Update on Church Finances

[smac97]

On 1/10/2023 at 8:33 AM, smac97 said:

This board has hosted all sorts of discussions in which critics have lambasted the Church for "hoarding wealth" (Analytics' preferred pejorative).  I think the above news items demonstrate that when discussing these amounts of wealth, I think few of us are situated to speak intelligently or competently about good wealth management.

...

I have previously presented a number of factors that I think onlookers should take into account when evaluating the Church's financial behaviors:

1. The Brethren Ain't Getting Rich: Neither the Brethren nor anybody else is getting wealthy off the wealth of Ensign Peak's investments.  The Brethren could be living large by diverting some of the funds they oversee, as we see the leaders of some religious groups doing (Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, etc.).  But they don't.  They aren't in it for the money.  They aren't in it to enrich themselves or anyone else.

2. Ensign Peak Foregoes Problematic Investments: Per the above article, Ensign Peak could invest in industries which, though often very lucrative, can be viewed as morally problematic according to the Church.  But it doesn't.

3. The Church's Increasing Charitable/Philanthropic/Religious Expenditures: Per this 2020 Deseret News article, the Church "{has} doubled its humanitarian spending over the past five years and now annually provides nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare aid" and "'we believe {these expenditures} are going to increase fast,' {Bishop Caussé} said."  Per the article, the Church is also is supporting 30,000 congregations, 200 temples, educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students, food, clothing and shelter for hundreds of thousands of people a year.

4. Weathering Hard Economic Times: From Bishop Waddell in the Presiding Bishopric in 2020 (from the above article) : "“There will be future downturns.  How extensive, how dramatic we don’t know. But one of the comments we made to the Journal was that if that were to happen, because of the reserves being carefully watched over, protected and wisely handled, we won’t have to stop missionary work, we won’t have to stop maintaining buildings and building temples, we won’t have to stop humanitarian and welfare work, we won’t have to stop education work. What the journalist (wrote) was that we won’t have to stop missionary work, period. Well, there’s more than that.” 

From Bishop Caussé, also in 2020: "Most of the growth, I have to say, is because we are right now in the longest period of prosperity in the United States that has ever been recorded, and this is creating that surge of financial markets.  We are just beneficiaries of it.” 

Fastforward to BlackRock issuing warnings in December 2022: "The global economy has already exited a four-decade era of stable growth and inflation to enter a period of heightened instability — and the new regime of increased unpredictability is here to stay."

5. Prudence in Charitable Giving: There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

I recently saw this video clip of Joe Rogan in which he raises some pretty interesting points:

A transcript:

I have a friend, Colion Noir, who was a lawyer.  He was in San Francisco, and his perspective was 'Oh, they're not spending enough to fix this homeless problem.'  And then he talked to someone who was actually deeply embedded in that situation, who said 'No, no.  That's not the problem.  They are spending a lot money on it.  But the money is going to these people that get high salaries that work on the homeless problem.  And he showed us a spreadsheet of all these people, and it's six-figure salaries, some of them $250,000 a year.  And it's a lot of them that are handling the homeless situation.  In Los Angeles, in San Francisco.  And there's no incentive to fix it.  The budget goes up every year.  The homeless problem goes up every year.  There's no accountability.  There's no 'Hey, we've spent all this money, and {yet} the problem is bigger.'  And {these} guys keep getting raises.  Like, what the $#%^ is going on here?  It becomes an industry.  And then fixing the homeless {problem}.  Pull up the budget for dealing with the homeless in Los Angeles in 2022.  Because it's bonkers.  When you see the sheer amount of money that's being spent ineffectively.  And all anybody seems to care about is 'We're working hard to mitigate the homeless situation, and we have upped our budget.'  Oh, they have upped their budget.  This is great.  And you think, 'That must be effective, we're gonna fix this.'  But nothing gets done.  $7.2 billion.  Just for {dealing with} homelessness {in California}. ... $3.3 billion general fund in 2021-2022 to almost thirty homelessness-related programs across the state.  That is so much money.  And yet the problem gets bigger and bigger every year.

I suspect the concerns reflected the foregoing comments are . . . warranted.  If anything, I think Joe was incorrect when he said "there's no incentive to fix" homelessness in CA.  There are, instead, very strong incentives for some of the Powers-that-Be to perpetuate homelessness, as it is the Golden Goose that keeps laying eggs to pay for those quarter-million-a-year-salaries.

I raise this in light of this comment from the 2020 D-News article quoted above:

I think that makes a lot of sense.  The Church's funds are sacred, and ought not to be thrown around willy-nilly like the huge-and-hugely-wasteful "Hey, let's just throw more money at it" approach taken in California.

One of the relentlessly fault-finding cynics on this board has commented: "The Church's primary mission is to increase the size of its investment portfolio ... that is its biggest priority.  By far."  

I am increasingly find that accusation pretty fatuous.  And ignorant.

Critics like this remind me of Prince Humperdinck from Princess Bride:

I think some (many?) of these critics don't actually give two figs about social ills and the people suffering from them when they grouse about the Church not spending its funds in ways they think it should.  Instead, I think they are considerably more invested in armchair quarterbacking, if not outright maliciousness.  So they use this issue - spending on social problems - as a convenient and pretextual brickbat against a religious group they dislike. The reasoning is not very deep:

The Church has money. 

