Do a Better PIT Count, Get More State Funds
Political scientists coined the phrase “the more, the more” to describe policies that benefit communities already receiving out-sized amounts of public assistance. The principle is hard at work as the State begins distributing $650 million in its new Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program. The lion’s share of the funds is going to rich, coastal communities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. At first blush, this allocation seems fair. All of these cities suffer from major problems, and funds are distributed based on the size their homeless populations according to the most recent Point-in-Time counts.
The problem is that not all Point-in-Time counts are created equal. Rich, coastal communities, for the most part, conduct a full census that strives to send a survey team down every street. A census is a major undertaking, requiring hundreds if not thousands of volunteers and input from survey experts. Nevertheless, the effort yields valuable information on the make-up of the homeless population and where they are congregating.
Most inland communities and those in the far north of California, in contrast, lack the capacity to undertake such an ambitious endeavor. Rather, they focus on a limited number of areas where homeless encampments have been reported. While this method requires fewer volunteers and is more straightforward, it inevitably misses people, such as those sleeping in their cars in outlying areas.
These differences are not mere technicalities. A report published by the Center for Homeless Inquiry found that communities that do a full census identify 67% more people experiencing unsheltered homelessness even after controlling for community size. Because money flows to communities with larger PIT counts, coastal cities like San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose with the resources to conduct a census receive more State funds. A rough estimate is that the inland and northern California communities are shorted about $30 million because resource limitations prevented them from conducting a more sophisticated count. Sacramento alone will see $4 to $10 million less in State funds.
One cannot begrudge the extra dollars received by coastal cities. Nonetheless, it is counterproductive to penalize communities that are already struggling to do their best and don’t have access to the best data by shorting them on desperately needed State funds.