Inconsistencies in data gathering have impeded public and policymaker understanding of the effectiveness of the Metro regional government’s voter approved homelessness services tax, the Metro auditor said in a report released Wednesday.
Across Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties and the years the tax has been levied, spending and housing data have not been recorded the same way, the report said.
The Metro auditor’s office recommended a long list of changes to help the public, oversight bodies, local governments and program managers better understand the program’s successes and shortcomings.
“Counties and providers have served many thousands of people,” Metro Chief Operating Officer Marissa Madrigal and Metro Housing Director Patricia Rojas said in a joint statement in response to the audit. “But when tens of millions of dollars sit unspent across the region while thousands of people are still sleeping outside, we know there should be an unflinching reexamination” of how Metro and the counties work together.
In May 2020, voters in the tri-county region approved a ballot measure to support more homelessness-related services. Officials projected the measure would bring in $250 million annually, but proceeds have been slightly higher.
Since the tax launched, county officials have used the huge inflow of money to house 5,776 people and prevent 18,149 people from becoming homeless, the statement from Madrigal and Rojas said. And their management of tax dollars has improved since the last audit in 2021, the 2024 report found.
The 2021 audit recommended Metro set performance goals, strengthen oversight and accountability and ensure counties comply with Metro standards. Those recommendations have all been met or are in the process of being met.
But the auditors found there is still room to grow.
The 18 new recommendations fall within one of three categories – more communication with oversight committees, better data tracking and more thoughtful planning.
Many of the recommendations call for improved record keeping.
“The current system lacks the ability to measure the quality of services and efficient use of funds,” the auditor’s team found. “Current reports include data about the number of people served, but not the quality of services.”
For example, the data shows how many people were housed but not how many returned to homelessness.
“Reporting and relying only on the number of people served does not capture the actual reduction in overall homelessness,” the report said.
Reporting inconsistencies also made it challenging to compare statistics across counties.
Stated goals were also inconsistent. For example, the Metro work plan stated that services would be provided for “as many as” 5,000 people with disabilities experiencing prolonged homelessness and “as many as” 10,000 households experiencing short-term homelessness or at risk of homelessness. But the Metro website said services would be provided for “at least” that many “people” while the budget stated services would be provided for “at least” that many “households.”
The report said the minor differences in wording greatly changed expectations. Measuring individuals versus households represents a significant difference, it noted.
The audit team found similar inconstancies in how counties defined permanent housing, rapid rehousing and eviction prevention, meaning some housing successes might be counted in one bucket in one county and another in a different county.
Permanent supportive housing means that a person or household receives long-term rent assistance plus wrap around services that can stretch the length of someone’s life. Rapid re-housing is rent assistance provided to an unhoused person that generally lasts for a few months or up to a year. And eviction prevention goes to an individual or household who has permanent housing but needs a few months of financial support to avoid being evicted.
Some financial reports regarding use of the Metro homelessness tax “group rapid rehousing and eviction prevention spending into one line item called short-term housing assistance,” the report said. “This makes it difficult to see how much was spent on each service type.”
The audit team also found that quarterly reports often had data inconsistencies or missing data. The three counties did not use the same method to determine what population received rent assistance.
To improve, the auditor’s office wants Metro to ensure all parties define key terms and track spending the same way, track if people return to homelessness after they are housed and create a process for Metro staff to check the accuracy of county reports, among other items.
As data reporting improves, the auditor’s office also wants each oversight body to receive better information in a timelier fashion and to create a more succinct way to monitor each county’s progress.
And as planning for the remainder of the 10-year tax progresses, the auditor wants officials to research best approaches to house unhoused people and to communicate the impact of those programs.
“Many of the challenges the (Metro homelessness tax) program faces can be traced back to the design of its well-intentioned but sprawling and complex governance structure,” Madrigal and Rojas said. “The values at the center of its design are strong … (but) the program currently navigates long, complex pathways to planning and goal setting, ambiguous and overlapping oversight responsibilities, and a lack of avenues for Metro to appropriately course correct when response partners do not deliver the services.”
The “complexity is at odds” with the need to urgently tackle the homelessness crisis, Madrigal and Rojas said.
Nicole Hayden reports on homelessness for The Oregonian/OregonLive. She can be reached at nhayden@oregonian.com.