Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Homeless service provider served mostly ramen
    A man with dark colored skin fixes his bike outside his tent next to the 110 Freeway in Los Angeles. Sky scrapers and palm trees are in the background against a blue sky.
    A man fixes his bike outside his tent next to the 110 Freeway in Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    A homeless services provider for Los Angeles’ Inside Safe motel shelter program is under investigation on fraud allegations, after officials determined that it failed to provide nutritious meals to residents despite being paid to do so as part of a $110 per person daily fee.

    The allegations: While some service providers say they offer freshly prepared sandwiches, soups and roasted vegetables, the City Controller’s Office said in a news release that the unnamed provider’s on-site food inventory “consisted almost entirely of instant ramen noodles.”

    Who is it? Officials wouldn’t name the provider, with the controller’s office citing the ongoing investigation. And all of the nine Inside Safe service providers who responded to LAist said it wasn’t them.

    What does the mayor say? Mayor Karen Bass created and oversees the Inside Safe program. Her spokesperson Zach Seidl said in a statement that "this should never happen” and that improving services is a top priority.

    A homeless services provider for Los Angeles’ Inside Safe motel shelter program is under investigation on fraud allegations, after officials determined that it failed to provide nutritious meals to residents despite being paid a $110 per person daily fee to provide those and other services.

    While some service providers say they offer freshly prepared sandwiches, soups and roasted vegetables, the City Controller’s Office said in a July 26 news release that the unnamed provider’s on-site “food inventory consisted almost entirely of instant ramen noodles.”

    “The small remaining portion of other food inventory consisted only of instant oatmeal, canned soup, canned corn, and canned refried beans. The food selection appeared to fall short of fulfilling daily nutritional requirements,” said the release from the office of City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

    “There was no fresh food provided by the contractor for the residents," the statement continued. "Fresh food was available in the common area, but it had been donated to the facility by others.”

    An investigation by the controller’s office into whether the contractor engaged in fraud is ongoing.

    “Taxpayer money goes heavily into homeless services in our city,” Mejia said in the release, citing a current homelessness budget of nearly $1 billion.

    “Angelenos should be able to reasonably expect their investment to return decent meals for our unhoused neighbors — not instant ramen for almost every meal.”

    What service providers are paid to do

    Service providers receive $110 per day in city funds for each person they care for at Inside Safe motels, under Mayor Karen Bass’ signature homelessness initiative. In turn, providers are required to offer an array of services, including three meals per day.

    Those meals are required to meet Food and Drug Administration nutrition standards, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), which manages the contracts on the city’s behalf.

    But LAHSA officials say the provider under the controller’s scrutiny did not follow those requirements, in violation of the contract.

    “Inadequate shelter and services discourages unhoused people from accepting or remaining in shelter. LA cannot meaningfully lower our unhoused population unless the City provides adequate housing and services,” Mejia said in his news release.

    Who is the provider?

    Mejia’s office would not name the service provider, citing the ongoing investigation. LAHSA officials also did not answer multiple requests for the provider’s name.

    All of the service providers for Inside Safe told LAist it wasn’t them.

    LAist contacted all nine of the lead Inside Safe service providers listed in a recent report to the City Council last week. LAist asked LAHSA officials for the program’s full list of service providers last Monday and continued to ask repeatedly in the days that followed.

    The list wasn’t provided until Wednesday. It included one provider that wasn’t on the list provided to the council.

    The chief executive of that tenth provider told LAist it was not the one targeted by the investigation.

    The follow-up

    After verifying the tip, Mejia’s office flagged the issue to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the joint city-county agency that pays Inside Safe service providers from city taxpayer money, according to both agencies.

    LAHSA now requires the service provider serve three nutritious meals per day, according to the controller’s announcement.

    “We are encouraged that LAHSA took quick action to correct the immediate situation,” Mejia said in the news release. “We will continue our investigation into the allegation of contractor fraud, including determining their contractual obligations and how they used taxpayer dollars.”

