Comments
HOMELESSNESS - Los Angeles is in the midst of a defining moment for public accountability. As the region continues investing billions into homelessness programs, an unexpected dispute over audit authority has placed one of the city’s most urgent responsibilities—oversight—on hold. The result is a system caught between bureaucratic interpretations and public expectations, and the consequences extend far beyond City Hall.
At the center of the issue is a legal disagreement between the City Attorney and the City Controller regarding who has the authority to audit homelessness spending. This debate was formalized in Opinion No. R24-0094, in which the City Attorney concluded that large portions of homelessness-related expenditures should be treated as “proprietary,” limiting the Controller’s audit authority. While the Controller sought to examine contracts, service providers, and major programs—including those involving LAHSA, Inside Safe, and Proposition HHH—this interpretation effectively paused or restricted his review.
Because the Controller’s office had begun looking more closely at how the city’s homelessness system operates—an ecosystem of contractors, nonprofits, developers, consultants, intermediaries, and public agencies that together manage billions in funding but often struggle to show consistent, verifiable results. Inside Safe has now exceeded $250 million in spending, yet independently validated rehousing data remains limited. LAHSA oversees more than $800 million annually without a comprehensive, audited performance-tracking system. Proposition HHH projects regularly approach or exceed $700,000 per unit. Some service providers with prior compliance issues continue to receive contract renewals, and affordable housing developers operate within cost structures that escalate year after year. Stronger oversight would have touched every part of this system.
The outcome of the audit dispute was public confusion: while one office attempted to initiate reviews, another determined that those audits were outside the Controller’s jurisdiction. In a city where homelessness spending now exceeds a billion dollars, even temporary ambiguity about oversight leaves Angelenos questioning how—and whether—the system is being monitored at all.
This matters because the numbers are staggering. LAHSA manages more than $800 million. Inside Safe has surpassed $250 million. Proposition HHH continues its multiyear rollout with costs reaching into the billions. Nonprofit providers, contractors, motel operators, and intermediaries collectively handle enormous portions of the city’s homelessness budget. Transparent, consistent auditing is not merely a government formality—it is a safeguard meant to ensure these dollars translate into real solutions.
When oversight stalls, the consequences ripple outward. Encampments continue growing. People cycle in and out of temporary housing with no permanent exit strategy. Some providers receiving millions have struggled with compliance, including failures on federal audits. HHH projects remain years behind schedule. Motels charge the city rates that outpace nearby luxury hotels. These are the realities that make regular audits indispensable.
The legal interpretation outlined in Opinion No. R24-0094 also raised larger questions about transparency. If homelessness spending becomes subject to shifting definitions or technical classifications, the public loses confidence in the city’s ability to track performance, enforce accountability, and deliver results. Oversight cannot depend on internal disagreements or legal ambiguity—it must be clear, consistent, and protected from procedural gridlock.
City leadership has expressed a commitment to transparency, and this moment is an opportunity to reaffirm that promise. Restoring clarity around audit authority would not only protect taxpayer dollars but also strengthen the city’s ability to respond effectively to the homelessness crisis. Angelenos deserve a system that welcomes scrutiny, not one that becomes inaccessible when audits are most needed.
Ultimately, the public is not asking for perfection. They are asking for visibility—into where their money goes, how programs perform, and whether the billions invested are creating measurable progress. Los Angeles cannot afford an oversight gap at a time when lives, trust, and outcomes hang in the balance.
The path forward is straightforward: resolve the legal ambiguities, revisit Opinion No. R24-0094, restore the Controller’s ability to conduct audits, and open the books. Oversight is not an obstacle to progress—it is a prerequisite for it. And without it, Los Angeles risks not only wasting money but missing the chance to bring lasting change to a humanitarian crisis that affects every corner of the city.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
