San Francisco's non-profits are often paid based on the number of homeless individuals they serve. This creates a perverse financial incentive to maintain and manage the homeless population like a "flock" rather than pursuing solutions that would permanently reduce their numbers and, consequently, the NGO's funding.
Related Insights
Mayor Lurie argues for holding city-funded non-profits accountable, but reveals a critical flaw: the city fails to pay these partners for up to 12 months, forcing small organizations to float the government's massive budget. True accountability requires efficiency from the government itself.
When San Francisco's streets were magically cleaned in 48 hours for President Xi's visit, it demonstrated that persistent urban problems like homelessness and open-air drug markets are not intractable. Rather, they are the result of a lack of political will, which can be overcome when necessary.
Sir Ronald Cohen critiques the philanthropic model, arguing that relying on donations keeps charitable organizations small, underfunded, and perpetually begging for capital. This prevents them from achieving the scale needed to solve massive problems, a flaw that impact investing aims to correct by creating self-sustaining models.
Treat government programs as experiments. Define success metrics upfront and set a firm deadline. If the program fails to achieve its stated goals by that date, it should be automatically disbanded rather than being given more funding. This enforces accountability.
An entrepreneurial view of public goods dictates that any service should generate more value than its costs. If a division, like public transit, consistently loses money, it's a market signal that society doesn't value it at its current price. Subsidizing it is an emotional, not a logical, decision.
Mayor Daniel Lurie argues the city's primary street-level issue isn't just homelessness but a fentanyl crisis. This diagnostic shift justifies a different response: prioritizing treatment beds and short-term care over simply providing permanent housing without support services for addiction.
A $5 million city program provides free beer to homeless alcoholics under the guise of treatment. This illustrates how well-intentioned "harm reduction" policies can devolve into state-funded enablement of addiction, becoming counterproductive and absurd without a clear path to recovery.
When a public health intervention successfully prevents a crisis, the lack of a negative outcome makes the initial action seem like an unnecessary overreaction. This paradox makes it difficult to justify and maintain funding for preventative measures whose success is invisible.
A critical flaw in philanthropy is the donor's need for control, which manifests as funding specific, personal projects instead of providing unrestricted capital to build lasting institutions. Lasting impact comes from empowering capable organizations, not from micromanaging project-based grants.
Jada McKenna debunks the myth that billionaires or foundations can replace large-scale government funding. She explains that while helpful, private donors rightfully see systemic support as a government responsibility and are unwilling to fill massive, structural funding gaps themselves, sticking instead to their own strategies.
