Measure H (Los Angeles County)

Measure H (Los Angeles County)
Name	Measure H (Los Angeles County)
Title	Measure H
Year	2017
Location	Los Angeles County, California
Outcome	Passed
Type	Local ballot measure

Measure H (Los Angeles County) was a 2017 ballot measure in Los Angeles County, California to authorize a countywide temporary sales tax increase to fund services for people experiencing homelessness. Backed by a coalition of county supervisors, nonprofit organizations, religious institutions and business groups, the measure sought to expand housing programs, mental health services, substance use treatment and employment services across the county. The measure’s passage added to a set of local and state initiatives addressing homelessness that included actions by the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and regional entities.

Background and Origins

Measure H emerged amid growing public concern over visible homelessness in areas such as Skid Row, Los Angeles, Venice Beach, and parts of the San Fernando Valley. Momentum built following high-profile incidents and media coverage involving homelessness near landmarks like Los Angeles City Hall and the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and after studies from institutions such as the University of Southern California and UCLA documented rising unsheltered populations. County leaders, including members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and officials from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, proposed a revenue measure similar to prior local ballot measures like Measure HHH (Los Angeles, 2016) and statewide efforts such as the No Place Like Home (California) program. Advocacy and opposition drew participation from groups including the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and business coalitions representing Greater Los Angeles commerce.

Provisions and Funding Mechanism

Measure H authorized a 0.25% increase in the countywide sales tax for ten years, modeled on sales tax measures used elsewhere such as Measure HHH and municipal tax measures in San Francisco and San Diego. Revenues were earmarked for specific categories: rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, interim housing, mental health treatment, substance use disorder programs, outreach, employment services, and supportive services administered by agencies like the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. The measure required administrative allocations to entities including the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and the Los Angeles County Office of Education for coordinated service delivery. Fiscal oversight mechanisms referenced best practices from entities such as the California State Auditor and the Government Accountability Office.

Implementation and Agencies Involved

Implementation was led by a partnership of county departments and regional providers: the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). Local municipalities including the City of Los Angeles, Long Beach, California, and Pasadena, California coordinated on site-based projects, while nonprofit providers such as the Salvation Army, PATH (People Assisting the Homeless), Skid Row Housing Trust, and Mercy Housing delivered services and housing. Faith-based organizations including First AME Church (Los Angeles) and national funders like the Annenberg Foundation and California Community Foundation supplemented Measure H funding with philanthropic grants. Data collection and evaluation drew on collaborations with academic partners like California State University, Northridge and research centers at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Impact and Outcomes

Following adoption, Measure H revenues contributed to expanded interim housing sites, increased outreach teams, and the placement of individuals into permanent supportive housing units developed through partnerships with developers and agencies active in projects similar to Skid Row housing developments. Evaluations by county auditors and independent researchers compared outcomes to benchmarks from programs in New York City and Seattle, Washington, reporting mixed results: increases in housing placements and service engagement, concurrent challenges in reducing overall unsheltered counts, and fiscal complexities familiar from prior initiatives like Measure HHH (Los Angeles, 2016). Some areas saw reductions in encampments after integrated outreach, while other neighborhoods experienced displacement effects noted in analyses from institutions such as the Urban Institute and RAND Corporation.

Political Debate and Public Response

Public debate over the measure mirrored controversies from previous Los Angeles ballot measures, involving elected leaders including the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Mayor of Los Angeles, and members of the California State Legislature. Supporters included advocacy coalitions such as the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and social service coalitions; opponents included fiscal conservatives and organizations like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in earlier housing debates, as well as neighborhood associations in West Hollywood and Santa Monica. Campaign finance reports showed contributions from philanthropies, labor unions, and business groups, and opposition messaging invoked comparisons to policies in cities like San Francisco and Portland, Oregon. Voter turnout and precinct-level returns reflected geographic splits similar to patterns seen in other countywide measures.

Legal Challenges and Accountability Measures

After passage, legal and procedural questions were raised about expenditure priorities, compliance with state statutes such as the California Constitution provisions on special taxes, and coordination with state funding streams like Proposition 63 (California, 2004). Oversight relied on county auditors and inspectors general comparable to offices in Los Angeles County Office of the Inspector General, and audits referenced standards from the Government Accountability Office and the California State Auditor. Lawsuits and administrative reviews targeted contracting processes and environmental review obligations under laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act, prompting revisions to implementation procedures and reporting requirements to improve transparency and accountability.

Category:Los Angeles County ballot measures Category:Homelessness in California