|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Auditor’s report shows increase in homeless spending increases homelessness.
by Rob Roper
State Auditor, Doug Hoffer’s latest newsletter called out a remarkable statistic about Vermont’s homeless crisis. In less than a decade, we have spent over $800 million to “fix” homelessness. Nearly $100 million on the motel voucher program in 2023 alone. But that’s not the really remarkable part. The really remarkable part is that for all that geyser of cash the number of homeless in Vermont has roughly tripled from between 1000 and 1300 in the years leading up to Covid, to around 3400 today. So much for fixing the problem!
I call this remarkable, but it’s not really. If you subsidize something – anything – you get more of it, be it electric vehicles, solar panels, or homeless people. And we’ve been subsiding the bejesus out of the homeless lifestyle. Ergo, we have more of it.
Hoffer’s comes off as shocked, “that important policy decisions would be made without sufficient data or analysis.” He shouldn’t be as a guy who’s spent years in Montpelier. It’s modus operandi. The important thing for the politicians is that they pass something that gives the appearance that they’re doing something, and the more expensive it is the greater that illusion. For the bureaucrats brought on to run the programs ostensibly helping the situation, their priority is to spend as much money as they can and expand their program. They don’t want the homeless, in this case, to go away because then there’d be no justification for their job. The more homeless the better!
Collecting “data” and doing “analysis” that could expose the fact that taxpayer money is being spent inefficiently, wasted, or, in the case of Vermont’s homeless crisis, making matters exponentially worse is, shall we say, not de rigueur.
So, no, in depth analysis and data driven decisions are really not a thing. And it’s not just with homeless policy.
Where’s the data showing what the impact of our Global Warming Solutions Act will have on future climate trends and weather patterns in Vermont? And where’s the analysis of what it will cost to achieve those outcomes? To sum up the attitude, I’ll quote the movie Spinal Tap as the band recounts the death of one of their drummers, “The authorities said, best leave it unsolved.”
We’ve been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on publicly funded, government-run Pre-K programs that proponents promised would increase student outcomes, increase graduation rates, lower crime, reduce teen pregnancy, just to recount the highlights. Back when we expanded taxpayer funded pre-k to be a mandatory program, the Blue Ribbon Commission for Affordable Child Care promised, “Every dollar spent on high-quality early care and learning programs yields a return on investment that ranges from $4 – $9.” Does the data indicate this is what’s happening?
As we get ready to expand pre-k again by more than a hundred million dollars a year, maybe before we do someone should, you know, do the analysis to see if, in fact, those promises are being met, or, as with the homeless crisis, we’re spending a colossal amount of money to make a situation worse.
One state, Tennessee, actually does this for their pre-k program and the results are not good.
Data through sixth grade from state education records showed that the children randomly assigned to attend pre-K had lower state achievement test scores in third through sixth grades than control children, with the strongest negative effects in sixth grade. A negative effect was also found for disciplinary infractions, attendance, and receipt of special education services, with null effects on retention.
Studies of programs in other states show better results. Maybe Vermont should gather the data and analyze our own program to see if it’s delivering on all those promises outlined above – or, like Tennessee, not. Because casual observation would cause me to put money on “or not.” And, I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not pay higher property taxes with a payroll tax cherry on top to fund a program that’s harming – not helping – our most vulnerable students. Call me crazy.
Speaking of education, where’s the data from ten years of Act 46 that indicates school district consolidation saves money and improves student outcomes? And where’s the data that shows defunding police forces and replacing them with social workers while refusing to prosecute petty offenses reduces crime. Asking for a friend in Burlington.
Speaking of Burlington, the legislature voted to open a “safe injection site” to save lives in the Queen City because… data? I asked Grok what the data says about the model sites in New York City, and in 2020 the overdose deaths per 100,000 were 51 in the East Harlem neighborhood and 30.5 in Washington Heights. After the centers went into operation in 2021, deaths rose to 66.3 and 39.4 respectively, then to 88.9 and 43.3 in 2022, and 85.1 and 44.0 in 2023. Doesn’t sound so safe to me, but, hey, let’s get one anyway!
Vermont has a budget of over $9 billion. If we really did the data analysis on how we spend this money and eliminated all of the programs that are ineffective – or worse, detrimental – to the outcomes they promise, we could save a bundle and be all the happier and healthier for it.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Housing
There’s a correlation, not causation. Refusing to help won’t eliminate the problem. Helping in a smarter way that doesn’t trap people in an endless cycle of despair and homelessness will alleviate the problem. To pretend that eliminating aid solves the problem is like letting people starve to death and say, “See! No more starving people!”
Matthew 25:35-36: “For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”
Please: Enough with the false dichotomy… “to pretend that eliminating aid solves the problem is like letting people starve to death…”. WTF?
