CalMatters
By Dan Walters, CalMatters
Over the last five years, the state government has spent some $24 billion to ameliorate homelessness, which, according to polls, is California’s most troublesome issue.
Despite that immense financial commitment —and billions more in spending by local governments and philanthropic organizations — the number of homeless people continues to grow.
The latest federal homelessness count found 186,000 Californians living on the streets or in shelters, up 5,000 from the previous year and 36,000 since 2019, the year Gavin Newsom became governor. California has the highest homelessness rate of any state and more than a quarter of the nation’s homeless population.
Despite the crisis, we have no hard data telling us how the money was spent, much less which programs, if any, have been successful. Not surprisingly, given the evident lack of results, official and private agencies that administer the programs are reluctant to disclose such information.
In fact, Calmatters.org and other groups have resorted to lawsuits to compel homelessness agencies to release information on what they have done with the funds.
Despite the shameful secrecy, it’s apparent that one factor in the expanding crisis is a lack of coordination and cooperation among the public and private agencies.
Earlier this year, State Auditor Grant Parks issued a sharply worded critique of the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Newsom administration’s tool for coordinating homelessness programs.
“The state lacks current information on the ongoing costs and outcomes of its homelessness programs, because (the council) has not consistently tracked and evaluated the state’s efforts to prevent and end homelessness,” Parks wrote.
State-level disorganization is compounded by a structural choke point at the local level. Overwhelmingly, unsightly encampments of homeless people are located within cities, but the social and medical services central to closing those camps are administered by counties, and in highly politicized urban areas, city and county officials tend to be rivals rather than partners.
While Newsom periodically issues demands that local officials do a better job of eliminating the camps — notwithstanding disorganization in his own administration — the lack of local cooperation and coordination is a major impediment.
A situation in Sacramento, within earshot of the state Capitol and detailed by Sacramento Bee columnists Tom Philp and Robin Epley, illustrates the conflict.
Sacramento’s city and county officials have feuded for years over homelessness, not only for the usual reasons but because the American River Parkway, which runs through the city and has been a favorite camping site for homeless people, is managed by the county.
Two years ago, faced with a business-backed ballot measure to crack down on encampments, the city fashioned a less harsh alternative that anticipated an agreement with county officials to provide services for people losing their camping sites.
However, instead of joining the city, county officials banned camps in the parkway and ordered law enforcement to clear them.
City officials complained that people removed from the parkway simply set up new camps inside the city limits. When a local legislator, Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, obtained a $25 million state grant to the county for homeless programs, county supervisors decided how to spend it, mostly on a few dozen shelter beds or housing slots, without agreement from city officials.
City Councilwoman Karina Talamantes showed up at a meeting of county supervisors to complain about their unilateral actions.
“All the people living on the American River Parkway moved across the street into our neighborhoods north of the river,” Talamantes told the board. “I’ve been asking about these funds for the last two years.”
Supervisors fired back in a press release accusing Talamantes of shading the facts about the situation. McCarty, now a candidate for mayor, is caught in the middle of the feud.
# # #
CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan Walters, go to Commentary.
RUBY says “Giving a home to the homeless does nothing but encourage more homeless and rob the taxpayer.”
OK, so you think we should just leave them in our streets. Yes? Yes, that’s what you’re saying. Do you have any idea how much more it costs taxpayers to deal with people living in the streets? It’s a lot more than actually providing some shelter. The studies showing this have been cited multiple times here, but since I know you won’t bother doing any work, here’s just one:
“The auditor found the CalWORKS program spent an average of $12,000-$22,000 per household, while a single chronically homeless person can cost taxpayers as much as $50,000 per year.” – https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/california-homelessness-spending/#:~:text=The%20CalWORKS%20Housing%20Support%20Program,housing%20once%20they%20become%20homeless.
Why don’t you want taxpayers to save money? I mean heck, you even whinged about the cost of rescuing sea lions, which again costs you NOTHING. Why the change of heart? I mean, that’s great that you want to spend more money, but I’d prefer not to if we can help them for a lot less money.
But great, now we don’t have to listen to you complaining about people in the streets, because that’s what YOU choose. Let’s see how long this lasts…..
BTW didn’t our governor mandate breaking up homeless encampments without alternatives?
No RUBY, he did not.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered state agencies Thursday to start removing homeless encampments on state land in his boldest action yet following a Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces.
