At a Sept. 17 Housing and Homelessness Committee meeting, city and regional homelessness officials reported that sharp funding reductions are forcing reconsideration of the time-limited subsidy (TLS) program that provides two years of rental assistance plus case management. Regina Joy Alcazar of the Los Angeles Housing Department told the committee the program was “one of our most successful programs” but that “the program had $240,000,000 in funding last fiscal year and is now operating with $123,000,000 in the current fiscal year.”

The committee heard that the TLS program — designed to provide 24 months of rental assistance, rent-reasonableness checks and progressive tapering of subsidies — helped thousands move indoors during the pandemic funding surge but now faces a funding cliff. “By the end of our current fiscal year, it is expected that 2,700 TLS subsidies will not continue,” Alcazar said. Committee members and staff said that without other housing options, affected households could fall back into homelessness.

Why this matters: TLS has produced higher rates of exits to permanent housing than other interim interventions, and local officials said the program is relatively cost-efficient. But that success has increased demand for long-term housing options that are now scarce: fewer Section 8 vouchers, a shallow-subsidy program at full utilization, and interim housing running at near capacity.

Officials from LAHSA, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and HR&A Advisors delivered the program review and recommendations. Sarah Solon of HR&A summarized the three core problems revealed by the analysis: (1) fewer follow-on housing options exist now that federal and state one‑time funds have ended, (2) TLS program design and fiscal sustainability issues, and (3) variable case management intensity and capacity across providers.

LAHSA data presented at the meeting showed roughly 4,700 TLS households that will need subsidy or other arrangements next July if no new funding is identified; LAHSA-administered TLS currently serves roughly 2,822 adults and 1,395 families, with at least 60% of LAHSA-administered slots allocated to people within Los Angeles city limits. Staff described three subpopulations in TLS: households that could increase income over time (and may need short “shallow” subsidies), fixed‑income households (for whom shallow subsidies plus benefits enrollment is the likely path), and a third group — about 60% of TLS participants in the LAHSA sample — who are assessed as likely to need long‑term services and supports and therefore permanent supportive housing (PSH).

To reduce the risk of returns to homelessness, staff proposed several near-term and system changes: (1) ask the Continuum of Care (CES) Policy Council to temporarily prioritize TLS households assessed as PSH‑eligible for available project‑based PSH units (the CES policy council was scheduled to consider that option on Sept. 24); (2) launch a pilot to test whether more consistent or intensive case management and supportive employment services increase rent contribution and housing stability; (3) explore ramping up shallow subsidy capacity; (4) improve data collection (including documenting in‑person case management frequency) and expand participation in a centralized fiscal agent to streamline rent payments and reporting.

LAHSA’s Nathaniel Vergau described the referral pipeline to PSH and the constraints: turnover of tenant‑based vouchers has fallen as housing authorities are in shortfall, and new federal vouchers secured through the Continuum have been small relative to need. Vergau said that matching TLS participants to newly obtained tenant‑based vouchers is underway but covers only a small share of need.

Committee members sought additional data and clarity before committing new city funds. Council member Corrado pressed staff for a detailed inventory of one‑time funding that has expired or will expire, and for an accounting of case‑management capacity and vacancies. Alcazar and HR&A staff said they would share an itemized funding spreadsheet and recommended a pilot to assess whether improved, adequately staffed case management affects outcomes.

No formal action was taken. Committee members requested follow-up materials, expressed support for further regional coordination, and asked LAHSA and city staff to return with more detailed funding and program design options.

Ending: Staff left the committee with three near-term steps: pursue CES prioritization for PSH‑eligible TLS households, scope a case‑management pilot, and improve data collection and fiscal infrastructure to better monitor rent share and vacancy/caseload issues. The committee did not vote and asked staff to return with the requested materials.