Eliminating aid means a virtually infinite number of alternative scenarios are possible. For one thing, ‘ye’ who gave me drink, and ‘ye’ who took me in, and ‘ye’ who clothed me, and ‘ye’ who visited me, and ‘ye’ who ‘came unto me’, is not a biblical reference to ‘ye’ in Vermont’s government aid cartel.
Frankly, I find this biblical correlation to be shameless and anything but an example of causation. The correlation that does hold water, however, is the massive cash flow of taxpayer dollars funneled through the various dysfunctional (i.e., corrupt) non-government organizations (NGOs) who traffic in this charade… and who skim oodles of the money off the top to serve themselves.
If anything ‘… trap[s] people in an endless cycle of despair and homelessness’, it’s the government and its NGO operatives who thrive on dysfunction. Why else would Vermont homelessness rates triple in the last five years? Certainly not because there hasn’t been enough ‘aid’.
If you read Vt Digger headlines today you will find why Vermont is in the state it is. State sponsored and paid for propaganda. See what happens when truth gets sunlight?
This is such a flagrant fraud and misuse of tax payer money…almost a billion dollars spent on $3,000 people??.???.
That’s a lot of grifting, even by Vermont standards.
Did one public official invite someone into their home? That would be free, btw, no expense for anyone.
We are being robbed blind. Where oh where has the VT.GOP gone? They are aiding and abetting this crap.
Data and analysis ? You’re kidding, right ? About the only “analysis” our woke legislators will conduct is to find out how George Soros, Al Sharpton, Greta Thurnberg, Karl Marx, Chicken Little, California, or other “experts” would suggest that they should vote ! I really wonder sometimes if they are capable of “analysis” or or even independent thought .
Numbers don’t tell the whole story — here’s how to make them useful
What usually goes wrong with public-sector numbers (and how to stop embarrassing mistakes)
Too many public discussions about “big numbers” go off the rails because people treat numbers like facts instead of answers that need checking. Here are the common traps — plain language, no math degree required — and an easy fix for each.
! Mixing apples and oranges Problem: Different reports count different things but everyone treats them the same. One count might be “people in state-paid motels,” another is “people sleeping outside on one night,” and a third is “students flagged as experiencing housing instability.” They look like the same story but they aren’t.
Fix: Ask “exactly what did you count?” and insist the answer be written down.
! Counting changes, not real change Problem: Numbers jump because the way someone records things changed — not because the situation did. New forms, new software, or a new vendor can double the total overnight.
Fix: When a number moves a lot, check whether collection methods changed at the same time.
! Bad data entry and duplicates Problem: Humans make typos. Same person gets entered twice under slightly different names. That inflates totals and creates confusion.
Fix: Do simple cleanups: look for obvious duplicates, blank fields, and impossible values (like negative ages).
! Trusting a single snapshot Problem: A one-night snapshot (often used in homelessness counts) misses many people and can under- or over-represent reality. That single night becomes “the truth” even when it’s not.
Fix: Use more than one way to check the story — compare the snapshot to administrative records and school or shelter lists.
! Jumping from numbers to blame Problem: People hear “spending went up and the number went up” and assume one caused the other. That’s not how evidence works.
Fix: Ask whether other things could explain the change — housing market swings, seasonality, or new outreach efforts — before yelling that a program “failed.”
! No one tests the counting system Problem: Agencies rarely run a quick test to see how reliable their counting is. In industry they check gauges; governments often skip a similar sanity check.
Fix: Do a small spot audit: take 20 records, trace back how each got into the system, and see where errors happen.
A short checklist anyone can use before sharing a headline number
• Write down the exact definition of what was counted.
• Ask: did the way we collect data change recently?
• Spot-check for duplicates or obvious errors.
• Compare at least two different data sources.
• Don’t assume cause from timing alone — ask for a simple explanation of other possible reasons.
Bottom line: Numbers aren’t proof — they’re clues. A little basic checking (ask the right questions, do one quick audit) turns confusing headlines into useful information. Do that, and public conversations will be clearer and less embarrassing.
About 100 years ago (give or take), we went through something very similar during the “Great Depression” era. The good news is that the nation did pull out of it and went on to become prosperous for most.
The solution that worked was to create programs that put people to work. The civilian conservation corps, for example. Things that add to the economy and create usable products, like the park system.
$800 Million over 10 years, just handed out to hotel owners? For that amount of money, there isn’t any reason we couldn’t build enough barrack or dorm style housing to house everyone who needs a roof over their heads. Each with common dining halls, rec rooms, and laundry facilities ect. On site services. It would create jobs during construction, and create jobs during their operation. They could even generate revenue and provide truly affordable housing for people to get back on their feet.
……….” Not so much in Montpelier.”……..Hasn’t been for quite some time… Great Article Mr.Roper.