Council hears stark data on LAHSA cash flow, access centers as HAP 6 funding shortfall looms

The Los Angeles City Housing and Homelessness Committee on March 31 heard that the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) faces immediate cash‑flow pressure tied to state HAP 6 grants and that some local services show very low utilization.

Committee members and CAO officials said LAHSA had asked the city and county for short‑term financing so LAHSA can provide services pending state reimbursement. LAHSA staff told the committee they are negotiating with the County of Los Angeles and exploring use of Measure A flexibility to reduce the city’s near‑term cash obligation; CAO staff said the overall amount LAHSA initially sought for immediate cash flow has been reduced but some financing will still be required.

Committee members said the city should not assume repeated shortfalls and asked CAO and LAHSA to return with a plan that limits city risk if the committee or council approves any short‑term loan. "If we pay you back, we're gonna have to put these people out on the street," Councilmember Bob Blumenfield told LAHSA during debate, voicing concern that a loan could push responsibility for program cuts onto the council later.

Why it matters: LAHSA administers many programs funded by state HAP dollars, and the city would be asked to provide bridge financing for LAHSA operations if state awards or county agreements do not provide immediate cash. Committee members said they need better performance data before approving any bridge loan and asked CAO and LAHSA to craft repayment safeguards and a plan to prioritize higher‑yield interventions.

Key facts from the update: CAO and LAHSA staff told the committee that LAHSA initially requested a larger bridge amount; after county flexibility for Measure A usage, that request was reduced. CAO staff and LAHSA officials indicated the revised short‑term need for the city could be in the low‑ to mid‑single‑digit millions for a limited period (figures under negotiation). LAHSA staff reported that access centers and some interim programs show wide variation in use: one access center reported about 21 participants per month while another reported about 460 per month; some access centers recorded very low monthly counts and faced staffing shortages.

Committee members pressed LAHSA on utilization and oversight. Councilmember Paul Krekorian and others questioned why some access centers report very low unduplicated counts while being funded for multiple staff. LAHSA and CAO officials said staffing shortages and post‑COVID hiring problems explain some low counts, and that not all contacts are captured in HMIS because some visitors decline enrollment or seek brief help rather than ongoing services.

LAHSA described planned next steps: targeted meetings with access center operators to assess ramp‑down options, and a communication plan with city and county partners to explain expected program impacts. CAO staff said they are negotiating with the county on how to split any loan obligation and seeking lower‑cost interventions where feasible.

Committee direction and unresolved questions: The committee unanimously concurred with prior committee instructions to include LAHD in HAP 6 planning and asked CAO and LAHSA to return with a proposal that (a) reduces city risk for any bridge finance, (b) identifies program reduction timelines and communications, and (c) lays out performance metrics so council members can evaluate whether programs should continue. Members also asked for clearer utilization and staffing data for each access center and interim housing site.

Looking ahead: CAO and LAHSA committed to more granular performance reporting and to return with a proposed structure for any short‑term financing, including repayment terms, and with a communication strategy for providers and impacted communities.