L.A. County to pull funding from embattled homelessness agency
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has voted to pull funding from the regional agency tasked with combating the homelessness crisis and will instead create a new countywide department to take on the effort.
The Board voted 4-0 Tuesday to revoke hundreds of millions in annual taxpayer fund for the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority after audits and a judge's ruling found that the agency had mismanaged and failed to track millions of dollars.
The County will now shift the previously earmarked funds toward creating a new countywide department to manage the crisis, which Supervisor Lindsay Horvath said will be modeled after the Department of Health Services' Housing for Health program, which she says has the best success rate in the region.
'Los Angeles County is leaving the status quo behind, and is embracing a model for homeless services that centers accountability and results,' Horvath said in a release. 'This isn't making the system bigger; it's making it work better, which our communities have been demanding for years.'
The taxpayer funding originally meant for LAHSA will be stripped from the agency by next year.
Horvath was joined in the vote by fellow supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis. Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstained.
While unanimity was essentially reached at the County level, Los Angeles city leaders had urged the County leaders not to pull funding from LAHSA, and instead work on solutions to better rein in spending increase transparency in the agency.
'LAHSA desperately needs more transparency and accountability. However, the speed at which the County is moving raises serious concerns about service disruptions,' a statement from L.A. City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado reads.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass agreed that there have been persistent and systemic issues with LAHSA and the region's approach to battling homelessness, but argued that the corner has already been turned in the last two years since she took office and made the crisis her main priority.
'We are making forward movement. We must keep building on this and confronting our challenges, together,' a letter from Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman reads.
The two highlighted the decrease in homelessness in L.A. City in the previous point-in-time count as proof that the joined efforts between the City and County are working.
'While homelessness rises across the country, we are driving it down and have dispelled the myth that people want to live on the streets,' the letter reads. 'We locked arms, each declaring a state of emergency, and have moved with unprecedented urgency. We are making forward movement.'
But the Supes ultimately decided that the way things are happening now simply aren't good enough, and any progress will need much more oversight and transparency if taxpayer money will be used to tackle the problem.
'This crisis demands a dedicated County department—one that will focus relentlessly on addressing the root causes of homelessness with a comprehensive, accountable approach,' Barger said. 'Our Board is taking full responsibility for the tax dollars we collect and distribute, ensuring transparency, efficiency, and real results for those we serve. The buck stops here.'
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the new County department is formed, it will have a budget of more than $1 billion, removing sales tax funds from LAHSA and redirecting it to the new department.
Hundreds of county workers will be transferred to the new agency by Jan. 1, 2026, and hundreds more will be added in the months that follow.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Audit criticizes Arkansas Board of Corrections' hiring of outside counsel in dispute with governor
Arkansas Board of Corrections member Lee Watson, right, answers questions from the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee on Friday, June 6, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate) An Arkansas legislative committee filed a report Friday detailing a requested audit into the Board of Corrections' 2023 hiring of a Little Rock attorney, a move that raised concerns from lawmakers about the board's procurement practices. The nonpartisan Arkansas Legislative Audit began the probe a year ago at the request of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee, which heard the report Friday and continued to express frustrations about attorney Abtin Mehdizadegan's contract with the prison board. Mehdizadegan has been representing the Board of Corrections in both its legal challenge against two 2023 state laws and Attorney General Tim Griffin's suit against the board for allegedly violating the Freedom of Information Act in Mehdizadegan's hiring. Griffin's office usually represents state agencies in legal cases, but Arkansas law allows special counsel to be appointed in disputes between the attorney general and constitutional officers. Board member Lee Watson, who was the panel's secretary at the time it began working with Mehdizadegan, reiterated this to the committee Friday. Watson said the circumstances surrounding the board's November 2023 dispute with Griffin, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and then-Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri required special action. The board and the executive branch officials clashed over who has ultimate authority over Arkansas' prison system, including the expansion of facilities. Lawmakers criticize Arkansas Board of Corrections members, attorney over altered contract 'Our governor and our secretary were moving forward with moving prisoners into overcrowded facilities,' Watson said. 