Erica C. Barnett
The future of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority came under scrutiny during a council meeting on Wednesday, just two days before a selection committee is scheduled to get its first look at a list of finalists to head up the embattled agency.
One name that may be on that list is that of KCRHA interim director Darrell Powell. Powell, the former chief financial officer for United Way of King County and Mayor Bruce Harrell’s pick for the interim role. Powell has reportedly applied for the permanent position, which has been vacant since the last CEO, Marc Dones, resigned last year. He replaced Helen Howell, who became interim CEO last May, in January.
The company that’s leading the search for a new CEO, Nonprofit Professionals Advisory Group (NPAG), has narrowed the list down to about a dozen candidates, whose names have not been made public, and will present the list to a search committee for further narrowing on Friday. The search process has been slow and opaque; NPAG only got around to posting a job description in January, eight months after Dones announced their resignation, and the search committee was reportedly uninspired by an early list of potential candidates.
If Powell—who did not respond to a request for an interview—became the permanent director, Harrell would have a long-term ally at the very top of an agency whose work he has frequently criticized and whose authority he recently reduced, by removing the KCRHA’s authority over encampment outreach and homelessness prevention and returning those contracts to the city’s Human Services Department.
The city council, including many of its six new members, appears to agree with Harrell about the need to claw back control over the KCRHA, which receives a little less than half its funding from the city. During a presentation by Powell and KCRHA staffer Jeff Simms on Wednesday, council members expressed support for Harrell’s decision to take over KCRHA’s outreach and prevention contracts and suggested the primary problem with the agency is that its governing structure is too confusing and unaccountable.
Specifically, council members said the KCRHA has too many boards—”three, plural?” Councilmember Rob Saka confirmed with Simms—and that one solution might be eliminating the implementation board, which is made up of unelected homelessness experts. “When you reference plural, rather than singular, I think therein lies the problem,” Saka said.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Council President Sara Nelson also criticized the implementation board and suggested that as “non-elected people,” they had little incentive to spend city funding wisely.
“These are non-elected people, who are not accountable to their constituents for resources, that are making the budget, and then the governing committee is expected to basically essentially rubber stamp so that the providers—very important—can get paid,” Nelson said. “And so that really does need to be cleaned up. And that’ll be quite a process and that can only take place in the interlocal agreement,” which established the authority and created its governing structure.
Nelson wasn’t on the council at the time, but there was actually a huge debate over the two-board structure when the council was helping to craft the interlocal agreement; the original plan, proposed by city and county leaders, was to set up a public development authority governed by an 11-member board of homelessness experts, overseen by a separate “steering committee” made up of elected officials.
Through compromises over time, elected officials gradually secured some direct control over the authority, eventually landing on a structure in which co-equal governing and implementation boards, made up of elected officials and people with policy expertise and experience, respectively, make decisions about the KCRHA and adopt its budget. The implementation board is made up of 13 experts on various aspects of the homelessness system, including people with direct experience of homelessness. The third board, which oversees the local continuum of care, is required by federal law and serves as a subcommittee to the implementation board.
“We are looking at the this being up for renewal at the end of the year, and I think we all want it to work, but we have to be honest about where it didn’t work and how we’re going to make it work going forward. When we look at what’s happening on the street, we don’t see any improvement. We only see things getting worse.”—Seattle City Councilmember Cathy Moore
The original justification for leaving most decisions in the hands of experts, rather than elected officials, was that they would be less influenced by prevailing political winds—less inclined, for instance, to make major budget changes based on voter complaints about encampments or media reports suggesting the agency is in disarray. (Like this column by Danny Westneat questioning the wisdom of the regional approach, which two councilmembers cited during Wednesday’s meeting.)
The KCRHA’s interlocal agreement expires at the end of this year, a date human services committee chair Cathy Moore called a “juncture” for the agency. “We are looking at the this being up for renewal at the end of the year, and I think we all want it to work, but we have to be honest about where it didn’t work and how we’re going to make it work going forward,” Moore said. “When we look at what’s happening on the street, we don’t see any improvement. We only see things getting worse.”
Simms pointed out that the agreement (and thus KCRHA) will continue automatically unless the city decides to unilaterally withdraw from the authority. If that happened, it would effectively end the agency and trigger the return of all homelessness contracts back to the government entities that oversaw them before 2020, including the city.
Before the KCRHA was created, homelessness contracts were under a division of the Human Services Department called Homelessness Strategy and Investments, which was subsequently (and messily) disbanded. HSD recently created a new homelessness division with its own director, suggesting a potential return to the old model.
It’s unclear how this would be an improvement (one reason for the whole “regional approach” concept in the first place was that it would consolidate city and county contracts under one authority) but a number of current elected officials seem to believe it might be—egged on, perhaps, by the mayor’s office, which has been bearish on the KCRHA since Harrell took office.
On Wednesday, several council members expressed the view that suburban cities need to “step up” and contribute financially to the regional authority so that Seattle can reduce its contribution; Saka, previously an attorney for Meta, likened Seattle’s initial heavy investment to a round of “seed funding” that would eventually lead to greater investments from other cities and a “draw down” in investments from Seattle.
This is a baked-in issue with the regional approach—why would a suburban city that disagrees with KCRHA’s progressive approach to homelessness give money to the authority when they could be spending it on encampment sweeps?—but suburban contributions were never going to make up a huge chunk of the KCRHA’s budget anyway, since their budgets are so much smaller than either Seattle or King County.
Although the council will soon be making major decisions about the KCRHA’s budget—which could face cuts this year to help close an estimated $230 million budget gap—it’s clear they still have a steep learning curve. (The meeting was one in a series of City 101-style briefings that have filled the council’s schedule since six new members took office in January).
After Simms told councilmembers that there is currently about one housing unit available for every 34 homeless people “nominated” for housing, for instance, Nelson suggested that “part of the problem is the demand, because people aren’t moving on from permanent supportive housing, perhaps because they don’t have the supports to be able to do so” from the agencies that provide their case management, she said. Permanent supportive housing, Simms pointed out, is a specialized housing type set aside for people with severe, usually lifelong, disabilities; “permanent” is a key part of the concept, and people aren’t expected to “move on.”
Other council members appeared unaware that people don’t generally flock to an encampment once they hear it’s being removed; that KCRHA gets people into housing, not just shelter; that the city’s Unified Care Team holds near-monopoly access to tiny house villages; and that the KCRHA doesn’t decide how to spend the city’s money, but administers a list of contracts that remains largely unchanged since the city was in charge of them.
As the fine folks of Phish once sang, “bag it, tag it, sell it to the butcher in the store.” The KCRHA is dead. It always makes a good man proud to watch the Homeless Industrial Complex take a hit. Although certainly we’ll be back to some equally asinine waste of money in the near future, so stay tuned!
Considering that I now fully expect to become homeless again soon, and no longer seriously expect to escape homelessness in my lifetime (decades of not working will obviously make my Social Security inadequate for housing), this is really bad news. But hey, what goes around comes around. None of the mayors of Seattle since I came here in 2006 have been friendly to the homeless, but during Ed Murray’s term the abusive treatment finally created enough uproar for changes, which Jenny Durkan never had the political capital fully to reverse. So if Bruce Harrell gets as mean as Seattle mayors usually want to be, there’ll probably be another correction.
It’s not mean for Mayor’s to wish their cities weren’t overrun with homeless addicts and the mentally unwell. Actually, most citizens wish their Mayor behaved that way.