I agree that its a difficult problem, one that money won't solve.
I think the more local the action the more effective. For instance, a neighbor can help out one person most effectively. That person may need shelter, food, mental health services, mentorship or something else. When you expand that out to a city, it makes it more difficult since the organization has less knowledge about the individual. And as you expand it to larger and more disconnected entities, the results become worse.
One argument could be that corruption and general incompetence may be lower on the state level as opposed to local, since state level is a more competitive political climate. In other words, I think governors are more likely to get voted out as local officials, many of whom are unelected, but I could be wrong. The other argument is that state has more shared resources and more experience that would overcome the fact that they're more disconnected from the subjects they're trying to help.
But the trade-off exists and I believe that the most effective way organizations are small local organizations as opposed to large top down state-level organizations. And since local organizations have failed, my impression is that higher level, more bureaucratic organizations will similarly fail. I think we should focus on re-thinking about how we handle the problem and not just throw money at it, because the moneyed interests may even be hindering the effort.
One of the most effective solutions to homelessness is...housing. However, many individual cities are either unwilling or unable to actually build and designate housing for the unhoused.
The fact that San Francisco spends so much and is largely ineffective at solving this issue might imply that cities are not, in fact, suitably equipped to tackle this issue (even if well funded and motivated), and that instead a group which can centralize planning, concentrate resources and expertise, and deploy them where they are currently needed would do better.
I think the more local the action the more effective. For instance, a neighbor can help out one person most effectively. That person may need shelter, food, mental health services, mentorship or something else. When you expand that out to a city, it makes it more difficult since the organization has less knowledge about the individual. And as you expand it to larger and more disconnected entities, the results become worse.
One argument could be that corruption and general incompetence may be lower on the state level as opposed to local, since state level is a more competitive political climate. In other words, I think governors are more likely to get voted out as local officials, many of whom are unelected, but I could be wrong. The other argument is that state has more shared resources and more experience that would overcome the fact that they're more disconnected from the subjects they're trying to help.
But the trade-off exists and I believe that the most effective way organizations are small local organizations as opposed to large top down state-level organizations. And since local organizations have failed, my impression is that higher level, more bureaucratic organizations will similarly fail. I think we should focus on re-thinking about how we handle the problem and not just throw money at it, because the moneyed interests may even be hindering the effort.