Sacramento spends astonishing sums trying to address homelessness—more than $120 million in five years. Yet the crisis continues to dominate our streets, parks, business districts and neighborhoods.
A recent investigation by the Bee lays out where the money went and why the results were so limited. The findings deserve close attention from residents who wonder how so much public investment produces so little improvement.
The Bee’s reporting shows local strategy centered on building and operating shelters—large sites, tiny home villages, motel conversions and sanctioned camping areas. These projects consume enormous financial and administrative resources.
Many are delayed for years, over budget or far smaller in scope than first announced. Some stay in planning stages long after funding is approved. Meantime, the number of people who live outdoors grows faster than shelters can handle.
One example is the county’s newest shelter, under construction in North Highlands with a projected cost of roughly $64 million. When completed, the facility is expected to serve about 275 people.
Even at full capacity, the site addresses just a fraction of the homeless population. The Bee investigation highlights similar patterns. Expensive projects that take years to develop and offer too few beds to make a meaningful dent.
This isn’t a criticism of people who work inside shelters or the responsible nonprofit partners who take on tough assignments. The problem is structural.
Sacramento focuses on providing interim shelter. Long-term solutions lag far behind.
Shelters can stabilize people for short periods, but don’t end homelessness. Without permanent housing and supportive services available in sufficient numbers, shelters become gridlocked. People enter but can’t exit, reducing turnover and leaving thousands outside with nowhere to go.
The Bee’s review of public records shows Sacramento lacks consistent, reliable data to measure how many people transition from shelters to stable housing. City and county officials acknowledge the gap. Without tracking outcomes, it becomes impossible to know whether the system succeeds or fails.
Other cities made progress by measuring success based on housing placements and reductions in time spent homeless. Sacramento can’t improve without adopting similar standards.
State programs such as Project Roomkey and Homekey illustrate the problem. These initiatives placed people in motels during the pandemic. In some cases, they converted entire properties into long-term housing.
While beneficial in the moment, the vast majority of Roomkey participants didn’t move into permanent homes. The pattern repeats locally: temporary relief without lasting results, because permanent units are in short supply and difficult to build.
The financial picture is equally troubling. Costs for shelters often reach hundreds of thousands of dollars per bed. Running the sites adds tens of thousands more.
These are statewide trends, but Sacramento’s experiences mirror the worst of them. When interim shelters cost as much as permanent units and require ongoing operational funding, taxpayers are stuck with a system that’s expensive and ineffective.
Meanwhile, the number of people experiencing homelessness continues to outpace available solutions. Delays caused by zoning, neighborhood objections, environmental reviews and construction slowdowns mean projects take years to open.
By the time a shelter is operational, the homeless population has grown, sometimes dramatically. The city chases a moving target, spending millions without closing the gap.
The Bee investigation makes clear the city must rethink its approach. Continuing to pour millions into shelters without a parallel investment in permanent, supportive housing will only prolong the crisis and leave municipal budgets poorer without achieving the lasting results residents expect and deserve.
Cecily Hastings can be reached at publisher@insidepublications.com. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram: @insidesacramento.