The Church could donate billions of dollars of its accumulated funds to any and every and any social program, regardless of how actually effective such programs are, regardless of whether such programs - as Bishop Waddell so aptly put it - "will actually meet a need."

The Church does not do this.  Instead, it carefully vets philanthropic partners, and also keeps sufficient reserves for "rainy day" events like COVID, the war in Ukraine, and so on.

Nevertheless, critics now have an opportunity to publicly rake the Church across the coals.  So they rake.

Bishop Waddell was quite correct.  The Church does have "an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need."  

Further to the above commentary about the "humanitarian" mess in California arising from its feckless "Just Throw Money At It!" approach: 

No Wonder Gavin Newsom Didn't Want an Audit to Track $24 Billion in Homeless Spending

Quote

Gavin Newsom's California put billions of tax dollars into a cannon, aimed it in the general direction of homeless "expert" NGOs, lit the fuse, and walked away. The BOOM came when someone started asking questions about where the $24 billion went. That day of reckoning is finally here. And we learn that Gavin Newsom ... {has} no idea where it went or whether it did any good whatsoever.

A cautionary tale, then, for other parties to consider when evaluating humanitarian issues.

Quote

A new state audit — fought tooth and nail by Newsom, according to former state legislator turned Congressman Kevin Kiley, who called for the audit — has revealed that California was not tracking the spending. 
...

Kiley wrote:

California spent $24 billion to tackle homelessness over the past five years but didn’t consistently track whether the huge outlay of public money actually improved the situation." I first asked for the audit in 2020, but Newsom intervened to kill it. Now we know why he didn't want his spending examined. 

Last year, Assemblyman Josh Hoover got the audit approved, and the findings released today are even worse than I expected. The audit found that the California Interagency Council on Homelessness "stopped tracking spending on programs and whether programs were working in 2021. It also failed to collect and evaluate outcome data for these programs." ...

 

Worse, so much money is being given out and combined with lax drug laws and even more lax prosecutions that the state has now attracted 32% more homeless. Kiley says, "half the nation's unsheltered homeless now live in our state. In short: California is spending more and more on homelessness and the problem continues to get worse worse and worse."

"'California spent $24 billion to tackle homelessness over the past five years but didn’t consistently track whether the huge outlay of public money actually improved the situation.'"

"'California is spending more and more on homelessness and the problem continues to get worse worse and worse.'"

Huh.  Perhaps there is something to be said about reconsidering the Shoot-Ready-Aim approach to funding humanitarian efforts.  

Meanwhile, the Church seems to be working hard to avoid the unfortunate approach taken in California.  From the Presiding Bishopric in 2020:

Quote

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

See also here: 

The Church of Jesus Christ Is Helping Alleviate Global Malnutrition

Quote

The Church works with organizations that incorporate principles of self-reliance and engage in evidence-based solutions to combat growing malnutrition rates within the first 2,000 days of life (conception to age 5).
...

About Humanitarian Services of the Church of Jesus Christ

The Church’s 2022 annual report on caring for those in need shows that the faith’s efforts to care for those in need included more than $1 billion in expenditures, 6.3 million hours volunteered and 3,692 humanitarian projects in 190 countries and territories.

The humanitarian efforts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relieve suffering, foster self-reliance and provide opportunities for service. The Church follows the admonition of Jesus Christ to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked and visit the sick and afflicted.

This humanitarian outreach is made possible by the generous donations and volunteerism of Latter-day Saints and friends of the faith. The Church gives assistance without regard to race, religious affiliation or nationality. Aid is based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability.

"The Church works with organizations that incorporate principles of self-reliance and engage in evidence-based solutions..."

"Aid is based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

I think these principles can - must - govern humanitarian efforts.

Hopefully California will start to improve its tracking and management of its efforts.

Quote

Meanwhile, back at the audit, the bean counters looked at two cities to determine how they spent the money. San Diego and San José {} accounts were examined:

[N]either city could definitively identify all its revenues and expenditures related to its homelessness efforts because neither has an established mechanism, such as a spending plan, to track and report its spending. 

Although both cities provide tens of millions of dollars for homelessness programs and services through agreements with external service providers, such as nonprofits, neither city evaluated the effectiveness of its agreements.

...
Moreover, they established no mechanism to measure if any of the cash was doing any good. 

San Diego has generally established clear performance measures, such as specifying the number of people the service provider will assist, to enable it to assess whether the providers’ efforts are an effective use of funds. However, San José has not consistently done so. Furthermore, neither city has evaluated the effectiveness of the programs it provides to address the profound health and safety risks associated with unsheltered homelessness. [emphasis added].

The auditor said that those cities use "interim housing as a way to provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness, but they both need to develop additional permanent housing," which is bunk. The housing first model is imploding before our very eyes. 

