Los Angeles City Council’s ad hoc committee on unarmed crisis prevention, intervention and community services met March 28 to review a City Administrative Officer (CAO) report on the Unarmed Mobile Crisis Response pilot and hear public comment urging continued, dedicated funding.

The pilot has diverted 7,191 calls from the Los Angeles Police Department’s communications division in its first year of operation, the CAO’s office reported. The program now averages about 28 minutes to respond and about 25 minutes on scene; staff said only about 4 percent of diverted calls were later redirected to LAPD. Contractors operating UMCR teams include Exodus Recovery, Penny Lane and the Alcott Center, which deploy two-person teams that typically include a clinician or peer support specialist and other outreach staff.

Committee co-chair Councilmember Bob Blumenfield and co-chair Councilmember Kendall Hernandez framed the meeting as a step toward scaling unarmed alternatives to armed police response. ‘‘When someone is in crisis, they deserve to be met with care,’’ Hernandez said during opening remarks, noting earlier city data that the model had already diverted thousands of calls and resolved the large majority without police intervention.

Why it matters: CAO staff emphasized two potential benefits — public-safety outcomes for people in crisis and fiscal savings. The office’s cost analysis estimated an average UMCR response costs the city about $35, compared with an estimated $85 if a LAPD unit handled the same call, assuming the same on-scene time. Public speakers and community groups pressed the committee to place UMCR funding as a separate line item in the FY25–26 budget at a minimum of $12,000,000 to preserve and expand current service levels.

Key outcomes and program data: The CAO briefing and program manager Vanessa Willis reported these metrics as of the one-year mark: 7,191 diverted calls; average response time just under 28 minutes; average on-scene time 25 minutes, 24 seconds; client demographics average age 42, about 60 percent male, roughly 40 percent of clients identified as Black and 28 percent as Hispanic. Staff reported roughly 60 percent of clients served were housed and 40 percent were unhoused. Clinical needs reported included substance-use issues for about 21 percent of clients and mental-health disorders for about 28 percent. Program staff said 9 percent of calls were resolved by foundational engagement, 56 percent by crisis management and social/behavioral support, 22 percent by on-scene support plus referrals, and 13 percent required immediate transport or planned transfers to services. The pilot expanded from three LAPD service areas to six during the year at no additional city operating cost by reallocating existing contractor capacity.

Coordination with county and other city programs: Committee members and staff discussed coordination with Los Angeles County’s behavioral-health teams. CAO staff said UMCR has a memorandum of understanding with County Field Intervention Teams (FIT) that permits UMCR responders to request FIT assistance for high-acuity cases; CAO staff and providers described the FIT priority response as approximately one to two hours from the county’s receipt of a request. UMCR teams can also transport and warm‑handoff clients to county psychiatric urgent care centers (UCCs) and to Exodus Recovery’s Safe Landing facility when appropriate.

CAO staff and the committee emphasized data sharing and handoffs as priorities. The CAO noted a technical-assistance partnership with the Harvard Government Performance Lab to establish benchmarks for call volume, response time, outcomes and cost-effectiveness; CAO staff said Harvard support concludes in June and will inform a deeper program assessment. Staff also reported roughly 700 follow-up calls have been attempted by UMCR teams to check on clients and connections to services.

Public comment and funding requests: More than a dozen public speakers — including representatives of LA Forward Institute, neighborhood councils, the Transit Coalition and multiple residents — urged the committee to secure a dedicated FY25–26 budget line item for UMCR at $12,000,000. Speakers argued that the program diverts calls that would otherwise require police, fire or county response and noted recent liability payouts tied to police encounters as a countervailing fiscal argument. Several speakers stressed equity concerns and urged that UMCR be available citywide, not only in pilot divisions.

Operational and programmatic questions raised: Committee members pressed staff on (1) differences in response time and resource availability across service areas (Valley areas reported fewer night‑hour resources; Wilshire/Olympic divisions reported traffic-driven longer travel times), (2) how UMCR and county FIT requests are routed and whether PSRs (public-safety dispatchers) can directly contact FIT in urgent cases, and (3) whether UMCR outcome reporting to LAPD and other partners is timely and detailed enough to support rapid follow-up. CAO staff said they will pursue clarifications with the county about direct FIT access and are developing protocols to improve timeliness of call outcome reporting to LAPD.

Next steps and committee direction: Committee members asked staff to return with deeper analysis and to invite county and other partners to future hearings to map existing crisis‑care resources, bed availability and handoff protocols. The CAO described plans for a comprehensive program evaluation, informed by the Harvard partnership, to identify what call types are appropriately diverted, cost savings, and whether UMCR reduces repeat calls and long‑term criminal-justice involvement.

Taper: No formal vote or budget appropriation occurred at the meeting; the committee convened to set priorities and request more detailed information from city staff and county partners before prospective budget decisions.