Posted on 04/15/2024 8:35:01 PM PDT by nickcarraway
City urged to work harder to assess cost, impact
Over the past three years, San Jose has failed to consistently track the more than $300 million spent to fight homelessness and cannot adequately ensure that the money is helping to alleviate the crisis, according to a much-anticipated state audit.
The financial audit, released this week by the California State Auditor, also found that San Jose lacks clear goals for its homelessness programs and has no cohesive plan for building the affordable housing needed for its estimated 6,340 homeless residents.
“The biggest conclusion that the auditors came back with is that there’s just inadequate transparency, data and information available,” said State Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat representing San Jose, who requested the audit in 2022 after touring a large city encampment.
The 115-page report, which comes as public frustration continues to mount over city officials’ struggle to manage the crisis, also examined San Diego’s homelessness efforts and highlighted similar findings. It was accompanied by a broader statewide audit finding California’s lead homelessness agency hasn’t tracked most of its $24 billion in spending since 2018.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Easy money if you know how to cook the books and make it all look benevolent.
That is $47,000 per homeless person. Just give them the cash. They can live off that ok, with all the other free California stuff.
How can San Joseans be assured that the money was, indeed "spent" and not cleverly embezzled?
"Failure to track" somehow implies innocently omitting a quality control responsibility.
Might a curious observer somehow suspect a grand theft scheme? (Not accusing, of course. Just asking.)
RE: San Jose Failed to Adequately Track $300 Million in Homelessness Spending
Strange isn’t it?
This is the center of Silicon Valley, where the multi-billion dollar computer industry, software industry, the chip industry, artificial intelligence, technology etc. was created, yet ... they can’t track the money that they spent. Go figure.
That’s because its not about “helping the homeless.”
Its about feeding $$ to a bloated, democrat-controlled bureaucracy, and allowing for political skimming.
Obviously, there are not enough programs to keep track of the funds allocated for the homeless.
This problem will not be solved unless the city institutes new programs for accountability.
To meet existing goals, such accountability programs will require more funds.
Where has all the money gone?
Gone to democrat pockets everyone.
The lavish welfare blue states have done a wonderful job attracting the homeless.
They are doing the rest of the nation a service.
I needle a a CA friend and thank him for it fr time to time and it drives him nuts.
Failed to track = looted. It’s gone now, and that’s only one Kalifornia county. Estimates of the state’s red ink is just shy of $100 billion.
When will they ever learn. When will they ever learn.
So many integrity-free crooks...so little time.
The reason they can not audit it properly is the dispersion of the funds was designed to not show the corruption and diversion of the funds. It is that simple.
My bank knows every dollar I have put in my account. It knows every dollar I spent from my account and to whom. I can go to my account on the internet and print it all out. I would think that San Jose should be able to do the same unless they are hiding corruption. WHO PAID THE MONEY AND WHO GOT THE MONEY AND WHO AUTHORIZED THE PAYMENT?
Give me 10million to study this issue
By design. It’s a slush fund for NGOs - political appointees who are supposed to provide food, medicine, shelter etc. The whole thing is a pyramid. One government agency subcontracts to another private provider, who subcontracts to another provider, who subcontracts to another provider who uses church groups and parolees to provide the actual services on a volunteer (or as condition of parole) basis.
Each subcontractor has an office, staff, car allowances, insurance etc … that’s where the money gets “lost”. Even if it’s accounted for, it’s mostly just graft. How many offices, cars, staffers, employees, insurance plans, 401 plans etc does it take to hand out tents and deliver hot meals? How many vendors and contractors does it take from taxpayers to needy person to deliver services?
Leftists and Liberals “progress” reports, on every kind of government and international programs and projects the get behind are only centered on the money “devoted” to something, not the results obtained.
The $300 Million should have been handed to the needy to buy the houses if red tape added so much the homeless problem cost that high a figure.
When President Gerald Ford helped the unemployed by his jobs project they found that to get a $10,000 per year job (okay back then) the government spent $50,000 each person in handling fees and agency supervision costs. “Here’s $10,000, pal, don’t spend all this cash in one place” would have been less wasteful.
This reminds me of the EV charging project by the Federal Transportation Administration devoting $2.5 Billion to the construction of approximately 7,500 EV charging ports. “The CFI program complements the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program to build the “backbone” of high-speed EV chargers along our nation’s highways.”
So basically $2.5 Billion and $5 Billion gets us 7,500 EV charging stations.
How could it be that expensive? And notice WE pay in taxes.
Not the EV car companies and owners.
Nailed it.
Try and find a report of the efficacy of AA.
One might as well go looking for the Loch Ness monster.
Pikers compared to the people responsible for Ukraine.
I believe if you dig into it....most all went to hotels, which had some max-daily rate for a room, and probably 10-percent went back to campaign pledges to the local Democratic Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.