I have been watching the "Housing First" approach for some years now.  One of my clients has a business model wherein he converts motels into apartment complexes (each former room being turned into a tiny studio apartment).  His tenants tend to be people coming out of, or going into, homelessness.  It's a challenging gig, as large numbers of these folks struggle with 1) substance abuse/addiction, 2) mental health issues, 3) maladaptive/dysfunctional behaviors, or 4) some combination of 1-3.  

I had previously thought that Utah's approach was working.  See, e.g., this 2015 article:

Utah is saving money and reducing homelessness

Quote

Ten years ago, Utah implemented a program with a simple approach to ending chronic homelessness: Give homes to the homeless.

The presence of chronically homeless people in the state has reportedly dropped by about 75 percent in the past decade, to fewer than 300 people. And the costs of providing services to this unstable group have been cut in half or more in some areas, according to a story by PolicyMic.

Utah focused its Housing First program on the chronically homeless population, which it defined as people who have not had a home in the past year or have become homeless more than four times in three years, according to the story.

Even though the chronically homeless accounted for only 10 percent of the state’s total homeless population, homeless advocates realized they used about 50 percent of the state’s homeless services.

The chronically homeless usually have deeper problems – mental health issues, addictions and other challenges that prevent them from getting stable jobs and housing. That means they often end up shuffled between state-funded programs for years, wasting precious state resources in the process.

In Salt Lake City for example, the traditional homeless services cost about $20,000 annually; under the Housing First program, the tab comes to about $8,000.

Now, instead of piling on state-run service after service – hospital visits, prison, drug treatments, shelter stays – the state just gives homeless people homes. The idea is that having a house makes everything else much easier.

“Getting people off the streets and get them into housing just works,” said Steve Berg, the vice president for programs and policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, in an interview with Mic. “Homelessness itself turns out to be a big barrier to all kinds of things, whether it is trying to get a job or trying to get an education or [trying to] stop a drug addiction.”

Other cities have tried the policy, but Utah appears to be the largest area that has committed to the program.

According to the story, trial housing-first programs saved significant amounts of money and reduced strain on the healthcare and law enforcement systems in Charlotte and Seattle.

Also from 2015:

Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How

Quote

A decade ago, Utah set itself an ambitious goal: end chronic homelessness.

As of 2015, the state can just about declare victory: The population of chronically homeless people has dropped by 91 percent.

The state's success story has generated headlines around the country, and even The Daily Show With Jon Stewart looked to Utah to understand how the state achieved its goal.

In fact, Utah still has a substantial homeless problem. The overall homeless population is around 14,000.

The chronically homeless, on the other hand, are a subset of the homeless population that is often the most vulnerable. These are people who have been living on the streets for more than a year, or four times in the past three years, and who have a "disabling condition" that might include serious mental illness, an addiction or a physical disability or illness.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that represents about 20 percent of the national homeless population.

By implementing a model known as Housing First, Utah has reduced that number from nearly 2,000 people in 2005, to fewer than 200 now.

But then things changed.  From 2019:

Rising Homelessness, Erroneous Data: Rethinking Utah's 'Housing First' Policy

Quote

"Once lauded as a leader among U.S. cities struggling to relieve homelessness, the number of people sleeping rough in Utah's capital has spiked in the past two years, as funding for its groundbreaking housing programme dried up," reports Gregory Scruggs.

According to the 2015 "Comprehensive Report on Homelessness" [2015] by the Utah Department of Workforce Services, chronic homelessness reduced 91 percent in the state the first half of the decade. That story quickly changed, however. The "2018 report [pdf] said that the number of people sleeping outdoors in the state has nearly doubled since 2016," according to Scuggs.

Utah's earlier track record of success was credited for many years to the "Housing First" policy adopted by the state in 2005. That program, "focused on getting people into housing, regardless of mental illness or substance abuse problems that could be treated after accommodation was secured," explains Scruggs.

Glenn Bailey, who directs Crossroads Urban Center, a Salt Lake City food pantry, is quoted in the article saying Utah's homeless numbers started rising when it stopped funding the program.

But there's also reason to believe that the Housing First program was never as successful as the 2015 homelessness report claimed. Tania Dean reported in December 2018 on an audit from the Office of the Legislative Auditor General: "According to the audit, between state, federal and private donations, $100 million was spent on solving Utah’s homeless issue in 2017. However, auditors don’t know if any of the homeless services provided to decrease the state’s homeless population have been working."

The audit blames "problems with the data and weak management information systems" for the errors in the 2015 report.

Also from 2019:

How one state almost solved homelessness

Quote

In Utah, the cause was championed by an unlikely private citizen: Lloyd Pendleton, an auto executive and bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Pendleton’s well-earned reputation for management led the church to lend him to Utah’s state government to help reform its shelter system. In 2003, Pendleton attended a homelessness conference in Las Vegas, where he met Tsemberis and learned about his approach. At first, Pendleton was skeptical. His conservative beliefs made him suspicious of what sounded like a handout. But it was hard to argue with Tsemberis’ data, and Pendleton soon embraced the model. In 2006, he was tapped by then-Gov. Jon Huntsman to become the director of Utah’s Homeless Task Force.