    In a statement, LAHSA officials said the provider was serving “unacceptable meals” in violation of the contract.

    “As the Controller noted, LAHSA quickly took corrective action to ensure the people at this site received the required three nutritious meals every day,” LAHSA officials wrote. They said the agency will be visiting the motel frequently to “provide additional support, training, and monitoring to ensure contract compliance.”

    LAHSA’s statement added that the agency has long had “inadequate” systems for overseeing contractors’ performance, which officials say they are overhauling. The agency also is working on sending out surveys to program participants to allow them to anonymously report issues at their interim housing, including Inside Safe.

    Mayor’s office: ‘This should never happen’

    A spokesperson for Bass, who created and oversees Inside Safe, said in a statement that the meal issue was unacceptable.

    "This should never happen,” said Zach Seidl, the mayor’s lead spokesperson, in a statement.

    “We must ensure service providers are provided the support and resources needed to provide 3 meals per day as well as health and other supports necessary to enable unhoused Angelenos to stay inside. The Mayor has long said that these standards are vital,” he added.

    The mayor’s office has made it a top priority to improve the quality of services at Inside Safe, Seidl wrote.

    LAHSA’s chief executive, Va Lecia Adams Kellum, did not respond to requests made through a spokesperson for an interview.

    Tensions over the controller’s auditing powers

    The City Controller’s office has wanted to audit the Inside Safe program since the program’s early weeks a year and a half ago, according to court testimony by Mejia.

    At a June hearing before federal Judge David O. Carter, Mejia testified that he was blocked by City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office from reviewing the contractors’ performance under the program.

    Deputy City Attorney Jessica Mariani testified that the controller does not have authority under the city charter to review the performance of programs under other elected officials, such as Inside Safe.

    Carter said that made him concerned.

    “I'm worried that the City, either intentionally or unintentionally, is able to put a program under the umbrella of an elected official, the Mayor or whomever, and not have accountability in terms of somebody watching and verifying,” he said at the hearing.

    After an earlier hearing on the issue before Carter, Mejia announced in March that he was launching an audit of Inside Safe.

    Feldstein Soto’s spokesperson, Ivor Pine, did not respond to messages in recent days asking if the city attorney continues to believe the controller lacks authority to conduct the audit. It’s separate from a more sweeping audit that Carter is overseeing into city homeless services.

    The recently-announced meals investigation, however, was launched after a tip to the controller’s fraud, waste and abuse hotline, according to the controller’s office. That’s a separate process from their ongoing audit of Inside Safe.

    What do other service providers serve?

    Many service providers told LAist they provide freshly prepared hot meals to residents daily.

    Rowan Vansleve, president of Hope the Mission, said about 75% of the meals served to its Inside Safe participants are freshly prepared with whole foods and whole proteins. They include a fried chicken sandwich with potatoes and salad, which Vansleve described as the most popular meal the group has ever served.

    “Their bodies have experienced some incredible trauma. Living on the streets just breaks you down,” he told LAist in an interview.

    “Providing whole foods, nutritious foods, a variety of different foods, is vital to the healing process. We’ve gone at great lengths to [provide] that,” Vansleve said, adding that a private donor helped Hope the Mission build a kitchen where the meals are prepared.

    He said meals they provide include:

    • Stews and soups with oven-roasted vegetables
    • Sliced chicken or turkey meat with carrots and potatoes
    • Freshly baked granola
    • Chicken or fish po’ boy sandwiches
    • Chicken salad wraps
    • Breakfast sandwiches with frittata egg, veggies, bacon, on English muffins baked in-house 
    • Sliced fruits

    Rev. Richard Reed, who leads the nonprofit provider First to Serve, said the menu for its Inside Safe participants on a recent day included:

    • Pancakes, hash browns, turkey sausage and orange juice or coffee for breakfast
    • Korean beef bulgogi, white rice and green beans for lunch
    • Black pepper chicken, garlic potatoes, roasted broccoli and dessert for dinner

    The menu changes weekly, he said.

