Skip to content
Bay EvidenceInvestigative research · Bay Area public systems
Send a tip
Fiscal Accountability · Framework + Partial Ledger

Follow the money all the way to durable outcomes

This is a published method and a partial ledger, not yet a comprehensive expenditure-to-outcome database. A spending total does not show what was delivered or whether conditions improved.

Current status: framework + partial ledger. The page is intentionally explicit about where the chain breaks. Rows are not described as complete unless appropriation, expenditure, delivery, people served, and durable outcome evidence can be matched for the same program and period.
Rainbow spanning the northern San Francisco waterfront with Alcatraz centered beyond the marina
Stu Berman / @stuinsf · Used with permission
Publication track

Follow the Money briefs may be published alongside Evidence Briefs when the source record is strong enough. One series asks what the evidence record shows; this series asks where the dollars went and what durable result is documented. The on-site ledger remains partial until that chain can be demonstrated across more programs and jurisdictions.

Reports archive →Program spending ledger →
The accountability chain
Appropriation authorityFunding sourceAdministering agencyGrant programGranteeContractContractorSubcontractorProgram or facilityExpenditure categoryPeople servedOutputsHousing outcomeRetention outcomeReturn to homelessnessMortality and safetyCost per durable result
The weak question

“How much did government spend?”

Appropriation does not establish expenditure. Expenditure does not establish access. Access does not establish a durable result.

The stronger question

“What did the money buy, who delivered it, who received it, and what happened next?”

The answer should identify the population served, the time period, the outcome measured, and whether the result lasted.

Seven questions for every funding claim
  1. 01How much money was appropriated?
  2. 02How much was actually obligated and spent?
  3. 03Which agency, contractor, or provider controlled the funds?
  4. 04What capacity was purchased or created?
  5. 05How many people actually received the service?
  6. 06What housing, health, safety, or retention result followed?
  7. 07How long did the result last, and what was the cost per durable outcome?
Where the public record usually breaks

Chain breaks

Appropriation ≠ expenditure

Adopted budgets and award notices state authority to spend. They do not prove dollars left the treasury or reached a provider.

Expenditure ≠ people served

Contract payments can be made without a published count of unique individuals who received the funded service in the same period.

Placement ≠ retention

A housing placement is an output. Durable outcome requires retention and return-to-homelessness measures over defined intervals.

State program totals ≠ local outcome trails

The California State Auditor (Report 2023-102.1) found Cal ICH had not continued statewide cost-and-outcome tracking after its 2023 assessment covering FY 2018–19 through 2020–21.

Verified anchors in the partial ledger

What the public record currently shows

Figures below are limited to primary allocation or adopted-budget sources already in the spending ledger. Outcome cells remain empty where the awarding body has not published a matching people-served or retention figure for the same row.

HHAP + Homekey (Bay Area)
$2.26B

Sum of tracked state program awards in the ledger. Allocated, not necessarily expended.

San Francisco HSH adopted
FY24-25$846M
FY25-26$786M

Source: SF.gov adopted HSH budget reports. FY25-26 adopted July 2025.

ProgramJurisdictionAllocatedUnitsSource
Homekey Round 1Bay Area (9 counties)$305M1,094Open ↗
Homekey Round 2Bay Area (9 counties)$522M1,706Open ↗
Homekey Round 3Bay Area (9 counties)$411M1,214Open ↗
HSH Department Budget FY24-25San Francisco$846M—Open ↗
HSH Department Budget FY25-26San Francisco$786M—Open ↗
Open the full spending evidence view →·Search audits and fiscal records →·Reports archive →