Pendleton pushed the Housing First method hard during his tenure, and the approach soon garnered backing across the political spectrum. Its cost-effectiveness appealed to conservatives, while the ethics of providing homes resonated with liberals. Elected leaders came to see Housing First as a humane and cost-effective solution backed by data — and not a partisan issue.

The results were spectacular. Between 2005 and 2015, Utah saw a 72% reduction in chronic homelessness. What’s more, the state estimated it was saving $8,000 per person housed through the program — savings that amounted to a 40% reduction in total money spent on the unhoused.

And then something strange happened.

Beginning in 2015, support in Utah’s government for Housing First began to unravel. Ignoring the data, certain business leaders and voters looked at anecdotal evidence — such as the persistence of some people camping on certain streets — and concluded that the problem had worsened. In 2017, newly elected leaders began starving Housing First programs of funds. And sure enough, Utah’s chronically homeless population began to grow again.

Critics of Housing First claim that the recent reversal, rising costs and a paucity of employed beneficiaries are evidence of the program’s shortcomings. But such claims are unfounded. In 2020, a review of 26 studies confirmed that the Housing First approach decreases homelessness by 88%, increases housing stability by 41%, and improves the quality of life for the unhoused relative to traditional approaches. The data also show that for every dollar invested in the program, Housing First saves $1.44.

When asked for advice on how other states can replicate his success, Pendleton cites “the three C’s”: champions, collaboration and compassion. And Salt Lake City’s recent regression suggests a fourth: consistency.

However, the best thing about Housing First is that it’s compassionate and pragmatic. It is grounded in the recognition that housing is a basic human need, but it is also the most efficient and cost-effective approach to the problem. If anything can unite the country behind a comprehensive attempt to solve homelessness, it should be that combination.

From 2021: 

Six Years of Failed Homeless Policy in Salt Lake City

Quote

Why Was Housing First A Failure?

Launched in 2016 by Utah’s appointed “Homeless Tzar” Lloyd Pendelton. The program that set out to “give homes to the homeless” was declared by the Washington Post, New Yorker Magazine, and NBC News and in a tongue-in-cheek manner by The Daily Show, “A solution to chronic homelessness.” 

The solution is simple, said Pendelton in 2015, “We are giving homes to the homeless.” The program certainly alleviated chronic homelessness, it helped those who were willing to remain off drugs for a short period to get free housing, and it “saved the taxpayers millions.” According to all major news outlets. And the figures seemed to make sense. A chronically homeless person can cost taxpayers well over $100K, in emergency room visits and the “revolving door” of law enforcement and criminal justice time and money. A free home for the homeless costs taxpayers less than $35,000.

But due to a variety of factors including the unverified rumor that both Las Vegas and Los Angeles were offering their notorious “revolving-door criminals” a “free one-way ticket to Salt Lake City.” As one employee from Crossroads Urban Center told Utah Stories, the word got out nationwide, and as housing prices began escalating in 2017 Utah’s homeless population, in and around downtown Salt Lake City began surging. 
...
City and State leaders launched Operation Rio Grande. A $68 million effort to clean up the area by removing homeless encampments that had become out of control in Pioneer Park. The Housing First Initiative couldn’t keep up with the demand for housing. And most of the people Utah Stories spoke to in the fall of 2017, said they were attempting to “qualify for housing.” But many said they felt overwhelmed by the paperwork and hoops that they had to jump through to qualify– mainly in trying to prove that they had been long-term homeless, and that they were in recovery. 

From 2023:

Evidence Calls “Housing First” Homelessness Strategy into Question

Quote

Although Utah is a more conservative state, the Housing First philosophy played well partly because it was framed as reducing costs and increasing the efficiency of government homeless services. As a notable example, Lloyd Pendleton—a Utahn who later became the director of the Utah Homelessness Task Force and a vocal proponent of Housing First—was at first skeptical of the Housing First approach. But Pendleton became converted to the idea after learning that the government spends between $30,000 and $50,000 annually to support existing chronically homeless residents.[3]

Has Housing First succeeded in its aims? The state of Utah claimed that it reduced chronic homelessness by 91% from 2005–2015, and this initially prompted commentators and policy analysts to promote Utah’s Housing First policies as the gold standard. Unfortunately, the largest decline in homelessness during this period occurred between 2009 and 2010, when Utah changed its definition of chronic homelessness and stopped counting people in transitional housing as chronically homeless. As a result, methodological differences were likely at play in the cited decline.[4]

Perhaps more significantly, since 2017, chronic homelessness grew rapidly both in the state generally and in Salt Lake County specifically (Figures 1 and 2). In 2010, the state counted 406 chronically homeless individuals and by 2017 this number had fallen to 185 (a 54% decrease). However, from 2017 to 2022, the number of chronically homeless reached 792, a 95% increase from 2010 and 328% increase from 2017.[5]
...
What is to blame for Utah’s disappointing results? Utah’s Office of the Legislative Auditor General conducted an audit of Utah’s homelessness response in 2021 and identified two reasons for Utah’s recent struggles that are inherent to the Housing First approach. The first issue is that the cost of permanent housing is high, with an estimated $250,000–$275,000 required per unit built. After surveying those working in homeless services, Utah’s Office of the Legislative Auditor estimates that Utah is short 1,200 units to meet current demand. Thus, it would cost between $300 million and $330 million to catch up with current demand.
...

