For decades, politicians, government agencies, and large nonprofits have promised to fix complex social issues—none more visible than homelessness. Billions of dollars have been poured into programs, initiatives, and solutions across the country. But year after year, in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and others across the United States and the UK, the crisis not only persists—it’s growing. It raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: why does so much money fail to produce lasting change?
The answer often lies not in the lack of resources or intention, but in the absence of something far less discussed: community-level accountability. When solutions are developed at a distance—by well-meaning decision-makers far removed from the day-to-day realities of the people they’re trying to help—results can easily fall flat. As Henry Mauriss, CEO of ClearTV and a longtime supporter of local philanthropy, puts it: “You can’t fix homelessness from behind a desk. You have to start with the people and work outward.”
Big Budgets, Small Results
Let’s take a recent example. In California, a state audit revealed that over $24 billion had been spent on homelessness in the last five years. Yet in that same time, homelessness in major cities has continued to climb. Multiple reports, including from the LA Times and CBS News, confirmed what many people on the ground already suspected: no one really knows where the money went—or what, if anything, it achieved.
This isn’t an isolated problem. Across various social programs, there’s a troubling pattern of spending without strategy, and strategy without feedback from the communities most affected. The cycle repeats: money is allocated, metrics are vague, oversight is minimal, and the end result is often more frustration than progress.
It’s not that the people running these programs lack empathy. Most are genuinely trying to help. But large-scale institutions tend to work in abstract terms: reports, goals, projections, and outcomes. Meanwhile, the people they aim to serve need immediate, tangible, human-centered support—something spreadsheets alone can’t deliver.
When Solutions Are Imposed, Not Grown
At the heart of this failure is a top-down mindset. Many large systems operate under the assumption that if enough money is spent and the right policies are passed, change will follow. But when programs are developed without input from local leaders, faith groups, grassroots organizations, and the very people experiencing homelessness, they miss the mark.
The lack of community input often leads to services that are inaccessible, redundant, or even counterproductive. For example, building expensive shelters that don’t accommodate pets, couples, or mental health needs means that people simply won’t use them. Creating job training programs that don’t account for lack of transportation or childcare means many participants won’t attend. These are real, everyday obstacles that can’t be solved with policy alone.
Local groups, especially faith-based and nonprofit organizations, often have a much clearer picture of these needs. They’re embedded in the community. They know the names and stories of the people they serve. And they often operate with far less funding but far greater impact because they understand the details—and they’re held accountable by their neighbors, not just by budget reviews.
The Case for Local Accountability
So what does community accountability really mean? It means building programs with communities, not for them. It means asking, listening, adjusting, and staying involved long after the press release is issued. It means making outcomes visible and measurable—not in terms of how much was spent, but in how many lives were improved.
Henry Mauriss has championed this approach through his support of Joshua’s Collective, a faith-based initiative focused on helping the homeless through church partnerships, food programs, and direct outreach. The effort is personal, local, and driven by a deep understanding of what people really need—not just a roof, but dignity, support, and connection.
Mauriss has often spoken about the difference between aid that’s impersonal and aid that’s relational. “We’ve spent time, money, and effort on high-level policy,” he says, “but the change I’ve seen that lasts almost always comes from the local level—where people know your name and walk with you through the mess.”
That’s the kind of accountability systems need. Not just reports filed or dollars tracked, but real-time feedback, local leadership, and lived experience at the table.
What We Can Do Differently
If we’re serious about solving the homelessness crisis—or any deep-rooted social issue—then we need to rethink how we approach public spending and charitable impact. It’s not enough to mean well. We have to build structures that invite scrutiny, foster collaboration, and focus on people over process.
One way to start is by shifting some control—and funding—away from centralized bureaucracies and toward trusted local partners. That could include community development nonprofits, churches, neighborhood coalitions, and even social entrepreneurs who have a stake in the outcomes. When money comes with shared goals and clear local ownership, it stretches further and does more.
Another key is transparency. We should be able to measure not just how much was spent, but what changed as a result. Did more people move into permanent housing? Did they stay? Did they find jobs, stability, and connection? These are the metrics that matter. And they’re often easiest to track when communities are directly involved in the solutions.
Finally, we need a cultural shift in how we define success. Short-term wins may look good on paper, but real transformation takes time. That means investing in people, not just programs. It means being willing to make mistakes, learn, and adapt—something government systems are notoriously bad at, but local organizations do every day.
A Better Way Forward
At its core, this issue isn’t about left or right, government or private sector, policy or prayer. It’s about humility. It’s about recognizing that the people closest to a problem often hold the best solutions—and that throwing money at a problem without accountability isn’t just wasteful, it’s disrespectful to the very people we’re trying to help.
As leaders like Henry Mauriss have shown through both business and philanthropy, impact starts with listening. Whether building a television network or feeding families on the street, the most effective efforts begin at the ground level. That’s where trust is earned, and where real solutions are born.
We don’t need less compassion in our systems—we need more wisdom in how it’s applied. And that begins with putting communities, not committees, at the center of change.