  • Prices go up again, up to $11K for finals

    Topline:

    FIFA is once again raising prices for a substantial number of games in the upcoming World Cup tournament that will be held in the United States, Canada and Mexico in June and July.


    Price hike: The price increases took place in FIFA's latest sales window that kicked off on Wednesday, with 40 out of 104 games now costing more than in the last sales window, according to an NPR examination of prices. The most expensive "Category 1" tickets for the final will now cost $10,990, a broad area that covers most of the lower two bowls of MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, where the last game of the tournament will be held in July.

    Why have prices risen?: FIFA has not replied to NPR's queries. But previously FIFA has justified its prices citing strong demand for tickets as well as noting it's adapting its pricing to the North American market. FIFA has also repeatedly said it's a non-profit that steers the vast majority of revenue from the World Cup to grow soccer around the world.

    Read on . . . for more on which matches have seen ticket prices increase.

    FIFA is once again raising prices for a substantial number of games in the upcoming World Cup tournament that will be held in the United States, Canada and Mexico in June and July.

    The price increases took place in FIFA's latest sales window that kicked off on Wednesday, with 40 out of 104 games now costing more than in the last sales window, according to an NPR examination of prices.

    The hikes can be stark. The most expensive "Category 1" tickets for the final will now cost $10,990, a broad area that covers most of the lower two bowls of MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, where the last game of the tournament will be held in July.

    That's significantly more than the nearly $8,700 at which these tickets were priced in FIFA's previous sales window earlier this year — and much higher than the $6,370 at which they were priced when sales kicked off last year.

    The increases come even after FIFA has faced heavy criticism about the record prices being charged and its adoption of dynamic pricing for the first time. A group representing European fans and consumers called FIFA's prices "exorbitant" and filed a formal complaint this month with the European Commission in a bid to get the soccer body to lower prices.

    Meanwhile, a group of Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to FIFA accusing the organization of "price gouging at the expense of the people who make the World Cup the most-watched sporting event in the world."

    FIFA has not replied to NPR's queries. But previously FIFA has justified its prices citing strong demand for tickets as well as noting it's adapting its pricing to the North American market. FIFA has also repeatedly said it's a non-profit that steers the vast majority of revenue from the World Cup to grow soccer around the world.

    Price increases cover a wide range of games

    Most of the price increases in the initial stage of the tournament were for teams that tend to draw more fans such as Brazil, Argentina, England and Germany — as well as co-host Mexico.

    Although price hikes tended to be of less than $100, they still mark a substantial escalation from the initial prices at which FIFA started selling those tickets. Some increases were quite big though. Mexico's opening game against Saudi Arabia now costs as much as $2,985, up from $2,355 in FIFA's last sales window and up from its initial price of $1,825.

    Most of the knockout games also increased in price, including the one being held in Philadelphia on July 4th — and the hikes tend to get more substantial for match-ups later in the tournament.

    For example, the two semi-finals of the tournament also saw hefty price hikes. The game that will be held in Dallas in July will now cost as much as $3,710, up substantially from $3,295 in the last sales window.

    The current sales window will last all the way through the tournament. FIFA has not said how many tickets are left to sell, only that it will continue to drop tickets periodically, including potentially for games that appear to be sold out.
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Sponsored message
  • Developer drops plans after pushback
    Two women with gray hair carry signs that read "No Data Center."
    Opponents to a planned data center in Monterey Park have spoken out at rallies and City Council meetings over the last several months.

    Topline:

    A developer that had proposed a nearly 250,000-square-foot data center in a Monterey Park business park has withdrawn its application and says it won’t fight an upcoming ballot question banning data centers in the city.