A second issue with Housing First is that its focus on permanently placing homeless residents in housing units means that there are rarely vacancies in the Housing First housing stock. According to the 2021 audit, between 92 and 95 percent of homeless residents placed in permanent housing between fiscal years 2017 and 2020 remained in permanent housing during the reporting period. Because Housing First encourages the formerly homeless to remain in state‐funded housing long term, this creates added pressure on the program’s financials. Consequently, additional permanent housing units must be continually built or acquired by the state.

For these and other reasons, Utah’s experience almost twenty years out from program adoption casts doubt on the idea that the Housing First philosophy will deliver on its promises. Although Housing First was once hailed as a solution to homelessness, Utah’s experience suggests that there still are not easy answers. In fact, the state is continuing to experiment with ways to get the homeless off of the streets, including modifying the Housing First approach to looking at ways to move homeless out of tents and into semi‐permanent tiny houses. The outcomes in California, another Housing First state, also look bleak.

Also from 2023:

Why is “Housing First” Homes to the Homeless Proving to Be A Failure in Utah?

Quote

Why are Salt Lake City’s public housing initiatives under the “Housing First” Banner proving to be such a dismal failure since 2016? 

Utah Stories has uncovered that even the most expensive units in Salt Lake City, such as the Magnolia Apartments, along with Palmer Court as well as all of the new homeless resources centers are proving to not help the homeless work on their bigger issues such as drug addiction. Instead, these units are becoming epicenters for drug and sex trafficking. Neighborhoods are deteriorating; lives are being lost; the homeless situation is only becoming worse. How did this happen?

Utah taxpayers and policymakers were told in 2015 that the “Housing First” model that Utah has followed since 2005, in providing homes to the homeless was a success. An inaccurate PIT (point in time) count found that Utah had decreased chronic homelessness by 93% since the Housing First Policy was enacted. Utah was even championed as a model for the nation in 2015.

Utah taxpayers and philanthropists have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in building and maintaining permanent supportive housing units but these units have proven to be failures in terms of creating productive residents who can get back into the job market and get back on their feet. Why is this happening? What are we doing wrong?

Paul Webster who has been a homeless policy expert both in Washington D.C. and San Diego says the answer becomes apparent when we “follow the money.” And when we follow it we find the strings that are attached to the money (or lack thereof) are what is to blame for the failure not only in Salt Lake City but across every major metropolitan area in the United States.

A big chunk of the funding provided for Housing First originates from the Federal Government’s Housing and Urban Development Department. Webster says that In 2009 HUD consolidated affordable housing grants that they provide to cities into three main programs. HUD’s only concern is to see that formerly unsheltered homeless individuals are getting into housing. There is no measure or care for the actual success of the homeless outside of “increasing housing stability” he says.
...

Webster says that while Housing First requires that 30% of their income be applied to rent, most of those who qualify receive SSDI (Social Security Disability) payments, these funds can be applied for housing. This way participants are not required to work to maintain their free housing. In fact, Utah Stories has found that many are told not to work, because if they take gainful employment they risk loosing their disability status and government check that goes along with it.

Webster added that if tenants are breaking the law and committing crimes inside of their units they can be evicted. But, he adds, “The police need to be called, and criminal reports need to be filed. The cops have got to come and go through all of that rigamarole.”

And in the public housing arena, this is not something that the landlords (The Road Home) of Housing First projects like the Magnolia Apartments or Palmer Court, want to deal with. “it’s like look, if we can get people in housing and keep them in housing, we are going to do that.” Webster said.

This policy is especially apparent when considering the dismal homeless failures of Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Enormous number of dysfunctional public housing is result of Housing First policies in those cities. Webster said that during Covid homeless advocates were so egar to keep their formerly homeless in housing that they were providing drug paraphinailia kits so that the addicts would not spread Covid in their buildings. Under HUD’s provisions this actually would make sense.

And that is the challenge: If your objective is to keep people in housing and stably housed than you are going to have very different program objectives and goals than if your objective was to help these people become better citizens and become productive.

"If your objective is to keep people in housing and stably housed than you are going to have very different program objectives and goals than if your objective was to help these people become better citizens and become productive."

Boy, that's quite a quandary.

Also from 2023:

Utah reveals aggressive plan to reduce homelessness

Quote

The state's Homelessness Council and Office of Homeless Services released a 24-page report outlining actionable goals to address the issue in the Beehive State.

Objectives consist of increasing permanent affordable housing across the state, boosting access to supportive services and case management, and expanding homelessness prevention efforts. Some strategies to accomplish these goals include:

• Supporting localities' investment in permanent housing using public and private funds.
• Establishing a state-level supportive-services working group to coordinate mental health care, addiction recovery and case management assistance.

The plan sets 2027 as a goal to hit specific objectives, like building or finding 574 housing options for homeless people and reducing the number of people newly experiencing homelessness by 20% each year.

• In the report, stakeholders emphasized that more permanent housing was the "most important solution to ending homelessness."

