“how do you know they're "qualified"?”
Interviews? Resumes? References? Same as any job in the market today?
“I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations.”
They’re providing free legal services to the homeless. I’m assuming they’ve hired lawyers.
Looks like average total pay for a lawyer is 150k in SF?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-attorney-sa...
“ What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?”
You could ask this of any charity. What incentive does St. Jude have to cure childhood cancer? At some level, you just have to trust that the people involved in these organizations have altruistic motivations as a guiding principle. If you don’t trust them, you don’t have to give them your money.
Tell us what their qualifications are, what other jobs they've held, and where they live.
For bonus points: what political causes do they contribute to? Civil Service laws prohibit forcing employees to make political contributions, but those laws don't apply to employees of these orgs, AFAIK.
> If you don’t trust them, you don’t have to give them your money
I don't, but the City still does.
I don’t live anywhere near San Francisco, and those salaries seem entirely reasonable for being at the top of an organization that’s responsible for 1900 housing units, in tax year 2022.
So: one person who might have private sector experience. And you didn't look at the biggest nonprofit. Or the potential for kickbacks from their salaries in the form of campaign contributions.
Recall that the claim was that they could make multiples of those salaries in the private sector. You're not showing much evidence for that.
And of course, the overall question is, is the City getting any value for that money?
That claim was meant for professionals working for non-profits more broadly, not your hyper-specific example of 5 people.
By the way, I picked ten people, not five, just by taking the top two non-profits.
This is true of government as well. After all there’s some middle management pencil pusher tasked with whatever job, and if it’s a problem getting worse they can get more resources, hire more people, move up the ranks, no? That might be easier and a better way of growing their career than solving the problem!
2) the Civil Service has rigorous rules on fair, non-discriminatory hiring. Do these orgs?
3) I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations." For all we know, they're people who've never had a private sector job in their lives.
4) Why can't the SF civil service do these functions?
5) What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?