(Editor’s note: This Viewpoint was first published in the Westside Current and is published with permission.)
Dr. Va Lecia Adams Kellum, the CEO of LAHSA makes $430,000 per year
By TIM CAMPBELL
During the election cycle, L.A.’s voters have been inundated by one word: “accountability”. Recently, while announcing the sixth round of Homeless Housing and Assistance Program (HHAP), Governor Newsom proclaimed this trance will come with new strong accountability and oversight measures.
Proponents of Measure A promise it includes accountability requirements. At City Council meetings, members demand accountability from LAHSA. The audit firm assigned to the review of City’s homelessness has mentioned the lack of accountability over program management. All this talk about accountability should raise some questions.
The first question is obvious. If accountability and oversight are so great, why haven’t they been emphasized all along? If Measure A’s supporters think oversight is so important, why haven’t they demanded it for the use of current Measure H funding? Since Measure A places oversight in the hands of the same agencies overseeing Measure H money, what will change?
If the sixth round of HHAP funding has new accountability measures, does that mean the first five, representing expenditures in the billions, did not? If City Council members are so concerned with the lack of accountability in LAHSA, why do they continue to approve payments lacking even rudimentary documentation?
To answer those questions, we need to understand what accountability really is, as opposed to how it’s used in a political ad or during a Council meeting. As a former government performance audit manager, I know a thing or two about accountability, and what it does and does not include. Let’s start with what accountability is not.
Accountability is not about blame. When a Council member thunders about accountability for paying bills with no supporting documentation, what he or she is really asking “Who can we blame for this”?
If they were really interested in accountability, they’d take the responsibility for writing checks to LAHSA—25 to 30 percent of which are advance payments—without demanding some type of proof of performance.
A performance audit is not about assigning blame, but it is about identifying accountability.
If bills are being paid without required documents, where in the system is it being allowed, and why? If an accounts payable technician lacks the authority to stop a payment if there is no accompanying documentation, can he or she be held accountable for processing the payment? If the technician’s supervisor tells her to approve the payments because top managers say that’s how it’s done, where is the accountability? (Hint: there is none).
Accountability is not about following rules or processes. When Governor Newsom or Measure A’s supporters talk about accountability, they are probably referring to a new set of rules organizations must follow to be paid. As long as the process is completed, the check is in the mail. This is not accountability; it is compliance and says nothing about the program’s performance or outcomes.
It may seem strange coming from an auditor, but I was never a fan of rules. Far too often, complying with rules becomes a goal unto itself. HUD and other federal agencies are infamous for prioritizing rules over outcomes.
Hence, if a local government adheres to Housing First policies, the assumption is that its programs are effective, and therefore they are worthy of funding. Local programs then become all about complying with HUD funding requirements rather than getting people into shelter and housing.
Rules are poison to accountability because they relieve program managers of the personal responsibility, they bear for effectively using taxpayers money. Many times, I heard managers defend poor program performance because they had to follow “the rules.”
Often, those rules were created because an employee made a mistake in a process, and rather than addressing that employee’s error, it was easier to create a new rule everyone had to follow, bogging down systems in ever more restrictive requirements.
If you want to encourage effective performance, create as few rules as possible and focus them on program outcomes instead of compliance. Measure how effective a shelter is about moving clients to permanent housing, and how effective the permanent housing is at keeping them housed over the long-term.
If accountability isn’t about blame, compliance, or rule-following, what is it about? It is about responsibility and authority; the two must be linked for there to be true accountability.
I refer to this as “positive accountability”; if you are going to hold someone accountable for good performance, they must have the authority to manage their programs effectively. They cannot be burdened with so many rules, they’re unable to change processes to meet shifting demands.
They must be given clear goals and expectations, and program reports must reflect progress towards those goals. Almost all the performance measures for homelessness programs are workload or process-oriented; they count the number of housing applications completed but say little about how long people stay housed. They pay outreach organization for the number of contacts, but not the number of people sheltered.
Without authority, there can be no accountability. LAHSA is a perfect example of an organization stuck in the netherworld between expectations and authority. A UCLA report on the history of homelessness in L.A. describes the creation of LAHSA in 1993 as a reaction to the acrimonious relationship between the City and the County.
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass
The agency was trumpeted as the solution to the problems the City and County had coordinating homelessness services. Unfortunately, as UCLA’s report describes, neither the City nor County gave up any of their authority to LAHSA, making it powerless to effect needed changes in homelessness programs. It basically exists to write checks to providers (while requiring no proof of performance) and in turn bill the City.
Not all the blame for LAHSA’s impotence lays with the City and County. LAHSA has existed for more than 30 years; its CEO makes $430,000 per year, and elected officials sit on its Board. It is well-positioned to advocate for more authority and program change, but its leadership seems satisfied with the status quo. After all, it processes hundreds of millions in payments and billings, and its leaders are well-paid, while nobody seems to expect it to much besides what its always done.
Los Angeles has created a system where accountability is structurally eliminated from performance measurement. The best it can do is count actions instead of results. When LAHSA says it “sheltered more than 21,000 people,” it really means it took 21,000 housing actions engaging an unknown number of clients, many of whom are repeat customers. There is no incentive to accurately count the actual number of people served because it’s all about process and compliance. Accountability, on the other hand, is about results, not compliance.
So, when a Councilmember bellows about accountability or proponents of spending even more money on ineffective programs assure us there will be new and strong oversight, ask yourself some questions. Is it really about blame instead of change? Is oversight just more compliance with rules without performance measures? Who should oversee each program, and do they have the authority they need to achieve expectations? Then you can see what accountability really is.
Tim Campbell is a resident of Westchester who spent a career in the public service and managed a municipal performance audit program. He focuses on outcomes instead of process.