There are few promises from elected officials as empty as vows to “end homelessness.” To do so, they must first “end” the extreme cost of housing — and make advances in fighting against addiction and mental illness. So when along comes a state audit that faults official efforts to address homelessness, it must also be noted that there are no easy answers on this issue.
That said, the audit provides vast new evidence that elected leaders’ willingness to spend public funds heavily to address pressing problems isn’t accompanied by efforts to judge whether the spending has been effective. As state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, wrote last July, lawmakers often don’t seem to care whether “the money we spend is actually improving the lives of the people we say we are committed to helping.”
The audit focused on the $24 billion the state has allocated toward homelessness over the past five fiscal years, a span in which nine state agencies oversaw more than 30 programs meant to prevent or reduce homelessness. But most didn’t adequately monitor their results to see if they were working, and some never even engaged in such self-assessments. No wonder state homelessness sharply increased over the five years.
The audit did have praise, however, for two of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s initiatives. The Homekey program that provides funds to local governments to turn hotels and other buildings into housing for the unsheltered did so at an average cost of $144,000 per unit — 60 percent to 75 percent less than new construction would cost. The CalWORKS Housing Program, which provides grants to keep people at risk of becoming homeless in their current housing, was also found to be far cheaper than providing them housing after they were forced onto the street. These programs should get the bulk of the funding now going to programs without proof of effectiveness. This should be obvious to everyone in the Capitol.
An accompanying audit also analyzed the homelessness responses by the cities of San Diego and San Jose and offered a similar — and unsurprising — critique of spending not being accompanied by adequate efforts to determine whether the money was smartly used. The most interesting takeaway from this report was that the city of San Diego accepted the critique without dispute, but the city Housing Commission — reflecting its emphasis on process over results — obtusely objected to auditors’ focus on “program outcomes” in evaluating effectiveness. This verges on self-parody.
Here’s hoping that Newsom, Mayor Todd Gloria and anyone who controls public funds understands that “outcomes” are always what matter the most in governmental responses to societal problems. “Message: We care” isn’t remotely good enough.
