Over the last five years, California has spent $24 billion attempting to address its massive homelessness problem, but an audit from the government has revealed California didn’t track where that money went or if it even helped at all.
California’s Growing Homeless Population
California now has 171,000 homeless people living on the streets, making up one-third of America’s homeless population as they are pushed into the state by conservative policies in other states and the search for amicable weather.
After spending 24 billion taxpayer dollars, a state audit was performed by Grant Parks, who found that California had not tracked how this money was spent or the effect it had on curbing the homelessness problem.
Grant has since sent a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom, highlighting the fact that the state’s inability to provide reliable data on this money prevents them from knowing how successful these programs even are.
Call for Improved Assessment
Grant’s letter to Newsom read, “This report concludes that the state must do more to assess the cost-effectiveness of its homelessness programs.”
The California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) is meant to oversee and conduct homelessness programs but has not kept adequate records of spending and program outcomes since June 2021.
The audit found that the council had no methods to collect and verify accurate data, with much of the state’s database containing errors thanks to deleted records and test entries.
The audit was requested by Democratic state Sen. Dave Cortese, who was concerned about a lack of transparency with spending and ultimately described the audit’s findings as a “data desert.”
Billions Spent on Key Programs With Questionable Results
The state audit was conducted on five key homelessness programs whose total funding is more than $13.6 billion dollars, and it was found that only two of these programs were possibly cost-effective.
Housing Initiatives Show Potential, But Data Lacking
The two programs that seemed most effective were a housing assistance initiative and programs that converted hotel and motel rooms into state housing, but without proper data, it’s hard to know how effective these programs are.
California Republican state Sen. Roger Niello also found the audit’s results extremely alarming since such a massive amount of funding was given with almost no accountability.
Since Newsom became California’s Governor, his office has increased the state budget by 60%, jumping from $201.4 billion in 2019 to $454.7 billion in 2023.
Californians Question Where Billions Have Gone
One of the major focuses of Newsom’s increase in spending was to combat the state’s worsening homelessness issue, but thanks to the audit, Californians are beginning to question where all this money is going.
Despite the audit findings, Newsom has defended his efforts to tackle the homelessness issue and says they have done more than any other state to address this problem.
However, critics have been quick to point out that California may be spending more than any other state on homelessness, but with no reliable data, it is impossible to say if they have made a real impact on the issue.
Newsom Announces Additional $200 Million in Grants
Less than two weeks after the audit was released, Newsom announced that his office would be giving $200 million in additional grants for cities and counties to move homeless people from encampments and into subsidized housing.
In response to the audit, Meghan Marshall, head of Cal ICH, acknowledged that the council may have some shortcomings but put much of the blame on local governments for their handling of program implementation and data collection.
Marshall said in a statement, “The State Auditor’s findings highlight the significant progress made in recent years to address homelessness at the state level, including the completion of a statewide assessment of homelessness programs. But it also underscores a need to continue to hold local governments accountable.”
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Felix Mizioznikov.
The images used are for illustrative purposes only and may not represent the actual people or places mentioned in the article.
