Homelessness Across the State & In Our Backyard: Part 1

On June 10 our Community Service Department (CSD) provided the Board of Supervisors with their Annual Homelessness Update. Last year I focused exclusively on CSD’s very solid and data-driven work, but this year I thought I would widen the aperture with a two-part article that looked just a bit at state and city homelessness as well. 

Much has been written about the $23B that California spent between 2020 and 2024 on homelessness, and while the number has been disputed, whether its $17B (which is probably more accurate) or $23B, it’s a whole heck of a lot of dough to spend on 187,000 individuals. Fun Fact: A full 44% of our nation’s “chronically homeless” live in CA.

Someone who understands our legislative framework and the problem of homelessness across the state is Elizabeth Funk, the impressive Founder and CEO of DignityMoves. DM is a wonderfully innovative private sector solution that builds temporary housing funded exclusively by generous Not-for-Profit donors. DM builds modular units while partner public entities contribute the land and fund the ongoing operating expenses. There are three DM projects in our county and, as we will see in Part II, they are making a measurable difference, and we are lucky to have them! 

According to Ms. Funk, Sacramento has somewhat contributed to the homeless crisis by “fiercely” focusing on permanent housing rather than devoting any resources to temporary alternatives. This has led to a uniquely CA problem where 68% of our homeless are on the street, which is VERY different than the rest of the country where only about 35% are unsheltered. Sad Fact: In San Francisco it takes up to 14 years to find permanent housing, so the lack of temporary alternatives is cruelly shortsighted given that 52% of their homeless are unsheltered. 

What makes our legislative focus even more baffling is the reality of our regulations and labor costs that drive construction prices to as much as $700K per homeless unit. The genius of DM is that their housing units (not “shelters”) are considered temporary, skirting various rules and driving costs down to as little as $50K per unit. In an attempt to change our state’s focus, DM co-sponsored the Interim Housing Bill (IHB) with Senator Josh Becker which reduces regulations and expands interim housing. The Bill became law in September of 2024, with Senator Becker stating: “Interim housing is the missing rung on the ladder to permanent housing and the IHB will make available statewide a proven local strategy.” Ms. Funk, who praised SB as an “innovative leader” (DM works with just three other counties) also spoke about the IHB as a way to pull people from the streets “at scale.” 

While there are many ways to attack homelessness, what the state’s statistics show is that simply throwing money at the problem does not work. Indeed, energizing a return to the dignity of self-sufficiency should be the goal. It’s this idea that the DM model seeks to address, because “you can’t treat on the street” and – according to Ms. Funk – only 17% of the newly homeless suffer from mental illness/drug addiction, making their return to society more realistic. Over time, however, this percentage of the mentally challenged can skyrocket to as much as 70%, making successful outcomes much less likely. 

In Part II we’ll chat with county and city folks about defining “success,” what the numbers tell us about 2024, and suggest ideas about how our cities (where 85% of our 4,000 or so homeless reside) can take a more proactive approach to the problem. I know it will be tough but try not to lose too much sleep waiting for Part II.  

Jeff Giordano,

SB County Resident