What they're saying: "Despite years of focused effort and spending millions of dollars to solve problems, Utah’s experience with homelessness has proved to be perpetual and challenging," the report says.

So, a lot of verbiage all leading back to a basic fact: Humanitarian outreach is really, really difficult.  Getting it right involves a lot more than just throwing money at it.  

Back to the first article above re: California:

Quote

Right or wrong, you'd think these guys would know how many people they were putting into this interim housing. Nope. 

“For example, in a $1.6 million agreement for interim housing and supportive services, the housing commission did not specify how many people the provider should serve or set a target for occupancy," the auditor said.

They had no goals, no benchmarks, but lots of money. 

California has a bad track record of guilting people into spending more on stuff and then completely misspending it. 

"{G}uilting people into spending more on stuff and then completely misspending it."

I am glad the leaders of the Church are working hard to avoid this sort of thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

misread

Edited April 11, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

In his latest post, @smac97 said something that I totally agree. He quoted Bishop Davies as saying:

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes...” 

That is exactly right. Can we all agree that the last thing we want to do is donate money to organizations without really knowing where the money goes?

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Analytics said:

In his latest post, @smac97 said something that I totally agree. He quoted Bishop Davies as saying:

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes...” 

That is exactly right. Can we all agree that the last thing we want to do is donate money to organizations without really knowing where the money goes?

So...

No "JUST THROW MONEY AT IT!!!" then?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In his latest post, @smac97 said something that I totally agree. He quoted Bishop Davies as saying:

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes...” 

That is exactly right. Can we all agree that the last thing we want to do is donate money to organizations without really knowing where the money goes?

If we're talking about donations and not tithing, then I agree.

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Can we all agree that the last thing we want to do is donate money to organizations without really knowing where the money goes?

Three seconds.  That's how long it took me to figure out the government and churches are different things. 

 

In other words, get back to me when the govt allows me to just pay whatever taxes I feel is right, and accepts my answer.  

Conversely, get back to me when my church audits my tithing and sends authorized agents to seize my assets if they disagree.

Edited April 11, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Teancum]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In his latest post, @smac97 said something that I totally agree. He quoted Bishop Davies as saying:

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes...” 

That is exactly right. Can we all agree that the last thing we want to do is donate money to organizations without really knowing where the money goes?

The main reason I stopped giving to the church. That and the disclaimer note on the donation slip that essentially no matter what you classify the donation as the church can do with it whatever they want to.

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So...

No "JUST THROW MONEY AT IT!!!" then?

Huh?

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we're talking about donations and not tithing, then I agree.

You don't care where your tithing $$ go?

[california boy]

Hey if you have some magical idea on how to solve the homeless problem, I am sure we are all ears.  But when you start pitting one state against the other, I hope you also realize that states are not on a level playing field.  One of the HUGE differences between Utah and California is the cost of housing.  You are very naive about what it cost to buy or rent a home in California if you think Utah and California have similar factors.

A 2022 study found that differences in per capita homelessness rates across the country are not due to mental illness, drug addiction, or poverty, but to differences in the cost of housing, with West Coast cities including Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles having homelessness rates five times that of areas with much lower housing costs like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Detroit, even though the latter locations have high burdens of opioid addiction and poverty.^[4][5][6][7]
 

Quote

 

The average rent for apartments in San Francisco, CA, is between $2,760 and $4,668 in 2024. For a studio apartment in San Francisco, CA, the average rent is $2,760. When it comes to 1-bedroom apartments, the average rent in San Francisco, CA, is $3,525. For a 2-bedroom apartment, the average rent is $4,668.

 

Quote

What is the average rent in Salt Lake City, UT? As of April 2024, the average rent in Salt Lake City, UT is $1,398 per month. For comparison, the national average rent price in the US is currently $1,512/month, which means Salt Lake City rent prices are 8% lower than the national average. $1,164/mo.

If housing costs in Salt Lake City jumped to between $2,760 and $4668, how many living in Salt Lake City would find themselves homeless and unable to pay rent?  

So far, I have yet to see some silver bullet from anywhere that solves the housing problem in this country.  If you got one, then by all means speak up.  But if you are just going to pit one state against the other, I think you need to be more thoughtful than just throwing out statistical bombs.  It doesn't help the problem.  The biggest problem California has is that too many people want to live here, which drives up housing costs.  When we hear people might be leaving California, we celebrate.  It might be the only way to get our housing costs down and ultimately reduce the main cause of homelessness.

[bluebell]

Just now, Teancum said:

You don't care where your tithing $$ go?

No, I really really don't.  It's an obligation to the Lord and worrying about how He chooses to use it and who He puts in charge of it is not a part of the equation for me.

I choose to fulfill my obligation of tithing by paying it to a church that I believe is God's authorized church lead by His authorized servants, who are good sincere men completely focused on trying to do what they believe God expects them to do with the money.  I've done my 'due diligence' in regards to what storehouse I'm giving my money to, if tithing really is what I believe it is, and if the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is what I believe it is, then there's no reason for me to micromanage what happens to that money after I hand it over.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Huh?

A joking reference to the other thread covering this.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Three seconds.  That's how long it took me to figure out the government and churches are different things. 

