Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Adopted County response: Emergency Management Preparedness for the City and County of Los Angeles

County replies expressly cover County operations, not City EMD. They describe approved and planned staffing, public communication and EOC planning; prospective funding and readiness assertions remain unverified claims. Download opens the same unchanged 70-page consolidated County packet used by all eight collections.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response) · 2026-09-01

9

Addressed

3

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

1

Implemented

4

Will be implemented

0

Requires further analysis

0

Will not be implemented

1

Unclear

How to read this audit

Editorial engagement review only. Finding scores measure stated position, disagreement explanation, coverage, reasoning and traceability—not whether the respondent agrees with the jury or its claims are true. Recommendation disposition records the claimed state, including partial or alternative implementation explained in the audit, not verified completion. The packet was adopted September 1, 2026, item 27; its enclosure is dated August 11. Proceedings physical PDF page 22 records five ayes. No filing/receipt date or legal-timeliness judgment is inferred. Missing separate submissions do not establish nonresponse.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

3

Extracted commitments

1

Definite or bounded timing

0

Conditional timing

2

No timeframe

R5.3 · Bounded timeframe

County plans 39 additional CEO-OEM positions and corresponding services-and-supplies budget increases across the two stated fiscal years, distinct from 44 positions already approved for FY 2026–2027.

over the course of FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029

R5.5 · No timeframe stated

County describes securing funding and developing plans for a new EOC and upgrades to the existing EOC. Initial plans would make the existing facility an alternate EOC and training center; funding, plans, and work remain ongoing, with no completion date.

No target date stated

R5.6 · No timeframe stated

County says it will implement the recommendation in part, proposing County Operational Area issuance of multi-jurisdictional emergency protective notifications, alerts, and warnings while preserving local authority for other disaster communications. No implementation date is specified.

No target date stated

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 12 of 12 items

finding · F5.1

F5.1: The City EMD’s and County OEM’s responsibilities are not well understood by some elected officials, making it difficult for these departments to secure adequate funding and staffing.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

County partially disagrees within County operations, citing 44 positions approved for FY 2026–2027 and 39 additional positions planned across FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029, with budget increases. It does not directly address elected officials' understanding or its alleged effect on resources.

Audit analysis

Explicit County-only partial disagreement supplies a fiscal-year-specific budget basis, but does not adequately map disagreement or reasons to the understanding-and-funding causal claim. Resource changes provide relevant but incomplete reasoning. Report physical PDF page(s) 231; County response physical PDF page(s) 44. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

7/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

4/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explicit County-only partial disagreement supplies a fiscal-year-specific budget basis, but does not adequately map disagreement or reasons to the understanding-and-funding causal claim. Resource changes provide relevant but incomplete reasoning.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 231Response page 44
Discuss finding and response

finding · F5.2

F5.2: Public understanding of emergency-management roles and resources

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees about public understanding and emergency-resource awareness, expressly for County operations only.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement with clearly identified County-only scope requires no explanation; scope disclaimer adds neither substantive reasoning nor support. Report physical PDF page(s) 231; County response physical PDF page(s) 44. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement with clearly identified County-only scope requires no explanation; scope disclaimer adds neither substantive reasoning nor support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 231Response page 44
Discuss finding and response

finding · F5.3

F5.3: The City EMD’s and County OEM’s budgets and staffing are inadequate, limiting their ability to carry out their missions effectively.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County partially disagrees within County operations, citing an approved FY 2026–2027 addition of 44 positions and increased budget, plus plans for 39 more positions and related budget increases over FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029.

Audit analysis

County scope and staffing/budget basis make the disputed adequacy claim and rationale discernible. Fiscal-year-specific approved and planned resource changes explain the response, without independently proving mission effectiveness. Report physical PDF page(s) 231; County response physical PDF page(s) 45. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

County scope and staffing/budget basis make the disputed adequacy claim and rationale discernible. Fiscal-year-specific approved and planned resource changes explain the response, without independently proving mission effectiveness.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 231Response page 45
Discuss finding and response

finding · F5.4

F5.4: The City EMD and County OEM do not have sufficient funding to prepare for major events such as the 2028 Olympic Games, resulting in inadequate emergency preparedness.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County disagrees for County operations, predicting federal Olympic-preparation funds distributed through the State and access to one-time safety/security funding, with Sheriff and Fire coordination roles.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement and County scope are explicit; anticipated funding explains the position on preparedness. No amounts, allocations, award records, or preparedness measures substantiate sufficiency, so reasoning remains general and support consists of assertions. Report physical PDF page(s) 231; County response physical PDF page(s) 45. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

4/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
1/2

Whole disagreement and County scope are explicit; anticipated funding explains the position on preparedness. No amounts, allocations, award records, or preparedness measures substantiate sufficiency, so reasoning remains general and support consists of assertions.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 231Response page 45
Discuss finding and response

finding · F5.5

F5.5: The City EMD and County OEM do not have a fully functional Alternate Emergency Operations Center, resulting in a lack of operational effectiveness and redundancy should the primary EOC be unusable.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County disagrees for County operations, stating Public Works' EOC can serve during an emergency. A new EOC location is being evaluated; using the current EOC as alternate is conditional on developing a new one.