RUBY – it’s the “without alternatives” you lied about…. Do you not know what you write here? It would explain a lot.
Sorry Sacc. Gavin left no alternatives for the displaced
Paltering again.
Yes, leave them on the streets. Or give them encampments with power and running water and a tent. There is no way we spend $4,000 a month on each homeless – in fact there is no way we spend anything except medical care, which would continue even in a shelter. Tell me how $4,000 a month is spent and how a mini house would decrease it.
Giving them nice shelter will just encourage more from elsewhere. Everything we’ve done has failed.
Most refuse to go to a shelter same if you built them homes. They want the lifestyle they live. My wife worked in a homeless shelter for two years in Santa Monica. CA is plagued with more than 50% of the homeless in the country because of all the programs are a magnet. That plus the mild weather of course. The ones that are mentally ill should be institutionalized. Against their will if necessary. They are unable to make decisions for themselves. You would not leave five year old children to fend for themselves on the street. It is the same thing.
As for the ones that are wanting to live on the street because they are on drugs, if they cannot be rehabilitated and turned into sober citizens that can hold a job and a dwelling, than jail is an option. Society cannot have this illegality destroying the fabric. They first should be sent to rehabilitation. Forced there if necessary BUT living on the street should not be an option. As for the working poor that cannot afford the rents in their locality, than moving to a State where they can is an option.
Some local municipality have caused this problem. I lived in NYC for the first 27 years of my life. Rent control has caused a terrible situation. You have a large percentage of people paying ridiculous low rents where landlords cannot make proper upgrades and these dwelling are off the market, so the rest pay crazy prices because of supply and demand.
Argentina just got rid of rent control and already the prices are coming way down and everything is evening out. NYC the price of a dwelling in Manhattan apt rental average is $4000 a month! In queens it is now $3000. If they did away with rent control, the prices would come down 30% Instead, people are leaving the State because of the price of a home, rent and the taxes and fees. Also, the city and States onerous fees and taxes on Landlords are a big reason they keep raising the rents. it is these Democrat run Staes that cause the burdensome tax situation and then blame everything else for the problems they are causing.
More expensive idiocy from rubes.
Politicians are California’s most prominent issue.
Yes, many excellent politicians and other public servants have issued from California.
Get a job, able-bodied young man – Mark Bannister. There are tons out there. Then support yourself and your little dog. There’s your answer.
So tell us, “Doc.” Is that your professional opinion that a man in a photo about whom you know absolutely NOTHING is “able bodied” only needs to go “get a job?” Interesting, can you explain how did you make that diagnosis?
Everything is so simple, isn’t it? You know, I’d maybe believe you if you weren’t constantly struggling here on a daily basis to make rational comments with even the slightest semblance of reason or honesty.
He looks like a young able bodied person, dude. There are tons of ways he could work and start making a living for himself, and ditch the living on the streets. Employers need employees. So yeah, that’s what I think.
You don’t know the first thing about him, or anyone else you see on the streets.
So yeah, that’s how it is.
But you do?
No, but I’m not the one here making assumptions. Try to follow along better.
You can choose to enable the hell out of everyone who wants free stuff here including maybe your very own kids someday if you want. I don’t agree with that philosophy.
Just more con stupidity in action. Everyone else is a burden on society to them.
ANON – and the reality is that most red states (full of these Cons) are a burden on the rest of the country. CA carries most of these backward places.
I see young strong men with well fed dogs, living on State street. Explain to us why they should not work a job and pay a rent. Why should they be allowed to live on the street, in the doorway of a business, where some family man has invested his savings in a shop, trying to support his family? Does it not impact his business negatively?
You see them or do you actually talk to them? Ask their mental and physical health? Ask about the reason they’re on the street? No, of course not.
I “see” all sorts of things, but I don’t know the reason for their existence as they are.
Not all of us are expertly trained telepathists.
Among the problems in this arena are, it seems to me, the idea that people don’t have to make sacrifices to accommodate the general welfare choices. Among these choices is the idea that a person without a real residence should refuse the offer of such because he can’t take his dog with him. Yes, we are attached to our pets and homeless people get very close due to their isolation but isn’t there an accommodation possible? And if not, shouldn’t society have the right to clean up these settlements, provide sanitary shelter and healthy living even if it means someone has to be separated from a pet?
Giving a home to the homeless does nothing but encourage more homeless and rob the taxpayer.
You don’t understand civilization, or much of anything.