    Why now: HMC StratCap notified the city on Tuesday that it was pulling its proposal to build a data center in a local business park after months of pressure from residents and advocates who raised concerns about pollution, energy use and health risks. The parent company of the developer — DigiCo Infrastructure REIT — said that HMC sought to "work with the City to establish productive land uses" for its Saturn Street property "that are supported by the broader community." Representatives for HMC StratCap have not responded to requests for comment.

    Why it matters: For people pushing back on data centers in the region, Monterey Park is shaping up as a test case for how local organizing can stop them. The developer’s decision to withdraw its application comes ahead of a June 2 special election on Measure NDC. If approved at the ballot box, Monterey Park would be the first to ban data centers by public vote. The developer, which had threatened legal action against the city for data center restrictions, now says it will not contest the proposition.

    The backstory: The data center proposal had been moving through the city's planning pipeline for two years before it started showing up on the City Council's agendas and coming to the attention of residents, who were outraged the plans had not been well-publicized by the city. Hundreds of people flooded City Hall during council meetings over the last several months, demanding the city heed their concerns. In response, the council approved a temporary moratorium on data center development, put the issue on the ballot and will consider a separate ordinance banning data center development altogether.

    What’s next: Members of groups like No Data Center MPK and San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action are celebrating the application's withdrawal, but say they will continue to advocate for Measure NDC and the data center ordinance, which the City Council is expected to vote on in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, organizers are joining the effort to stop a proposal to build a battery energy storage system in the City of Industry, which they see as laying the groundwork for a data center.

    Go deeper: How Monterey Park residents pushed back on a data center — and changed the course

    Topline:

    A developer that had proposed a nearly 250,000-square-foot data center in a Monterey Park business park has withdrawn its application and says it won’t fight an upcoming ballot question banning data centers in the city.

    Why now: HMC StratCap notified the city on Tuesday that it was pulling its proposal to build a data center in a local business park after months of pressure from residents and advocates who raised concerns about pollution, energy use and health risks. The parent company of the developer — DigiCo Infrastructure REIT — said that HMC sought to "work with the City to establish productive land uses" for its Saturn Street property "that are supported by the broader community." Representatives for HMC StratCap have not responded to requests for comment.

    Why it matters: For people pushing back on data centers in the region, Monterey Park is shaping up as a test case for how local organizing can stop them. The developer’s decision to withdraw its application comes ahead of a June 2 special election on Measure NDC. If approved at the ballot box, Monterey Park would be the first to ban data centers by public vote. The developer, which had threatened legal action against the city for data center restrictions, now says it will not contest the proposition.

    The backstory: The data center proposal had been moving through the city's planning pipeline for two years before it started showing up on the City Council's agendas and coming to the attention of residents, who were outraged the plans had not been well-publicized by the city. Hundreds of people flooded City Hall during council meetings over the last several months, demanding the city heed their concerns. In response, the council approved a temporary moratorium on data center development, put the issue on the ballot and will consider a separate ordinance banning data center development altogether.

    What’s next: Members of groups like No Data Center MPK and San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action are celebrating the application's withdrawal, but say they will continue to advocate for Measure NDC and the data center ordinance, which the City Council is expected to vote on in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, organizers are joining the effort to stop a proposal to build a battery energy storage system in the City of Industry, which they see as laying the groundwork for a data center.

    Go deeper: How Monterey Park residents pushed back on a data center — and changed the course

  • Attorney general is out at DOJ

    Topline:

    President Donald Trump announced today that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out from the top job at the Justice Department. Her departure comes amid simmering frustration over her leadership and her handling of the Epstein files.

    Why now? In social media post, Trump called Bondi "a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year."

    What's next: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is Trump's former personal attorney, will step in to serve as acting attorney general, the president said.

    The context: Bondi, a longtime Trump loyalist, is the second member of the president's Cabinet to be forced out. Her departure comes almost one month after Trump fired Kristi Noem as secretary of Homeland Security. Bondi leaves after a tumultuous 14 months in charge that critics say damaged the Justice Department's credibility, hollowed out the career ranks and undermined the rule of law.

