Committee weighs citywide Continuum of Care, staff outlines five-step plan and equity amendment

The Los Angeles City Committee on Disability, Aging, Migration, Equity and Civil Rights on the record heard a report from the Legislative Analyst’s office on establishing a city-level Continuum of Care and debated equity safeguards and alternatives.

David Wilson, an analyst in the office of the Legislative Analyst, presented the report and said the office did not identify long-term legal or programmatic risks to pursuing a municipal CoC but flagged substantial short-term technical and resource challenges. "Básicamente lo que podemos decir tras la conversación... es que pudimos destacar los desafíos principales para establecer este continuo de cuidado," Wilson said, and outlined "five" technical steps to proceed: notice to the County and its current CoC board; a stakeholder vote to constitute a city membership; creation of governing statutes by that membership; testing a coordinated-entry process; and operation of a data-management system capable of transferring tens of thousands of records.

Wilson said membership could include nonprofits, faith-based groups, hospitals, universities and government entities and that the membership, not city councilmembers, would typically draft the governing statutes. He warned that the data step would be "extremadamente técnico," involving transfer of case files and biometric identifiers into a new system, which could present logistical burdens.

As alternatives, Wilson described negotiating with the County to create a city service-area within the county CoC to track Proposition A resources, keeping city-funded programs outside the county CoC, or creating a city-led coordinated-entry process. He said the office had not yet mapped historic or future placements and called the items suggestions requiring follow-up study.

Concejal (Councilmember) Rodríguez delivered a sustained critique of how homelessness programs and oversight had been fragmented across committees and agencies, and urged stronger equity requirements tied to funding and contracts. "Solamente estamos hablando, no estamos tomando acción," Rodríguez said, arguing past instructions and funding decisions had not produced equitable results. Rodríguez read a recommended amendment asking staff to incorporate equity analyses (vulnerability, disability, age, gender identity, and geographic equity), performance indicators, and best practices into any proposal and requested the amendment be distributed to colleagues.

Other members, including Concejal Jurado, echoed calls for clearer accountability and enforcement mechanisms tied to funding allocations, noting that prior directives had not yielded the intended equitable outcomes. After discussion, the committee voted in favor of moving forward with the point under discussion; Concejal Soto Martínez, Concejal Jurado and Concejal Rodríguez voted yes, and Concejal Padilla was recorded as absent.

The presentation closed with staff and members agreeing that the options presented—including negotiation with the County, a municipal coordinated-entry process, or a standalone municipal CoC—require additional data mapping, legal review and stakeholder negotiations. Staff indicated a follow-up report would provide feasibility analysis and mapping of placements and capacity.

The committee did not finalize creation of a city CoC at this meeting; members approved next steps to pursue additional study and incorporate equity analyses as requested.