With so little data collected, SF can not be held responsible for prop's expenses. C

Proposal C was passed creating a new corporate tax in San Francisco to fund a new service strategy for homeless people. The tax is applied fairly or unfairly in the verbal battle between billionaires – are you for or against the homeless – was the complex reality of the fight against homelessness and the accountability of programs, workers, entrepreneurs and elected officials of the city.

The San Francisco City Government is struggling to find accounts because of the lack of action it takes

We collect and report very little data on what works and what does not work. We spend billions of dollars, but almost nothing is spent on whether programs are effective or trying to understand if we are getting the most out of every dollar we spend. We spend more per capita money on homelessness programs than almost every other city in the country, but programs are virtually untested to determine if they are leveraging the use of public funds.

And yet, the first obligation of the local government is to work: fill the potholes, watch the streets and support the homeless. The data we have suggests that San Francisco fails all three and more. We need to better use the data and ask for more if we want to improve the city's activities.

Across the country, cities have realized that they owe their citizens good operations so that the government can show that it is doing as much good as possible with every dollar spent. Baltimore has its CitiStat program, Philadelphia has Phillystat, New York has the Office of Operations and the Office of the Mayor of Data Analytics, Chicago has SmartData, New Orleans has the Office of Performance and Accountability. But not here.

What do these programs have in common? They define the hundreds of goals that the city tries to achieve in all its programs, they measure performance around these goals (up to the level of contracts and workers), and they hold the managers , workers, elected officials and elected officials publicly accountable. against these objectives.

We must tackle the abject failures of management in San Francisco, where, year after year, politicians highlight the subtle differences in their "blue" values, while almost no one focuses on the effective management of the city.

To do this, we need to discuss the effectiveness of community programs, non-profit partners, and city workers. This requires an objective analysis of the projects and ideas of the companions elected by the elected representatives. This requires more than just saying the word "responsibility" – it requires empowering people. None of this is happening in San Francisco; it seems too difficult for us and we continue with one of the most misguided, inefficient and embarrassing municipal governments in the country.

I've seen the difference between how cities, counties, and programs that are effective, efficient, and well-managed can be compared to those who do not want to make better, smarter decisions using data.

The city of San Francisco must go much further than additional cleaning teams, guided tours or a single tax directly related to homeless services. We need to rebuild the city government so that each program is data-driven, that each office is evaluated, that each department and its manager are held accountable, and that each mayor can be judged in a transparent way about its performance. We certainly have the money to do it – we just need the political will.