Cascade Party
A new path in Washington State politics.
A new path in Washington State politics.
Accountabilty
Olympia Bills Need Accountability, Not Just Expansion
By Brandon Blazer, (February 10, 2026)
Washington lawmakers are advancing SHB 2266 and SB 6069, two bills that would expand where permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, and indoor emergency shelters can be sited. The intent is sound: communities need more places for people to go. But expansion without measurement is not progress — it’s drift.
If Washington wants these bills to succeed, lawmakers must pair them with a performance matrix that tracks outcomes, costs, and system flow. Other states and counties already do this, and the results are clear: systems that measure performance improve; systems that don’t, stagnate.
Alameda County Shows What Washington Is Missing
One of the strongest models comes from Alameda County, California, which publishes a public, multi‑indicator Performance Scorecard for homelessness programs. It evaluates providers on exits to permanent housing, length of stay, returns to homelessness, utilization and turnover, income growth, and data quality. Alameda uses these metrics to guide funding, identify high‑performing programs, and intervene when outcomes slip. Providers know what success looks like, and the public can see whether investments are working.
Washington has nothing comparable — not statewide, not countywide, and not across program types.
Los Angeles Tracks System Flow in Real Time
Los Angeles County’s homelessness authority publishes a system‑wide performance dashboard that tracks length of time homeless, exits to permanent housing, returns within two years, shelter utilization, and inflow/outflow from the streets. This gives policymakers a real‑time view of system pressure points. Washington, by contrast, often debates homelessness policy without shared, standardized data.
Houston’s Success Was Built on Measurement
Houston’s nationally recognized reduction in homelessness — more than half over the past decade — was driven by a data‑driven performance matrix that tracks monthly inflow and outflow, housing placement velocity, returns to homelessness, and case‑management performance. Houston didn’t solve homelessness with slogans. It solved it with measurement, iteration, and accountability.
Connecticut Uses a Statewide Supportive‑Housing Framework
Connecticut operates one of the most mature statewide supportive‑housing systems in the country. Its performance framework tracks housing retention, income and employment changes, use of crisis services, returns to homelessness, and cost avoidance in hospitals, jails, and emergency rooms. It proves that statewide performance matrices are not only possible — they’re effective.
New York City Publishes a Supportive Housing Scorecard
New York City evaluates supportive‑housing providers on occupancy, turnover and vacancy duration, service engagement, critical incident reporting, and housing retention. Even in one of the largest, most complex systems in the world, performance measurement is standard practice.
And HUD Already Requires Core Metrics Nationally
Every Continuum of Care in the United States — including all of Washington’s — must report HUD’s System Performance Measures, including length of time homeless, returns to homelessness, exits to permanent housing, income changes, and shelter utilization. Washington already collects these metrics. What it lacks is a statewide framework that uses them to drive policy, funding, and system design.
SHB 2266 and SB 6069 Need This Missing Piece
The bills expand siting and allowance. They do not define success. They do not require outcome reporting. They do not track throughput. They do not compare providers. They do not measure cost‑effectiveness. Without a performance matrix, Washington risks expanding a system it cannot evaluate.
A statewide matrix doesn’t need to be complicated — it needs to be consistent. Any statewide performance matrix must be designed to account for higher‑acuity populations so that providers are not penalized for serving the people with the greatest needs.
A simple amendment could require standardized statewide reporting, annual public dashboards, provider‑level performance metrics, and a feedback loop that ties future funding to demonstrated results. This is not bureaucracy. It is basic governance — and other states have already shown how to do it.
Washington Can’t Manage What It Doesn’t Measure
The homelessness crisis is too serious, too expensive, and too politically charged to rely on intuition. If lawmakers want to expand supportive and emergency housing, they should also insist on knowing whether those investments work.
Alameda County measures performance. Los Angeles measures performance. Houston measures performance. Connecticut measures performance. New York City measures performance. HUD requires performance measures nationally.
Washington should not be the exception.
A performance matrix won’t slow progress — it will make progress possible.
Brandon Blazer is a Cascade Party member.
(Washington Legislature - Alamy Images)
