Comments
iAUDIT! - Most of my regular readers know I have great respect for Union Rescue Mission (URC), and the work it does on Skid Row. Under the leadership of the now-retired Rev. Andy Bales, and new CEO Mark Hood, URC has offered emergency and long-term assistance to the unhoused for decades. Rather than the one-size-fits-all Housing First/Harm Reduction solution, URC provides individualized support for its clients. Some need short-term assistance to get back on their feet, while others require in-house treatment and support. For those participating in its residential programs, URC requires enrollment in therapy and/or sobriety counseling. Rather than merely sheltering someone, URC gives people the life skills they need to live independent lives. Among homeless service providers, URC’s program is known as the “contingency management” approach; progression through the recovery process depends on each person’s ability to complete a series of phases, which may include detoxification and life skills classes, eventually leading to the ability to live independently if possible.
Contingency management differs from Housing First in that it makes shelter and housing contingent on acceptance of services. Housing First emphasizes stable housing under the assumption that services will be more effective if a person has secure housing. I have critiqued Housing First from several points of view in previous columns, but it should be enough to say homelessness has steadily increased since Housing First became official U.S. policy in the late 2000’s. Likewise, Housing First’s corollary policy of No Barrier/Harm Reduction has done little other than make abusing drugs, (and dying from an overdose) easier than ever. Some critics who examined the statistics behind Housing First have noted it tends to increase perpetual reliance on government-provided housing because it has no requirements for changing one’s lifestyle, nor any way to measure when someone may be able to live independently. In the words of Jess Echevery, CEO of the nonprofit SOFESA, Housing First is creating “generational homelessness” by making entire families dependent on outside services. One of my regular readers has referred to this as “infantilizing” the unhoused; treating them as helpless children incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and lives.
Because Union Rescue Mission does not use Housing First policies, it gets no federal or state funding. However, it has had a major impact on homelessness, especially in and around Skid Row. Its programs to shelter, house, feed, and provide support to the unhoused rival the combined efforts of the City, County, and LAHSA. Since URM is a major player in LA’s homelessness environment, I was curious to see how its leaders reacted to the Trump Adminijstration’s recent Executive Order directing HUD to steer funding away from Housing First/Harm Reduction programs. On August 5, the Westside Current published an article concerning an interview with URM CEO Mark Hood.
Mr. Hood noted the recent claims of minor reductions in homelessness do not justify the huge costs. He compared the reduction to standing in a large stadium holding 75,000 people. If you close your eyes and 3,000 people leave, would you notice when you open your eyes? No--the change would be negligible. Earlier in the year, Mr. Hood met with HUD Secretary Scott Turner, coming away with hope that the changes outlined in the Executive Order will provide an incentive for innovative approaches to the homelessness crisis. HUD’s latest Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) supports Mr. Hood’s belief, stating, in part, “The status quo is unacceptable for every American, with or without a home. In response, HUD intends to publish a NOFO for 2025 Continuum of Care (CoC) awards. HUD invites CoCs to prepare for an application focused on treatment and recovery, reducing unsheltered homelessness, reducing returns to homelessness, and increasing the earned income of participants”. Union Rescue Mission’s approach closely matches HUD’s priorities, which I described in an earlier column.
As you might imagine, the powers behind the status quo are in a panic. An LAist article quoted Sarah Mahin, the newly--appointed head of the County’s homelessness department saying “The federal government is on an all-out assault on funding and services for our most vulnerable...” Likewise, Amy Perkins, Supervisor Horvath’s homelessness advisor, told LAist, "I think it's important to state that we met with HUD this week, with a Trump appointee who made very clear that he would recommend there would be no funding coming to our city,” framing the change in funding priorities as a direct attack on Los Angeles, which is inaccurate. As the NOFO states, funding isn’t being cut; it is being directed away from Housing First/Harm Reduction models and towards contingency management programs. Lacking objective proof of success, Housing First advocates are falling back on emotion-laden statements that make it sound like people on the street will be left stranded. The NOFO also makes it clear there will be a new focus on results, stating, “The NOFO will seek to provide opportunities for new types of projects including street outreach and transitional housing programs. HUD encourages CoCs to evaluate the effectiveness of their projects at contributing to the community-wide goals above and to ensure that the most effective partners, including faith-based organizations, are involved”. In other words, if an organization wants to be funded, it needs to demonstrate it is effective. As we know from a long string of audits and reports, LA’s homelessness programs have a history of inefficiency, waste, and a near-total lack of results.
Homelessness leaders have a choice to make. They can change with the times, or they can continue to defend the status quo. We can see what direction they are taking from a recent article in the LA Times. The high-powered law firm hired to fight the LA Alliance's homelessness case blew through $1.8 million in two weeks, and the City Attorney didn't bother to tell Councilmembers. According to the article, the law firm charged for multiple lawyers at $1,300 per hour, basically to object to nearly every question and answer during June's oral testimony in Judge Carter's court. Bear in mind, the city paid twice its contracted amount on a three-year contract for two weeks' worth of work. Not only did the City Attorney fail to inform the Council of the costs, it exceeded its own contract limit by a factor of two.
The City Attorney's Office and the legal firm were predictably smug about the billings. The city boasted how great it was that Gibson Dunn stepped in the middle of the case and set up a pending appeal to the 9th Circuit. In a particularly galling comment, Gibson Dunn's representative mocked the Alliance's work, pointing out its cost the City $1.3 million in Alliance attorney's fees since April 2024. Alliance attorneys work prospectively, that is, they must justify their costs to the court before being reimbursed. Gibson Dunn's statement is even more insulting when one compares the $1.3 million the city has had to pay the Alliance for 16 months' work, compared to the city paying a half-million dollars more to Gibson Dunn for two weeks' work. And of course, it ignores the fact the city had to pay Gibson Dunn for its strategy of constantly objecting to the Alliance's questions, needlessly drawing out the hearing and running up its billable hours, in a vain attempt to deflect from its appalling performance failures.
The city's payout won't stop at $1.8 million. As the Times’ article notes, the city appealed Judge Carter's decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There may be months of briefs and their associated costs to come. And once you get past the city's whining about its legal costs, remember this; if the city had done its job and used its funds to actually help mitigate the homelessness crisis, none if this would have been necessary. As Allaine attorney Matthew Umhoffer said in an August 2024 hearing, the city should not have to be dragged into court to and be forced to do its job. At no time during the acrimonious June hearing about the recent assessment from audit firm Alvarez & Marsal did the city refute any of the report’s findings. Rather, the appeal is based on attempts to discredit the findings of a review the City agreed to, and paid for.
I have far more respect for voices like that of Mr. Hood and Union Rescue Mission, where the real work to meet the realities of the homelessness crisis is taking place, than for histrionic attacks from political appointees, who seem to be more interested in defending the revenues to their nonprofit allies, than in actually helping the unhoused.
(Tim Campbell is a longtime Westchester resident and veteran public servant who spent his career managing a municipal performance audit program. Drawing on decades of experience in government accountability, he brings a results-driven approach to civic oversight. In his iAUDIT! column for CityWatchLA, Campbell emphasizes outcomes over bureaucratic process, offering readers clear-eyed analyses of how local programs perform—and where they fall short. His work advocates for greater transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness in Los Angeles government.)
