The recommended statement by Wiener addresses this: "A broad-based stakeholder group — including Mayor Ed Lee, then-Supervisor David Chiu, the Controller, the business community, labor, and social service nonprofits..."

Watching Bill Gates try to solve problems in education [1] was a real wake-up call for me. I had a rather involved conversation when the initiative was first announced with an education leader who was deeply suspicious and expected failure (and, what's more, for exactly the reasons that the RAND report identified).

It turns out that, sometimes, leaders who have dedicated their lives to problem X really do know better than people who have succeeded in the business world.

And perhaps more importantly, that more money isn't always a "no downsides" proposition. Big spends on the wrong ideas can suck the air out of the room and divert other resources away from more promising ideas.

But I suspect that the people whose names you mentioned already know that the most effective ideas are probably going to come, in part, from people who have put in their 10,000 hours working on actually solving homelessness.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio...

I often cringe when I see non-education folks trying to tackle the problem of education in classroms by "automating" or pushing video courses. Solving the issue of education is far more than what's IN the classroom (Here in Jersey we had Abbot districts which gave more to low income schools, it's failed). While supplies are a big problem, more is to do with environment. Having done teaching in a low income district (every single prospective teacher should do this) and an upper middle-class district the difference was stark. I had kids in 1st grade who could not even tie shoes or zipper jackets, let alone have a pencil.

In short, you have to be very careful when you work on hard problems not to divert resources away from other approaches... that might be even more valuable.

For example, there's a longstanding rumor that the homeless are being "shipped from out of state" from places like Texas giving free bus tickets. Here's the messier statistics:

"Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless. Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more years. Eight percent (8%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. This is similar to the survey findings in 2015. Ten percent (10%) of respondents reported that they were living out of state at the time they became homeless. Twenty-one percent (21%) reported they were living in another county in California. California counties that respondents reported living in at the time they most recently became homeless include Alameda County (5%), San Mateo (4%), Contra Costa (3%), Marin (3%), Santa Clara County (1%), and some other California county (5%)."

learn more: https://www.google.com/search?q=sf+homeless+population+repor...

I found the section on primary cause of homelessness interesting:

---

22% of respondents reported job loss as the primary cause of their homelessness.

15% reported drugs or alcohol.

13% reported an argument with a friend or family member who asked them to leave

12% reported eviction

10% reported divorce or separation

7% reported an illness or medical problem.

---

I suspect mental health is something that is very pertinent. I used to volunteer with the homeless and drug addiction seemed like was used for self-medication. Quite a few people were suffering from anxiety, schizophrenia and other issues that prevented them to forming meaningful relationships, holding a job, staying in touch with their family (who often have disowned them).

Further under the section of "Health" I found:

---

41% drug or alcohol abuse

39% psychiatric or emotional condition

31% chronic health problem

Then

29% reported Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

23% a physical disability

12% a traumatic brain injury

11% reported having an AIDS or HIV related illness

---

I am so tired of reading this bullshit "statistic". It is a self-reported number. If a homeless person thinks it benefits him to say so, he will. And homeless people will say anything to survive, as they are barely surviving.

If you came where from Podunk, MN and crashed on your buddy's couch last year before he kicked you out? Congratulations, you were "living in SF before you became homeless".

If you came here from somewhere else and stayed in a shelter for a day before you got evicted? Congratulations, you were "living in SF before you became homeless".

If the question was, "were you a rent-paying resident of SF before you became homeless", the answer would be totally different.

There are 76 non-profits that feed from the trough of homelessness[1]. Don't they have admin overhead? How much money is wasted on this overhead?

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor...

I'm more worried about this thought in the article:

> While cities report inconsistently, San Francisco currently spends around $430 per city resident per year on services and programs for the homeless, compared to $260 in New York and $110 in Los Angeles. Yet the problem in our city is worse, and despite increases in spending, has continued to worsen.

It's not a surprise that the city with more spending on services for the homeless has more homeless. That's exactly what you'd expect under pretty much any model.

Do you believe that subsidizing the homeless means you'll get more homeless? Then higher spending will directly cause more homelessness.

Do you believe that places with bigger problems will try harder to do something about them? Then higher spending will reflect more homelessness.

> [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor...

i laughed when I read that title. "Tracking results" is definitely a form of overhead, so the article is literally complaining that charities are ineffective because they don't have enough overhead.

In general, "minimize overhead" isn't equal to "maximize impact per dollar". The obvious software industry exemplar is the oft-repeated complaint about companies hiring expensive engineers and then refusing to buy a $200 monitor.

This is all you need to know. We should starve the beast, and then the city will actually do something about the homeless problem.