 

In other words, get back to me when the govt allows me to just pay whatever taxes I feel is right, and accepts my answer.  

Conversely, get back to me when my church audits my tithing and sends authorized agents to seize my assets if they disagree.

No one makes you pay taxes. I mean sure you may lose your assets I guess, and go to jail if you lie, but that's a small thing really. I mean small at least compared to being burned alive for not paying, or being sent to hell for "eternal punishment"*. 

*Eternal here does not mean lasting forever. It means punishment that is severe and harsh enough that the Supreme Being of the universe saw it as a fit descriptor. 

**D&C 64:23

 

But yes, lets be worried about a forfeiture of assets.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I really really don't.  It's an obligation to the Lord and worrying about how He chooses to use it and who He puts in charge of it is not a part of the equation for me.

I choose to fulfill my obligation of tithing by paying it to a church that I believe is God's authorized church lead by His authorized servants, who are good sincere men completely focused on trying to do what they believe God expects them to do with the money.  I've done my 'due diligence' in regards to what storehouse I'm giving my money to, if tithing really is what I believe it is, and if the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is what I believe it is, then there's no reason for me to micromanage what happens to that money after I hand it over.

I wish I could give you several upvotes for this!

By the way, I just noticed you're from Wyoming. Do you happen to live near Powell, WY? I ask because some old friends of mine from there used to call Powell "The Center of the Universe." 

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No one makes you pay taxes. I mean sure you may lose your assets I guess, and go to jail if you lie, but that's a small thing really. I mean small at least compared to being burned alive for not paying, or being sent to hell for "eternal punishment"*. 

*Eternal here does not mean lasting forever. It means punishment that is severe and harsh enough that the Supreme Being of the universe saw it as a fit descriptor. 

**D&C 64:23

 

But yes, lets be worried about a forfeiture of assets.

Oh, come on. You know very well the burning is figurative, not literal. And the Telestial Kingdom is far from being the classical "hell."

And besides, who owns the Universe and every shred in it? And all he asks in return is just 10% of your increase from what he has loaned you.

🙂 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I wish I could give you several upvotes for this!

By the way, I just noticed you're from Wyoming. Do you happen to live near Powell, WY? I ask because some old friends of mine from there used to call Powell "The Center of the Universe." 

I grew up in Powell and graduated from high school there.  My parents still live there and we are there several times a year.

[Nofear]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You don't care where your tithing $$ go?

Well, obviously it goes to the fancy yachts, lavish parties, five star hotels as they world hop, and extravagant sports cars that the General Authorities and Officers of the Church universally enjoy with their "living wage". I'm like, why am I not invited at least to the parties!? I pay my tithing!

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Hey if you have some magical idea on how to solve the homeless problem, I am sure we are all ears.  

I don't claim to know.  That is rather my point.  Homelessness and other humanitarian issues are very, very difficult to address.  Simply throwing money at them is not the way to go.

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

But when you start pitting one state against the other,

I am not doing that either.  While California's approach is clearly pretty horrible, there are substantial flaws in Utah's, too.

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I hope you also realize that states are not on a level playing field.  One of the HUGE differences between Utah and California is the cost of housing.  You are very naive about what it cost to buy or rent a home in California if you think Utah and California have similar factors.

Both have homelessness issues.  

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

A 2022 study found that differences in per capita homelessness rates across the country are not due to mental illness, drug addiction, or poverty, but to differences in the cost of housing, with West Coast cities including Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles having homelessness rates five times that of areas with much lower housing costs like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Detroit, even though the latter locations have high burdens of opioid addiction and poverty.^[4][5][6][7]

There are many reasons for for differences in homelessness rates.  Political and legal and policy positions matter a lot.  Weather matters a lot.  And so on.

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

So far, I have yet to see some silver bullet from anywhere that solves the housing problem in this country.  If you got one, then by all means speak up.  But if you are just going to pit one state against the other, I think you need to be more thoughtful than just throwing out statistical bombs.  It doesn't help the problem.

My point here was not to proffer silver bullets, or pit states against each other, or throw out "statistical bombs" (I don't even know what that means).

Rather, my point is to illustrate the reality of administering humanitarian efforts.  The difficulty of it.  The need to do far more than Just Throw Money At It.

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

The biggest problem California has is that too many people want to live here, which drives up housing costs.  

I think the political/legal/policy aspects need to be addressed as well.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here. 

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

When we hear people might be leaving California, we celebrate.  It might be the only way to get our housing costs down and ultimately reduce the main cause of homelessness.

There are many causes. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You don't care where your tithing $$ go?

Yes, I care.  No, I don't make payment of tithing contingent on my agreeing with how the Church uses sacred funds.  Fortunately, though, this fails even as a hypothetical because the Church is really quite good at managing finances.

Moreover, we do know "where {} tithing $$ go{es}."  We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  We see beautiful church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, colleges, missionary programs, family history efforts, youth programs, women's programs, Deseret Industries, Humanitarian Square, Welfare Square, canneries and storehouses, public statements about billions being spent on collaborative humanitarian efforts, and on and on and on.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  We also have a notable lack of any evidence of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.