    President Donald Trump announced Thursday that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out from the top job at the Justice Department. Her departure comes amid simmering frustration over her leadership and her handling of the Epstein files.

    In social media post, Trump called Bondi "a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year."

    "Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900," Trump said. "We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future."

    Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is Trump's former personal attorney, will step in to serve as acting attorney general, the president said.

    Bondi, a longtime Trump loyalist, is the second member of the president's Cabinet to be forced out. Her departure comes almost one month after Trump fired Kristi Noem as secretary of Homeland Security.

    Bondi leaves after a tumultuous 14 months in charge that critics say damaged the Justice Department's credibility, hollowed out the career ranks and undermined the rule of law.

    Under Bondi, the department jettisoned its decades-old tradition of maintaining independence from the White House, particularly in investigations and prosecutions, to insulate them from partisan politics.

    Instead, she used the department's vast powers to go after the president's perceived foes. That includes the high-profile cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, which were brought after Trump publicly called on Bondi to prosecute them.

    A federal judge later tossed both cases after finding the acting U.S. attorney who secured the indictments was unlawfully appointed.

    Other political opponents of the president or individuals standing in the way of his agenda also have found themselves under DOJ investigation, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, and former Obama-era intelligence officials James Clapper and John Brennan.

    Bondi also oversaw sweeping changes to the career workforce at the department. The agency fired prosecutors and FBI officials who worked on Capitol riot cases or the Trump investigations.

    The elite section that prosecutes public corruption was gutted; the Civil Rights Division, which protects the Constitutional rights of all Americans, experienced a mass exodus of career attorneys who say the division is being turned into an enforcement arm of the White House.

    Political firestorm over Epstein files

    Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, has defended her actions. She has portrayed the firings as a necessary house cleaning of politicized career officials. She's also tried to focus on what she views as major accomplishments during her tenure: targeting drug cartels, cracking down on violent crime, and helping in immigration enforcement.

    But ultimately, the department's handling of the files related to the investigations of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein played a large role in her downfall.

    Early in her tenure, Bondi told Fox News that she had Epstein's client list "sitting on my desk right now to review." A few months later, the Justice Department and the FBI said there was no client list and that no additional files from the Epstein investigation would be made public.

    That touched off a political firestorm and ultimately led Congress to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Justice Department to make public all of the Epstein files in its possession.

    The department failed to meet the Act's 30-day deadline to release the materials, fueling frustrations on Capitol Hill, before eventually releasing millions of pages of files. Democratic and Republican lawmakers also expressed concerns about heavy redactions that were made to many of the documents.

    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • City cuts ties with largest shelter operator
    A woman wearing a purple shirt and black pants walks through a parking lot of a grey, two story building
    A woman walks through the parking lot of a homeless shelter in Long Beach that contractor First to Serve operated until the city launched an investigation into its billing practices.

    Topline:

    Long Beach has fired the contractor that operated almost all of its homeless shelters following an audit of the $69 million the city has spent on homeless services over the last five years.

    First to Serve: The nonprofit First to Serve ran 423 of the city’s 500 shelter beds until yesterday, but after a closed-door City Council meeting last month, Long Beach cut ties and quickly swapped in the L.A.-based nonprofit People Assisting The Homeless (PATH). Long Beach is now investigating First to Serve which could result in the city pursuing criminal or civil charges. The investigation stemmed from a broader review of Long Beach’s homelessness programs launched by City Auditor Laura Doud in 2023.

    What's next: As of Wednesday, the sites were being operated by PATH. The city plans to release bids in the next month or two to evaluate new operators for each of the four shelters. In response to the audit, the city said it’s already tightening up its processes, including the launch of a new tracking system and stricter oversight standards.

    Long Beach has fired the contractor that operated almost all of its homeless shelters following an audit of the $69 million the city has spent on homeless services over the last five years.

    The nonprofit First to Serve ran 423 of the city’s 500 shelter beds until yesterday, but after a closed-door City Council meeting last month, Long Beach cut ties and quickly swapped in the L.A.-based nonprofit People Assisting The Homeless (PATH).

