How many of these myriad services are already running at full capacity? Just because there are homelessness support groups out there doesn't magically mean that there is enough support.

More to that point, most public resources are not required to report that they have exhausted their capacity. Further, such resources often actively waste the time of those looking for support under the pretext that resources are available and they need to prove there is demand that exceeds their capacity; even when year after year it's clear that documenting demand will not result in additional resources.

In my city, most of the programs to help homeless people have waitlists on the order of years.

I live in Bloomington, IN.

We have (Way) better than average care for homless in probably a 3 hour driving distance. There's tons of services available. And that too is a problem. Every service we provide means that more homeless come and flock to our city. Ideally, we'd like to provide for everyone, out of a sense of human decency.

The only problem with that is we could provide for everyone in the county, we cannot do the same for south central indiana, parts of Kentucky, parts of Ohio, and parts of Illinois, and wherever they come from via bus. What started as a problem of 100 people disenfranchised now is a perpetual 400.

The solution, as ugly as it may seem, needs to be a cross-country (national level) anti-homelessness mission. That means comprehensive low/no barrier essentials, possibly even a minimum income. Until a national answer happens, any community that offers above and beyond will get punished with multiplying numbers that far exceed any local budgets.

You forgot the most important link:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...

SF spends $241 million per year on homeless, with no accountability and no ability to track results. They are NOT going above and beyond, they are wasting money with no improvement in results.

Funny, I did some research and found this article which seems to know where most of the money is going. So what happened in two years between my article in 2014 and your article that came out in 2016?

How are you able to track this and then in two years, you suddenly have no idea where all the money is going?

http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-spends-1657-m...

The lion’s share of the funding goes toward supportive housing, which provides specialized and intensive services to the recently homeless as they adjust to a new way of life, with some combating drug addiction and receiving mental health care.

The City spends $81.5 million annually for 6,355 supportive units, or about $13,000 per unit. Of the 6,436 homeless individuals counted in last year’s homeless count, 3,401 were on the streets without shelter while the other homeless people counted resided in shelters, transitional housing, resource centers, residential treatment, jail or hospitals.

And

Even though The City has built 3,000 new supportive-housing units since 2002, the homeless population has remained mostly flat. The population has ranged from 6,248 to 6,514 since 2005, after dropping from 8,640 in 2002.

You claim "zero accountability" but there's several paragraphs and a large graph showing where the money goes in your article. Not sure how you fix "accountability" if your city continues to build housing for these people and continue toe expand their budget to help them. What else do you want them to do???? Most other cities would see this and spend the money elsewhere and cut the spending on these programs in a heartbeat.

Not track the money, track the results. We have no idea if this is helping to decrease homelessness or not. There are no metrics. That's a huge amount of money to spend, and not know if it's actually helping, or if the money is just being wasted.

Accountability means that if it doesn't work or if the money is being wasted, then someone needs to be held accountable.