City auditor: motel program served 3,400 people at $28M but data gaps and long stays limit outcomes

The City Auditor presented a comprehensive audit of the City Motel Program (CMP), finding the city spent more than $28 million from December 2020 through December 2024 to serve roughly 3,400 individuals and that roughly 32% of program exits were to permanent housing. The City Council voted 9'0 to approve the audit and asked the Department of Community Response (DCR) to implement recommendations.

Auditor Farish Dharwari and staff said the CMP began as a COVID-19 response and evolved into an emergency shelter program providing non-congregate rooms and case management through contracts with motel operators and service providers. Key audit findings included incomplete and inconsistent data entry in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), missing documentation for services for about one-third of stays, and the absence of service-cost tracking in HMIS.

The audit team reported the program has served approximately 3,400 individuals at an average cost of about $8,300 per participant; positive exit rates were highest within the first six months. The average length of stay across the CMP was about 160 days (median about 91 days), and the auditor noted that when stays extend beyond six months the program increasingly resembles longer-term housing rather than short-term emergency shelter.

The city auditor presented modeled cost metrics showing an estimated cost per positive exit of about $16,000 if a participant exits within six months; extended stays raise per-exit costs substantially (the audit included examples of per-person costs increasing into tens of thousands of dollars for very long stays). The audit also described operational findings: variation in case-management documentation and a high case-manager caseload (auditors reported case managers may handle about 50 participants), and inconsistent application of program rules and communication of expectations to participants.

The audit included recommendations to: (1) clearly define the program's primary objective (emergency shelter vs. longer-term interim housing); (2) develop measurable goals and metrics aligned to that objective; (3) strengthen HMIS data completeness and accuracy (including entry of service types and monetary assistance); (4) require earlier and more intensive triage and documented milestones (Step Up'style "contract for success" planning was noted as a recent improvement); and (5) strengthen invoice review and internal controls over reimbursements. The auditor said DCR had begun implementing some recommendations and that the audit team would work with the department to monitor progress.

Council discussion acknowledged the program's role in getting people indoors during the pandemic and emphasized the need to improve data, case-management intensity, and housing placements for people with complex needs. Several council members asked staff to report back on how to accelerate exits for program participants and how to ensure equitable geographic distribution of motel placements. The council voted to accept the audit; staff said they will pursue the data, quality-control, and triage recommendations and return with implementation steps.