    Long Beach is now investigating First to Serve, according to Deputy City Attorney Nicholas Masero. It’s unclear if that investigation could result in the city pursuing criminal or civil charges. Masero said that “we’ll make that determination as the investigations progress.”

    The investigation stemmed from a broader review of Long Beach’s homelessness programs launched by City Auditor Laura Doud in 2023.

    The audit, Masero said, looked into documents submitted by vendors like First to Serve “seeking reimbursement or payment on contracts.”

    “During our audit, we identified information that requires further review,” Doud wrote in a recent memo to the city manager. “To protect the integrity of our ongoing investigation, we cannot provide additional details regarding the matter at this time, nor can we discuss our audit in greater detail.”

    What she discovered, though, was enough to compel Long Beach to cut ties with First to Serve.

    By November, the city began to withhold payments and started the search for a new provider after finding enough instances of “contractual concerns that we were confident we needed to switch providers,” Masero said.

    Doud has not yet released the full results of her audit, but she said contractors like First to Serve must do a better job showing they’ve performed the work they were hired to do before they’re paid, and the city needs to verify the services were actually provided before paying.

    According to Homeless Services Bureau Manager Paul Duncan, Long Beach has paid First to Serve $13 to $14 million annually to operate four shelters, as well as for rapid rehousing and prevention programs.

    A man wearing a cap and plaid shirt is pictured in profile. He is seated, the backs of several people are pictured in the foreground
    Paul Duncan, Long Beach’s homeless services bureau manager, informed the city’s Homeless Services Advisory Committee on Wednesday, April 1, that the city had terminated contracts with its largest homeless shelter provider.
    (
    Thomas R. Cordova
    /
    Long Beach Post
    )

    The organization oversaw the shelter at 702 West Anaheim St., the Atlantic Farms Bridge Housing Community at 6841 Atlantic Ave., the Project Homekey site at 1725 Long Beach Blvd., and the former Luxury Inn at 5950 Long Beach Blvd.

    As of Wednesday, the sites were being operated by PATH. The city plans to release bids in the next month or two to evaluate new operators for each of the four shelters, Duncan said.

    In response to the audit, the city said it’s already tightening up its processes, including the launch of a new tracking system and stricter oversight standards.

    There’s been no official accounting of exactly what alleged wrongdoing is being investigated. According to their agendas, the City Council met in private on March 3 to discuss the situation, and then, on March 10, approved new contracts for PATH to operate the shelters without any public discussion.

    On Wednesday, Long Beach officials also appeared to try to tamp down the idea that the move to fire First to Serve was related to accusations raised last week by mayoral candidate Chris Sweeney.

    In a video posted to Instagram, Sweeney toured the shelter at 5950 Long Beach Blvd. and alleged there was fraud at the nearly empty shelter, where only 12 of its 78 rooms were being used.

    First to Serve’s other three shelters were 78% to 88% occupied, according to city data, though about one-third of the rooms at the 1725 Long Beach Blvd. site were under construction and are not being used.

    Officials say the city and First to Serve met weekly to review inventory at each shelter, transfer existing case files, and do walkthroughs of each site to make sure everything was accounted for.

    Mayor Rex Richardson, Councilmember Tunua Thrash-Ntuk, and other city officials celebrated the completion of the shelter at 5950 Long Beach Blvd. on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2025. Photo by Thomas R. Cordova. In a memo, the Long Beach health director Alison King said the decision to cut ties with First to Serve was related to the city auditor’s review of “prior administrative documentation” that “is not related to shelter operations.”

    Nevertheless, she wrote, “Based on the findings of that review, the City determined it is in the best interest of the community to move forward with a new service provider for shelter operations.”

    The city’s investigation has been ongoing since October, according to Masero.

    Nobody from First to Serve was immediately available to answer questions late Wednesday night.