Comments
iAUDIT! - I just finished reading the 11-page, 3,600-word press release, titled “Delivering Results” from Mayor Bass’ office on the City’s homelessness program accomplishments. After reading it, I was left with a mix of thoughts and emotions: amusement, astonishment, indignation, and, quite honestly, fear that our mayor is either delusional or an outright liar. Even casual followers of Los Angeles’ homelessness programs know how dysfunctional and inefficient they are. If Mayor Bass really believes what she wrote, she is clearly out of touch with reality. If she knows how poorly her programs are performing but tried to spin them as successful, she is trying to deceive four million people.
The press release is far too long and contains far too many untruths to detail in one column, but one central point to keep in mind is its startling disconnection with reality. While the mayor’s office is trumpeting its success, its attorneys are in federal court trying to explain why auditors are unable to get basic information about homeless program performance. The release brags about how efficiency and effectiveness has been improved, while the City Controller reports half the City’s $1 billion in homelessness funding went unspent due to inefficient programs and cumbersome processes. At an October 16 hearing before federal Judge David O. Carter, the Controller said the City has no way to verify services were provided as billed by LAHSA, and it takes a long time to match invoices to payments. In response, Judge Carter stated, “The City is paying bills with no supporting documentation.”
If there is one word that has been used—and overused—lately, its “accountability.” The press release devotes a paragraph to the subject (page 5). But the paragraph itself makes no mention of accountability measures; it is merely a cheerleading piece for the recently passed Measure A, which Bass promises will come with robust accountability and transparency requirements. Yet the same County agencies overseeing the use (or misuse and underutilization) of Measure H funds will be in charge of doling out hundreds of millions to the same nonprofits that currently show no evidence of effective performance.
The press release’s first few pages describe improvements to interim and permanent housing programs, claiming “thousands more Angelenos” have been housed than in years past. The release cites some impressive numbers: more than 23,000 people entering temporary housing; 7,400 people attaining permanent housing; a 10 percent decline in unsheltered homelessness, and a host of other program improvements. The numbers are, at best, misleading. According to information submitted to the federal court’s auditors, LAHSA really has no idea how many people have been housed. Indeed its own 2024 PIT count presentation claims it made more than 27,000 permanent housing placements, but admits. “Data provided courtesy of County of Los Angeles’ Homeless Initiative. It is possible for one person to have multiple permanent housing placements in a year”. In other words, LAHSA took 27,000 housing actions, but doesn’t know how many of those actions were for the same people recycling through the system.
One also must wonder where the 7,400 people who were permanently housed came from. Per the City CAO’s reports through the third quarter of fiscal year 2023-24, nobody was successfully transferred to permanent housing from five of the City’s major homelessness programs: Bridge Housing, Tiny Homes, Safe Parking, Project Homekey, and Safe Sleep, totaling more than $100 million in funding. According to the City Controller’s latest data, 759 people have been housed through Inside Safe, at a cost of more than $342 million (or about $451,000 per person housed). That’s just over 10 percent of the number the Mayor’s office claimed as housed. The same report shows 1,018 people fell back into homelessness—34 percent more than were housed. There is no way to account for the alleged 7,400 permanently housed people. The City’s program tracking is so shoddy there really is no way to tell how it came to 7,400 people, but I suspect it again reflects a certain number of people being constantly recycled through the system. Rather than serving the City’s 45,000 homeless in any meaningful way, the numbers suggest there is a limited population, perhaps no more than a few thousand, who are constantly being sheltered, housed, falling back into homelessness, and then picked up again. This would account for the difference between the thousands of people the city claims it shelters and houses, and the stubbornly high homeless numbers.
Speaking of Inside Safe, the press release claims 3,600 people have been brought inside through the program. What it doesn’t mention is the lack of services they receive once they enter an Inside Safe facility. A survey performed by an advocacy coalition describes marginal living conditions and almost a complete lack of the support services many clients need to stay housed. Judging by statements from the federal court’s auditors, the lack of services is pervasive throughout homelessness programs.
A consistent theme throughout the press release is the speed with which people are being sheltered and housed. An entire section is titled “Urgently Bringing People into Housing” and the following text expounds on how the Mayor has overcome bureaucratic obstacles to speed the housing process. But we know from program reports the number of people entering shelter and housing is still being far outpaced by the number who fall back into homelessness, yet more evidence most programs do little more than recycle the same people in and out of the system. Based on statements from the court’s audit team at public hearings, we know the City, County and LASA are paying providers with no proof of performance, so “urgently bringing people into housing” really means the City has accelerated the payment process with no assurance its getting any new benefits for its money.
There is also a more subtle, and misleading, use of language. Almost every reference to shelter and housing uses the word “Angelenos”, as in “More than 23,000 Angelenos moved inside to temporary housing”. This reference plays to advocates’ insistence that the great majority of the unhoused come from within a few miles of where they were last housed. This, in turn, supports the narrative that homelessness is primarily an economic and housing problem, rather a crisis with myriad causes, including untreated mental illness and substance abuse disorders. The narrative has always been questionable, and recent surveys contradict it; a March 2024 survey of San Francisco’s homeless population with substance abuse problems showed just under half came from outside the region. Informal surveys from provider organizations suggest the percentage of unhoused people from outside LA may be well beyond 50 percent. In any event, calling the homeless “Angelenos”, while consistent with Bass’ characterization of them as our “unhoused neighbors”, is not consistent with reality on the ground.
The day following the Mayor’s press release, the City Controller’s Office released a far more sobering—and reality-based—assessment of shelter and housing in Los Angeles. Among other things, the audit report says about 20 percent of shelter beds have laid empty every year for about five years, representing more than $200 in unused City assets. It also faults the City and LAHSA for a lack of reliable data, a criticism it shares with the court-appointed auditors. The audit deserves an article of its own, but for the purposes of this column, it shows just how much of the Mayor’s press release is pure fantasy.
There is much more to comment on in the Mayor’s press release; for example, while claiming the housing system is more efficient, it makes no mention of the thousands of Project Homekey units the City has left vacant for as much as two years. But for the sake of brevity, we’ll stop here, at least for now.
Reading the Mayor’s press release left me feeling disappointed, angry, but most of all amazed anyone would claim homelessness programs have been successful, when the City’s own reports and evidence produced in federal court show a program in chaos. It also makes me question the competency and honesty of anyone involved in the programs’ management. With millions of new Measure A money poised to enter the system, what hope do we have it will be used any more responsibly than in the past?
(Tim Campbell is a resident of Westchester who spent a career in the public service and managed a municipal performance audit program. He focuses on outcomes instead of process.)