If the Latter-day Saints were presently operating in the dark about the finances of the Church, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But per the above observations, we aren't, so they don't.

If the Church had not previously put in place substantial auditing or other mechanisms for financial controls and oversight, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it has, so they don't.

If the Church had, in its recent history, a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc., I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it doesn't, so they don't.

The Church is doing a really good job, and is getting better as time goes on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If the Latter-day Saints were presently operating in the dark about the finances of the Church, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But per the above observations, we aren't, so they don't.

So in your estimation, the Church provides the same level of transparency to its donors that it requires from the organizations it donates to, right?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If the Church had not previously put in place substantial auditing or other mechanisms for financial controls and oversight, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it has, so they don't.

The Church doesn’t merely require that the organizations it donates to have financial controls and oversight. They also demand to know where the money actually goes, in detail. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If the Church had, in its recent history, a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc., I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it doesn't, so they don't.

Did you already forget about the scandal where they set up over a dozen LCC’s that filed blatantly false reports to the SEC and served no purpose whatsoever other than to hide from Church membership what it does with the majority of its annual income?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Yes, I care.  No, I don't make payment of tithing contingent on my agreeing with how the Church uses sacred funds.  Fortunately, though, this fails even as a hypothetical because the Church is really quite good at managing finances.

Moreover, we do know "where {} tithing $$ go{es}."  We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  We see beautiful church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, colleges, missionary programs, family history efforts, youth programs, women's programs, Deseret Industries, Humanitarian Square, Welfare Square, canneries and storehouses, public statements about billions being spent on collaborative humanitarian efforts, and on and on and on.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  We also have a notable lack of any evidence of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.

If the Latter-day Saints were presently operating in the dark about the finances of the Church, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But per the above observations, we aren't, so they don't.

So in your estimation, the Church provides the same level of transparency to its donors that it requires from the organizations it donates to, right?

I don't know what "level of transparency" the Church requires of its partner organizations.  Nor, I suspect, do you.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If the Church had not previously put in place substantial auditing or other mechanisms for financial controls and oversight, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it has, so they don't.

The Church doesn’t merely require that the organizations it donates to have financial controls and oversight. They also demand to know where the money actually goes, in detail. 

Perhaps.  The Church does not require public disclosure of this stuff.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If the Church had, in its recent history, a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc., I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it doesn't, so they don't.

Did you already forget about the scandal where they set up over a dozen LCC’s that filed blatantly false reports to the SEC and served no purpose whatsoever other than to hide from Church membership what it does with the majority of its annual income?

No.  I did not say the Church  never makes mistakes.  I said the Church, in its recent history, has not had "a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc."

The Church is getting better and better at managing its finances, and I am grateful for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "level of transparency" the Church requires of its partner organizations.  Nor, I suspect, do you.

I'm simply relying on the quote you provided.

“The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

When the Church donates money, it knows exactly where the money goes. Not only does it carefully examine the financial statements of the organizations it donates to, it literally performs its own “feet on the ground” audits so they can see where the money really goes.

In contrast, where do your tithing dollars go? I would guess it is something like this:

5% to missionary work
5% to humanitarian things
25% to building and maintaining churches and temples
10% to BYU, seminary, and other educational things
55% to purchase stocks, bonds, farms, commercial real estate, etc.

That’s a very rough guess, but the point is we don’t know.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.  The Church does not require public disclosure of this stuff.

Maybe it doesn’t require public disclosure, but it requires a great deal of private disclosure to them. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.  I did not say the Church  never makes mistakes.  I said the Church, in its recent history, has not had "a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc."

I think the snafu with the SEC reports was a scandal, and that it was driven by a desire to conceal from its membership what it really does with a huge percentage of the funds it receives; it valued secrecy over integrity and rationalized their lies.

Edited April 12, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "level of transparency" the Church requires of its partner organizations...

Let me add one more thought to my prior comment.

Imagine the Church was thoroughly vetting a potential charity partner, and that potential partner told them the following:

Here at Humanitarianism-Is-Us, our biggest priority is to make sure we don’t just-throw-money-at-it!™️ That's why you can be confident that when you donate money to us, we’ll use most of your donations to grow the size of our for-profit business empire so that if we somehow someday figure out an effective use of the money, it will be there! With interest! So give your money to us! We promise that we won’t   just-throw-money-at-it!™️ 

I have a feeling that if a charity took that approach, the Church wouldn’t donate a dime to them. Instead it would cut out the middle man and just put the money directly into their own brokerage account.

Edited April 12, 2024 by Analytics

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, Analytics said:

When the Church donates money, it knows exactly where the money goes. Not only does it carefully examine the financial statements of the organizations it donates to, it literally performs its own “feet on the ground” audits so they can see where the money really goes.

It's good to know that the Church is being a good steward of the funds I donate to it when it in turn donates some of it to other organizations!

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Nofear said:

Well, obviously it goes to the fancy yachts, lavish parties, five star hotels as they world hop, and extravagant sports cars that the General Authorities and Officers of the Church universally enjoy with their "living wage". I'm like, why am I not invited at least to the parties!? I pay my tithing!

Nice straw man and deflection.

By the way I think your LDS leaders are way underpaid.