Solid work, Joe. Thank you!

Every one of these so-called nonprofit entities needs an audit. Many are clearly gravy trains for administrators and people connected with la city familia. Thanks for being the only news organization in SF not corrupted by the powers that be.

In reply to Daniel.

No I didn’t if you believe like I do that comes from systems, not the other way around.

RTSF (Rebuilding Together San Francisco) does not keep a brick-and-mortar office in the City. They pay a modest amount for staff to hot desk part-time at the 535 Mission Street WeWork Building. It’s just 3 full-time staff excluding the ED so $500K for salary and benefits is interesting. More interesting is $673K for “other expenses”, and another half a million dollars coming in and reported under equally veiled, vague categories. This is a LOT of money moving through a relatively small organization with a first-time ED at the helm and little to zero accountability for where these big chunks of money end up. Indeed and sadly, the nothing burger MOHCD got in exchange for giving RTSF so much money to help these senior homeowners is no suprise.

Joe,

Great job which is why I’ve been an Eskenazi groupie since the SF Weekly days.

I can’t wait for computers (AGI ?) to take over City government.

Right now I’m kinda liking Daniel Lurie for Mayor.

And, CMC for MVP !!

In reply to Jake T.

You miss my point – where the players go to line up becomes a technicality when you have a culture of corruption, incompetence and laziness.

In reply to Brandon.

If you attend any of the CA Public Bank meetings, it’s clear the SF reps have no clue what they’re talking about and imagine a public bank is something like a slush fund for all your hobby projects / laundered get out the vote efforts. I don’t think a single person there could describe the business model of a bank.

In reply to Daniel.

There are plenty of examples of successful, uncorrupt administrative states. And voters have recourse when their government fails.

There are no examples of successful public-nonprofit partnerships. And it has all the bad incentives of crony capitalism.

Thanks for this great expose of yet another poorly managed SF City government program. Is there any City agency that is not corrupt and/ or incompetent?

Some years ago, retired Judge Quentin Kopp penned as article which
cited that about 17 % of the workforce within San Francisco were with
non-profits. Now, post pandemic, would not doubt if that is as high
as 20-25 %. That is a large interest voting block. And, it seems that
there is not an established policy to monitor their structures and
practices. Just keep pouring funds and leave it at that.
A true Social-Welfare Bureaucratic Complex, a la the
Military Industrial Complex of yesteryear, on a local lever.

In reply to SFAtty.

I fully agree with this. “House rich” is just “rich,” IMO. If you can sell, move into something smaller (maybe a maintenance-free condo) and pocket the difference (minus taxes, which seems fair after decades of huge appreciation), I think you should have to do that before being gifted public money.

In the U.S., however, we have a cult-like devotion to “the home.” We value it so much that we don’t think anyone should ever be required to leave it. Better to make taxpayers foot the bill for the private expenses of the homeowner than to make a homeowner move.

maybe its a starter fund for the seawall white elephant project? or a recall or run for office campaign? or for the first legal salvo on the rebuilding SF efforts to push people out of frisco, and ignore everything else needed? Lots to pay, no money to play…..

Excellent reporting. Shedding light on this incredible waste of taxpayer dollars is some fine journalism. A related issue – is this really a good use of taxpayer dollars in the first place, even if the program were not so corrupt? A quick search indicates that the owners’ equity in two of the featured houses is roughly $1 million and $1.1 million (the addresses are easy to find from the names). Is handing money to literal millionaires really good policy? I understand that it’s very nice to be able to keep a family home, and in a world of infinite government assistance resources, I’d be all for it. But that is not the real world. These homeowners could sell and live on the proceeds quite nicely for the rest of their lives. Seems like the finite dollars could be targeted to get a lot more bang for the buck.

In reply to Stephen.

“This is the problem with privatizing public services”. Not generally so, considering how George Moscone put Jim Jones (yes, that Jim Jones) on City payroll… It’s about the Jimmies and Joes, not the X’s and O’s.

Thank you for this outstanding reporting Joe. I hope the city provides a response and some corrective action based on your good work.

For Rebuilding Together San Francisco’s budget it appears of the $1.3M they get from SF they spent up to $450K on construction supplies and labor.

I reviewed Rebuilding Together San Francisco’s IRS Form 990 which they must file as a non-profit (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943107808/202341249349301714/full).

It showed, for the fiscal year ending Dec 2022:
$1.3M in contribution and grants plus $214K of program service revenue. I am not an expert in reading 990s but I believe this all came from a single government source that must have been SF
$1.17M total expenses consisting of
– $500K salaries and benefits
– $673K other expenses
— the other expenses consisted of misc office expenses, rent, etc and $125K construction materials and $320K for “CONTRUCTION [sic] CONTRACT LABOR: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 272,776. and PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 16,561. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 30,048.” I don’t know what Program Service Expenses are, hopefully it’s the people doing real construction work but impossible to say.

The problem is you.
Yeah – you reading this.
Rebuilding Together San Francisco needs more board members to run the show.
Are you a muckety-muck at a big Architectural Firm or Construction Company or Vice President at Salesforce?
Then why have you not joined the already 15 existing board members to help right the ship?
Obviously there just aren’t enough executives to handle the work load.
Applications being accepted right now!
Additionally, Rebuilding Together San Francisco has 3 “exciting” career opportunities – 2 involving the Senior Home Repair Program.
No wonder they’re having issues.
The 7 current staffers is just not enough.
Don’t worry – you won’t have to actually lift a hammer or schlep lumber because:
Volunteers are needed to do the real work ASAP!
– Skilled Trades Volunteer
– Community Build Day General Volunteer
– She Builds General Volunteer
Strap on a tool belt and let’s all help out!

And finally, Rebuilding Together San Francisco has a budget of only $1,100,000.
Donate!
Rent on the 14th floor offices at that fancy high-rise at 535 Mission St. ain’t cheap!

In reply to Stephen.

Stephen — 

Good suggestion. I’ll make it so.

JE

Another amazing piece on our dysfunctional city programs. Amazing the lights stay on… oh right that’s the marginally functional PGE’s responsibilities. How people can read story after story like this and then call for complete control by SF public utility or back a city run Public bank blows my mind.

Great reporting Joe. Who’s London going to blame this on?

THIS should be a breakout quotation: “As of October, nonprofit Rebuilding Together San Francisco had been paid more than $325,000 to administer it over two fiscal years — a tally that far exceeds the cost of the completed jobs, which is reportedly less than $100,000.”

That expense ratio would receive a failing grade for a charity (and yes, Rebuilding Together is a non-profit that accepts charitable donations) – no more than about a third of charitable receipts should be spent on administration, the rest should go to program ends. These numbers turn that ratio on its head.

But in SF, the City pays no heed to how its money is spent, it is simply handed out to officials’ various preferred beneficiaries. This is the problem with privatizing public services – whether to profit or non-profit entities – there’s always a skim. This one’s just particularly dramatic.

How come I am not surprised that a San Francisco program does not do much.Could someone’s friends need a job to do nothing?Could a relative of a SF employee need a $90,000 a year job to show up once a week to work?