'Based upon our collective experience, we believed that that would endanger the people in that facility and the general public nearby.' He repeated past statements to lawmakers that Profiri's and Sanders' actions justified hiring Mehdizadegan after an executive session at a brief meeting in December 2023. The Joint Performance Review Committee spent three April 2024 meetings discussing and questioning Mehdizadegan's hiring and contract, and the panel voted to recommend that the Arkansas Legislative Council not review the contract. The audit report found that Mehdizadegan was present and spoke at several Board of Corrections meetings, but this was not reflected in the meeting minutes. The report also took issue with the board signing 'engagement agreements' with Mehdizadegan 'without establishing how the Board would pay for these services, as the Board has no appropriation or funding.' The engagement agreements also did not include the contract length or cost. Mehdizadegan's relationship with the board began when Watson informally contacted him as the board's legal liaison, Watson previously told lawmakers, but auditors 'were unable to verify' his appointment as liaison until after Mehdizadegan's hiring. Additionally, Mehdizadegan has submitted invoices totaling $230,138 to the board for his legal work, but those invoices were unpaid as of Feb. 11, the report states. Auditors recommended in the report that the Board of Corrections make the following changes: Making all board business public Amending the board's bylaws to include liaison appointments in required public business Including all relevant details in proposed contracts Consulting with state procurement officials before procuring goods or services Making sure all information submitted to state procurement officials is 'complete and accurate' BOC special audit report Mehdizadegan wrote the board's 30-page response to the audit findings, recommending that auditors revise the report 'and find that the Board acted lawfully, reasonably and appropriately in its selection of special counsel.' Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said he was 'disappointed' in the board's response. 'All I was looking for in response was, 'Hey, we were in uncharted territory, we didn't know what we were doing, and you know what? We should have followed the procurement process,'' he said. Mehdizadegan and Board of Corrections Chairman Benny Magness were present at Friday's committee meeting but did not face questions from lawmakers. Less than a week after being hired, Mehdizadegan filed the board's lawsuit against Sanders, Profiri and then-Secretary of State John Thurston, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and Act 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from the executive or legislative branches of government. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Patricia James granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Griffin appealed. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court The Arkansas Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to continue Thursday when it dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and dismiss the case as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify Mehdizadegan from further participation in proceedings before the court. Last month, the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of Griffin's suit against the board for allegedly violating the FOIA to hire outside counsel. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox gave Griffin 30 days to work with the corrections board on an agreement with an outside attorney to represent it. Fox dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2024, ruling Griffin's office failed to make an effort to initiate the statutory procedure that allows special counsel to represent state officials and entities. Griffin moved to vacate the circuit court's order, arguing his office could not certify special counsel until the board asked for legal representation. The Supreme Court agreed and sent the case back to Fox. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
A mother talks about the value of CLTS for her disabled son
EAU CLAIRE — At the last county board meeting, County Board Supervisor Michelle Skinner (R-Altoona) brought up her concerns that $68,000 had been spent on annual passes at Chaos Waterpark for disabled children via the county's CLTS program (Children's Long-Term Support). This was compounded with Skinner's concerns over the Human Services budget, which went over by $3.2 million for the year. These two factors contributed to her voting against a motion that would have allocated $30,000 to Sojourner House, Eau Claire County's only emergency homeless shelter. Skinner's reasons were quoted in a May 23 interview for the Leader-Telegram that covered funding for the Sojourner House resolution, which failed to pass by one vote. In the article in the June 5 edition of this newspaper, we attempted to cover some of what Skinner's concerns were — in particular, the funds that had been spent for local park passes. However, press deadlines limited how complete the article could be in this regard. While this article attempts to more completely address those concerns, once again only so much could be compiled at press time. PARENT PRAISES CLTSAmber Borton is a parent of Ryker, a young boy with severe developmental disabilities. Her son is a recipient of the CLTS Program which provides waivers for things not provided by the county. While her son is a recipient of CLTS, her son does not receive the annual passes to any parks, such as Chaos Waterpark or Action City. 'One of the biggest things that we use all the time is for transportation,' said Borton. 'CLTS has to fund the modification of our truck so that I can get his wheelchair into the truck. That's been extremely helpful just getting to and from places.' She also said that the program allowed the family to remodel their bedroom to put in a large bathtub and lift system to get Ryker from the bed to the tub. 'We are working right now on getting an elevator,' she said. 'CLTS is a Medicaid waiver program,' said CLTS Support and Service Coordinator with Eau Claire County Ashley Butcher. '[Its] services go above and beyond what Medicaid can fund. It is a statewide program. Each county has a CLTS program.' Borton explained that caring for her son is a full time responsibility. 'To be plain and clear, I'm a single mom,' said Borton. 'I don't work outside my house. I can't because he needs 24 hour medical care. I truly don't have an outside income that helps me — so, absolutely, this program is everything.' A fundraising website for Ryker can be found at
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX