No, but protocols for involuntary commitment of people with borderline states may have.
> They're comparing cost-per-resident instead of cost-per-homeless-resident
It is pretty easy to derive one from the other, given homelessness levels, and given as SF is has one of the highest ones (slightly lower only than NYC) the conclusion seems to stay - expense level is very high.
> We actually spend less per homeless resident than NYC
Source?
That doesn’t follow at all. NYC spends 10x what SF does on homelessness. SF spends $3.8K [1] on each homeless person while NYC is around 10x that. [2]
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-housing-homeless-in-she...
Then there's another trick - the money which were strictly defined to help only current homeless (so if the program worked for somebody and she is no longer homeless, or is prevented from being homeless by the program spending, that money not counted) and then divided by the number of people who has been homeless at any point, including those that aren't homeless now. The yearly figure is divided by cumulative number, not by average at certain moment. That's like dividing number of seats in the class not by number of students in each class at the same time, but by number of students that will use that room over a year, and arriving to conclusion that school classes have 0.1 seat per pupil and we need 10x seats.
You can debunk this with a simple observation: Homelessness has grown significantly in the past 20 years. Has severe mental illness grown significantly during that time?
The bigger problem here is Stripe's argument is misleading. They're comparing cost-per-resident instead of cost-per-homeless-resident, when SF actually has a higher rate of homelessness than other cities. We actually spend less per homeless resident than NYC. Totally invalidates their argument that "if it's just a question of money this issue would already be solved."