4 ms·
> ... but, in fact, San Francisco spends tremendous amounts of money on the problem. The city is allocating a record $241 million this fiscal year on homeless s
by bko 10y ago
> ... but, in fact, San Francisco spends tremendous amounts of money on the problem. The city is allocating a record $241 million this fiscal year on homeless services, $84 million more than when Mayor Ed Lee took office in January 2011. But the city struggles to track exactly how all that money is being spent and whether it’s producing results. Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations, most of them nonprofits, that deal with homelessness.
Perhaps the city should re-think on the effectiveness of such programs. My biggest problem with the programs is that they are indirect and empower bureaucracies rather than the people they are purported to serve. For instance, housing subsidies are incredibly inefficient. The programs (in NYC at least) often provide a housing subsidy in a very popular neighborhood. So for instance, market rent could be $4,000 but subsidized rent would be $1,000 for a net transfer of $3,000. If the landlord had an option of paying < $3,000 and being able to rent the apartment at market rent, he would surely prefer that option. As an alternative, if that family received a direct $3,000 subsidy, the family would likely only use a portion of those funds to pay for better housing. Too many transfer programs that allocate a particular good have that problem and are highly inefficient. I doubt an extra $100 mm would provide any meaningful changes to many.
[0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
- housingthrow 10y agoWhat this doesn't take into account is the fact that california doesn't require renters to list their income from alimony or child support. There are a ton of beautiful lofts in Santa Monica, for instance, which are over 100% of the maximum allowable income as a section 8 renter. This means that they were only built for rich divorcees or otherwise subsidized women.
- joeblow9999 10y ago"The city is allocating a record $241 million " Sounds so effective and generous! I bet it's the best place in the world to be homeless no? But then we read: "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" Ah... it's a bureaucrat job program, nothing more. All that money not being spent on homeless people.
- WalterSear 10y agoFurthermore, a staggering 1 in 4 homeless (29%) in SF were bussed in by the homeless service industry from other areas, and then ejected on to the streets for bad behaviour[0] or other reasons. I can understand why each step of this process (bringing people to services, ejecting those that are unmanageable in order to maintain the order required to help the others. As a systematic process, however, it's obscene: it protects the industry while fanning the flames of the crisis, which, in turn, builds support for more funds for homeless non-profits. [0]"Ten percent (10%) of respondents reported they were living out of state at the time they lost their housing. Nineteen percent (19%) reported they were living in another county in California. Six percent (6%) reported they were living in Alameda County at the time, 3% San Mateo, 2% Marin, 2% Contra Costa and 1% Santa Clara County." http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...
- dragonwriter 10y agoFirst, your link is broken, the correct link is: http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc... Second, while 71% did have homes previously in San Francisco, it does not follow that the remaining 29% "were bussed in by the homeless service industry from other areas". SF is known for having stronger support for the homeless, so homeless might well actively seek to travel to SF from other areas -- that's especially unsurprising for those from other Bay Area counties, which make up nearly half of the 29%. Second, there've been recurring cases of cities shipping out the homeless (either in general, or indigent mentally ill, in particular) to other jurisdictions -- including, often, SF. (This is them being bussed by someone, but not the homeless service industry.)
- WalterSear 10y agoSorry, I mixed up my numbers while digging this up again. It's 23% - still 1 in 4 - that were in homeless shelters in SF before they were homeless, that were formerly from elsewhere.