Facing the greatest disaster in Los Angeles history, the county government did not have the plans and procedures in place it needed to jump-start a recovery after the January 2025 fires, a new review found. <\/p>\n
The new report suggested a slew of reforms to ensure the region is better prepared for the next major emergency, and noted that \u2014 despite outdated or absent plans \u2014 county employees and partners worked hard to provide many of the resources and support that fire survivors needed, often under exceptionally challenging circumstances. <\/p>\n
L.A. County employees and partners \u201ccarried this recovery, under extraordinary pressure and on compressed timelines,\u201d the report found, navigating the immediate recovery of the Eaton and Palisades fires through \u201cinstitutional knowledge rather than in a formal plan.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report<\/a>, which examined the first three months after the firestorm, is the second major after-action review ordered by the county Board of Supervisors and carried out by McChrystal Group, a consulting firm based in Alexandria, Va.<\/p>\n Residents said that many of the findings reflect their experiences \u2014 and validate their fears as they work to rebuild in a region infamous for its wildfire, earthquake and flood risks.<\/p>\n \u201cBasically this report just confirms something that all of us … [knew] through our lived experience: There was no plan in so many categories,\u201d said Sylvie Andrews, a fire survivor and advocate for Altadena\u2019s recovery after she and many of her neighbors lost their homes on the west side of town last year. \u201cL.A. County doesn\u2019t have a plan for disasters \u2014 that\u2019s a ticking time bomb.\u201d<\/p>\n The report praised the work of county emergency employees during this period but concluded they were working with an inadequate playbook.<\/p>\n \u201cThe County currently lacks an updated Los Angeles County Operational Area Recovery Plan, a formal repopulation decision framework, a countywide volunteer and donations model, and integrated data for reaching vulnerable populations at higher risk,\u201d the report found. Among the dozens of findings and recommendations, the consultants urged the county to update and formalize plans, systems and leadership structures to carry out important aspects of recovery, particularly in communication, volunteer and donation management, repopulation, sheltering and public health. <\/p>\n The review will be discussed further on Tuesday at the county Board of Supervisors meeting.<\/p>\n \u201cFire survivors deserve the very best protection and support from their government \u2014 and they deserve action,\u201d Supervisor Lindsay Horvath, who represents much of the area devastated by the Palisades fire, said in a statement Monday. \u201cThere are lessons to learn, gaps to close, and changes we must make.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAs we prepare now for El Ni\u00f1o and the disasters the County knows are coming, we must act on these lessons and do everything in our power to protect our communities,\u201d she added. <\/p>\n Officials did not disclose how much the county paid for the review, saying the full cost had not yet been determined. <\/p>\n The prior after-action report<\/a> cost $1.9 million<\/a> and followed Times reporting that revealed evacuation alerts were significantly delayed for Altadena\u2019s historically Black community. The report was heavily criticized<\/a> for failing to assign blame or identify specific evacuation failures, but officials have said that wasn\u2019t the goal of the McChrystal Group review. <\/p>\n All but one of the 19 people who died in the Eaton fire <\/a>were found in west Altadena. The California attorney general in February opened a civil rights investigation<\/a> into potential disparities in the fire response, looking particularly at delays in evacuation alerts and resource allocation between west and east Altadena. <\/p>\n Twelve people died in the Palisades fire. The fires destroyed much of Altadena and Pacific Palisades, as well as parts of Malibu, leveling more than 17,000 structures across those communities.<\/p>\n Shawna Dawson Beer, a longtime Altadena advocate, was glad this latest review acknowledged that it was \u201cnot just a chaotic night, … but a cascade of failures.\u201d But, she said, she\u2019s still concerned about when these issues will be addressed, as all the recommendations were given vague \u201cnear-term,\u201d \u201cmid-term\u201d or \u201clong-term\u201d timelines, and funding for implementation was yet to be assigned.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a mess,\u201d Dawson Beer said. \u201cIt\u2019s clearly a pattern, with no accountability structure.\u201d<\/p>\n But Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, vowed to make accountability her goal as the board moves forward. <\/p>\n \u201cI want every recommendation to have a responsible department, a clear timeline, and a way for the Board and public to measure whether it is actually operational,\u201d Barger said, pointing to many concerns raised by the report. \u201cAn after-action report only has value if we learn from it and make meaningful changes before the next emergency. … We cannot wait for the next disaster to figure out how we shelter and support our most vulnerable residents or how County departments coordinate critical recovery decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n