodríguez joined the amendment. The motion passed 15‑0, according to the roll call reported at the vote.

Councilmembers who spoke said the report should clarify which entity does what, improve financial controls and link dollars to measurable outcomes for people experiencing homelessness. Abraham said the city must “descentralizar la respuesta” and ensure transparency so taxpayer dollars produce results. Rodríguez emphasized the need for auditing of administrative costs and asked for details showing how funds were spent. Park proposed the 30‑day timeline and said the condensed deadline was appropriate given recent changes in county funding.

Speakers noted the city’s long history with LASA: the authority was created as part of litigation and intergovernmental agreements intended to coordinate services. One speaker who identified themselves as having knowledge of the 1980s arrangements said the joint powers arrangement (JPA) and the Welfare and Institutions Code framed the original obligations between city and county and that any pullback by the county would require the city to clarify its own commitments.

Councilmembers also discussed the cost of implementing new oversight, noting that building data systems, audits and case‑management checks will itself require funding. Rodriguez said, “we have to invest in accounting, oversight, data — that costs money,” and urged colleagues to consider the additional administrative expense as part of the transition.

The motion requests a staff report that: outlines which homelessness functions the city can assume; identifies gaps and redundancies with county programs; documents administrative costs and controls; describes outcome measures (for example, numbers of people rehoused and stability of those placements); and recommends next steps or statutory changes if necessary. The amendment sets a 30‑day delivery target for the report and was accepted as a friendly amendment and added to the motion before the vote.

Councilmembers repeatedly framed the item as an opportunity to redesign accountability for homelessness spending after the county’s decision to reduce its investment under Measure A. Park and Rodríguez said the change presents a chance to impose stronger financial controls and better connect spending to outcomes; Abraham said cities smaller than Los Angeles had implemented similar tracking and that Los Angeles should be able to do so as well.

The council’s action directs staff to return with the requested analysis and report; the agenda item was recorded as modified with the 30‑day amendment and approved by the full council.