Audit analysis

Explicit disagreement identifies an existing claimed backup and distinguishes conditional future arrangements, directly engaging redundancy. No readiness assessment or operational record is cited for the asserted backup capability. Report physical PDF page(s) 232; County response physical PDF page(s) 45. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

Explicit disagreement identifies an existing claimed backup and distinguishes conditional future arrangements, directly engaging redundancy. No readiness assessment or operational record is cited for the asserted backup capability.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 232Response page 45
Discuss finding and response

finding · F5.6

F5.6: During the 2025 fires, the responsibility to issue evacuation orders was split among several agencies, including the City EMD and the County OEM, resulting in an uncoordinated emergency response.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees with the finding about split evacuation-order responsibilities and uncoordinated response during the 2025 fires, expressly for County operations only.

Audit analysis

Explicit County-scoped agreement requires no disagreement explanation; no added reasoning or supporting basis is supplied. Report physical PDF page(s) 232; County response physical PDF page(s) 45. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit County-scoped agreement requires no disagreement explanation; no added reasoning or supporting basis is supplied.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 232Response page 45
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R5.1

R5.1: The City EMD and the County OEM should develop an upwards communications strategy to better inform officials about the vital missions of these two departments.

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees and reports implementation for County operations, citing the McChrystal After-Action Report, Emergency Services Ordinance Chapter 2.68 adopted March 30, 2020, and Unified Coordination Group systems for informing officials before, during, and after emergencies.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County agrees and reports implementation for County operations, citing the McChrystal After-Action Report, Emergency Services Ordinance Chapter 2.68 adopted March 30, 2020, and Unified Coordination Group systems for informing officials before, during, and after emergencies. Report physical PDF page(s) 232; County response physical PDF page(s) 46. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 232Response page 46

recommendation · R5.2

R5.2: The City EMD and County OEM should seek funding for a social media consultant to develop an outwards communications strategy to better inform the public on what the departments do and what people should do in the event of an emergency.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

County agrees for County operations and describes existing social-media presence and public-preparedness communications. It does not address seeking funds for the recommended social-media consultant or commit to hiring one.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County agrees for County operations and describes existing social-media presence and public-preparedness communications. It does not address seeking funds for the recommended social-media consultant or commit to hiring one. Report physical PDF page(s) 232; County response physical PDF page(s) 46. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 232Response page 46

recommendation · R5.3

R5.3: The City EMD’s and the County OEM’s operating budgets and staffing should be increased to the point where they can effectively accomplish their mission and responsibilities.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees and describes implementation for County operations through 44 positions and increased budget approved for FY 2026–2027, with 39 more positions and related budget increases planned across FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029. Planned additions are not completed staffing or proof of mission effectiveness.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County agrees and describes implementation for County operations through 44 positions and increased budget approved for FY 2026–2027, with 39 more positions and related budget increases planned across FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029. Planned additions are not completed staffing or proof of mission effectiveness. Report physical PDF page(s) 232; County response physical PDF page(s) 46–47. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County plans 39 additional CEO-OEM positions and corresponding services-and-supplies budget increases across the two stated fiscal years, distinct from 44 positions already approved for FY 2026–2027.

Responsible party
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing
over the course of FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029 · Bounded timeframe
Report page 232Response page 46

recommendation · R5.4

R5.4: The City EMD and the County OEM should redouble their efforts to obtain funding from the Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Federal Government, and any other available funding sources

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

County agrees and labels funding efforts being implemented for County operations, explaining how additional LA28 host-committee funding would support games and non-games preparedness and response. It does not specify applications, awards, or concrete redoubled efforts across the recommended funding sources.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County agrees and labels funding efforts being implemented for County operations, explaining how additional LA28 host-committee funding would support games and non-games preparedness and response. It does not specify applications, awards, or concrete redoubled efforts across the recommended funding sources. Report physical PDF page(s) 233; County response physical PDF page(s) 47. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 233Response page 47

recommendation · R5.5

R5.5: Both the City EMD and the County OEM should make plans and obtain funding to have fully functioning Alternative Emergency Operations Centers.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees and reports ongoing funding and planning for a new EOC and upgrades to the current EOC, initially intended as alternate EOC and training center. These are developing County plans, not completed alternate-center readiness.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County agrees and reports ongoing funding and planning for a new EOC and upgrades to the current EOC, initially intended as alternate EOC and training center. These are developing County plans, not completed alternate-center readiness. Report physical PDF page(s) 233; County response physical PDF page(s) 47. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County describes securing funding and developing plans for a new EOC and upgrades to the existing EOC. Initial plans would make the existing facility an alternate EOC and training center; funding, plans, and work remain ongoing, with no completion date.

Responsible party
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 233Response page 47

recommendation · R5.6

R5.6: The City EMD and the County OEM should work with the City and the County to establish a single point of communications to the public for future catastrophic events.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees to future implementation in part: the County Operational Area should issue emergency protective notifications, alerts, and warnings during multi-jurisdictional emergencies, consistent with SEMS concepts. Local jurisdictions would retain authority for other disaster information and communications; this is not a promise to consolidate all public communications.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. County agrees to future implementation in part: the County Operational Area should issue emergency protective notifications, alerts, and warnings during multi-jurisdictional emergencies, consistent with SEMS concepts. Local jurisdictions would retain authority for other disaster information and communications; this is not a promise to consolidate all public communications. Report physical PDF page(s) 233; County response physical PDF page(s) 47–48. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County says it will implement the recommendation in part, proposing County Operational Area issuance of multi-jurisdictional emergency protective notifications, alerts, and warnings while preserving local authority for other disaster communications. No implementation date is specified.

Responsible party
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 233Response page 47