From Spending to Results
When a problem becomes more serious, the traditional response is to add another program, hire additional staff, increase funding or form another committee. The assumption seems to be that if we spend more money and provide more services, the problem will eventually improve.
But what if it doesn't?
At some point, taxpayers have the right to ask a much more fundamental question:
What are we actually getting for the money we are spending?
That question is not insensitive. It is responsible government.
If millions of dollars are being spent addressing homelessness, addiction, mental health and street disorder, then we should be able to measure the results. How many people have been permanently housed? How many have moved from emergency accommodation into stable housing? Whether the County spends it or the City spends it, it's all our money - there is only one taxpayer. How many have entered addiction treatment? How many have remained housed six months or a year later? How many people have moved from dependence on emergency services toward employment and self-sufficiency?
And perhaps most importantly: Is the number of people living on Owen Sound's streets actually going down?
If the answer is no, then simply increasing expenditures cannot be considered a successful strategy.
This does not mean that every program is failing. Nor does it mean that every person experiencing homelessness can be expected to become self-sufficient. Some people have profound mental-health, addiction or physical-health challenges and will require long-term support.
But acknowledging that reality makes measuring results even more important.
A compassionate system should know whether the people it is trying to help are actually becoming better off.
A taxpayer-funded system should know whether the money being spent is producing the intended result.
And municipal government should have the courage to change programs that are not working.
Stop Managing the Problem
Owen Sound should not measure success by how many people are served by the system. It should measure success by how many people no longer need the system.There is an important difference. A program can serve hundreds of people every year and still fail if those same people remain homeless year after year. A shelter can be full every night and technically be providing a valuable service, while the underlying problem continues to grow.
We need to distinguish between. managing homelessness and reducing homelessness. Managing homelessness means providing emergency beds, meals, outreach, harm-reduction services and crisis intervention. Those services are necessary.
Reducing homelessness means moving people from the street to shelter, from shelter to housing, from crisis to treatment where appropriate, and ultimately toward stability and independence wherever possible.
The first keeps people alive. The second changes lives.
We need both—but we should not confuse the first with the second.
A Different Standard of Accountability
This is where Owen Sound needs to break the mould.
Every major homelessness initiative should have clearly defined objectives, measurable outcomes and a method of reporting those outcomes to Council and the public.The full Council needs to be fully engaged on pushing for solutions - not just the two members who attend County Council Meetings.
For example, Council should be able to see, on a regular basis:
* How many people are currently experiencing homelessness.
* How many entered emergency shelter.
* How many were placed in permanent housing.
* How many remained housed for 6 and 12 months.
* How many entered addiction or mental-health treatment.
* How many returned to homelessness.
* How many emergency-service interventions were required.
* How many encampments were established and subsequently resolved.
* What the programs cost taxpayers.
* And, most importantly, whether the overall number of people living on the streets is increasing or decreasing. This is not about turning vulnerable people into statistics
If it doesn't all members of Owen Sound Council need to attend the County Council meetings and demand results. Our elected representatives need to ensure that our tax dollars are being spent wisely by the County and are producing results.
It is about making sure statistics represent real human progress.
* If a person moves from sleeping on a sidewalk to stable housing, that is a success.
* If someone moves from addiction to recovery, that is a success.
* If someone who has been dependent on emergency services becomes capable of living independently, that is a success.
Those are the outcomes we should celebrate—and measure.
Conversely, if the number of people living on the streets continues to increase despite rising expenditures, Council has a responsibility to ask why.
Perhaps the programs need to change. Perhaps responsibilities need to be better coordinated. Perhaps provincial services need to be involved more directly. Perhaps money is being spent treating symptoms rather than causes. Perhaps some programs should be expanded while others should be redesigned or discontinued.
But doing more of the same simply because we have always done it is not a strategy.
Compassion With Accountability
There is nothing compassionate about allowing people to remain trapped indefinitely in homelessness, addiction and street disorder. Nor is it compassionate to allow downtown businesses and residents to bear the consequences of a system that is not producing results.
True compassion means helping people move toward a better life. True accountability means making sure the system designed to provide that help actually works. And responsible government means being willing to change course when it doesn't.
That is the kind of municipal government Owen Sound needs.
Not a government that simply spends more.
Not a government that simply manages the symptoms.
Not a government that points fingers at the County and claims "Not my Problem!"
Not a government that measures success by the number of programs it operates.
A government that sets objectives, measures results, identifies what works, eliminates what doesn't, and relentlessly focuses taxpayers' money on achieving better outcomes is what we need.
That is what it means to break the mould.