accountability & measurable outcomes
WHY WE NEED IT — AND HOW TO CREATE IT
Good government isn’t measured by how much we spend.
It’s measured by what we accomplish.
We have an accountability problem in our region.
Too often, elected leaders point to how much money we spend as evidence of how seriously we are taking a problem. But the more important question is: What are we getting for it?
Are fewer people homeless? Are more people recovering from addiction? Is transit safer and more reliable? Are projects being delivered on time? Are taxpayers receiving more services for every dollar we spend?
Too often, we simply don’t know.
I believe in robust public services. I believe government can, and should, help people who need it. But believing in strong public services also means demanding that those services actually work.
Fiscal responsibility and liberal government are not opposites. In fact, without accountability, waste ultimately means fewer services, higher taxes, and less public trust.
My approach is simple:
Set measurable goals. Publish the results. Scale what works. Change what doesn't. Strengthen audits and contract oversight before failures become crises.
problem #1
WE WAIT TOO LONG TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY
The stories across our region have become far too familiar.
Problems emerge. Warning signs are ignored. Budgets continue to grow. Years pass. And only after a failure becomes impossible to overlook do elected leaders demand reform.
KCRHA
Problems at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority became apparent years ago. Concerns about financial controls, contracting, governance, and basic organizational management continued to mount.
Yet meaningful intervention came only after the problems became a public crisis.
Whatever one thinks of the original promise of regional homelessness coordination, oversight should have happened before dysfunction became entrenched—not after.
My opponent was Budget Chair, and after the state found in 2022 that KCRHA lacked financial controls, she could have done something, and didn’t. Over $700M were spent in the years afterward and the issues only grew.
DCHS
King County’s Department of Community and Human Services faced serious concerns about contracting and financial oversight, including fraud allegations and whistleblower complaints.
An audit later found an enormous gap between the county's own expectations for contract monitoring and what was actually occurring. The fixes were not brought by my opponent, who Chairs the committee with oversight over DCHS, and the issues raised in the audit were downplayed by her.
That matters because DCHS oversees billions of dollars in services for some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Compassion without oversight doesn't protect vulnerable people. It puts the services they depend on at risk.
SOUND TRANSIT
Sound Transit demonstrates the same problem on an even larger scale.
Major projects have repeatedly faced escalating costs, delays, and changing timelines. ST3 was sold to voters with one set of expectations; today, the price and delivery schedule look dramatically different. Our $54B package is now $148B, and doesn’t include a line to Ballard.
These aren't engineering problems, but rather they are accountability problems.
When taxpayers authorize major public investments, government has an obligation to clearly explain what is changing, why it is changing, who is responsible, and what is being done differently as a result.
MY SOLUTION
ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE A CRISIS
Each of these examples reflects both a process failure and a leadership failure.
Audits matter. Reports matter. New policies matter.
But accountability cannot simply mean reacting after something has already gone wrong.
The job of elected officials is to ask difficult questions before the headlines appear:
Are contracts actually being reviewed?
Are financial controls being followed?
Are programs achieving the outcomes promised?
Are projects on schedule?
Are costs increasing—and why?
Who is responsible when goals are repeatedly missed?
When warning signs appear, leaders should intervene early instead of waiting years for a crisis.
And when oversight repeatedly fails, we shouldn't automatically assume the same leadership that allowed the problem to grow is best positioned to fix it.
King County needs leaders willing to challenge institutions they support, demand answers from agencies they fund, and act before problems become crises.
problem #2
WE DON'T BUDGET FOR OUTCOMES
There is an even bigger structural problem underneath these individual failures:
Our budget process is primarily designed around how much we spend—not what that spending accomplishes.
Ask a few basic questions about almost any major government program:
How much does it cost per person served?
What measurable outcome are we trying to change?
What does success look like one year from now?
What evidence tells us the program is working?
What happens if it isn't?
Who is ultimately responsible?
Too often, those questions do not have clear answers.
That makes real oversight nearly impossible.
If we cannot clearly define what success looks like before spending the money, it becomes very difficult to determine afterward whether taxpayers received what they paid for.
We need to replace the current cycle with:
Define the problem → Set the outcome → Fund the solution → Measure the result → Improve or scale
MY SOLUTIONs
AN OUTCOME STATEMENT FOR EVERY MAJOR PROGRAM
Every King County program receiving more than $1 million annually should be required to publish a simple, public Outcome Statement.
It should answer:
What problem are we solving?
What is the measurable baseline today?
What specific outcome are we trying to change?
How much will the program cost?
What are we paying per person served or per outcome achieved?
What evidence suggests this approach will work?
Who is directly responsible for delivering the result?
Which populations and communities benefit?
What should taxpayers expect to see after Year 1?
What should taxpayers expect to see after Year 2?
These shouldn't be buried in 200-page budget documents.
They should be published in a simple public dashboard anyone can understand.
THEN MAKE THE RESULTS MATTER
Measuring outcomes means very little if nothing changes when programs succeed or fail.
So the budget process should create real consequences.
IF A PROGRAM CAN'T DEFINE SUCCESS
If a major program cannot establish a measurable baseline, clear goals, and an accountable leader, 25% of its funding should be withheld until it can.
Government should not spend millions of dollars without being able to explain what taxpayers are purchasing.
IF A PROGRAM MISSES ITS GOALS
Missing a target once does not automatically mean a program is bad.
Government deals with difficult problems, and responsible experimentation requires allowing programs to learn and improve.
But repeated failure should have consequences.
If a program materially misses its targets, it should receive a corrective-action period to demonstrate improvement.
If it still cannot produce results, funding should shrink, leadership should change, or the program should be redesigned.
IF A PROGRAM WORKS
Accountability isn't only about cutting things.
It's also about identifying what works and doing more of it.
If a treatment program produces better recovery outcomes, expand it.
If a homelessness intervention moves people into stable housing more effectively, scale it.
If a transit investment improves ridership and reliability, invest more.
The purpose of accountability isn't smaller government. It's better government.
STRENGTHEN INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
Outcome-based budgeting should be paired with stronger auditing and contract monitoring.
King County should:
Strengthen independent performance and financial audits.
Require agencies to respond publicly to major audit findings.
Track whether corrective actions are actually completed.
Increase contract-monitoring requirements for large service providers.
Publish performance information for major contractors.
Flag programs with repeated cost overruns or missed outcomes for Council review.
Give auditors the resources and independence necessary to identify problems early.
Audits should function as an early-warning system, not an autopsy after something has already failed.
ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD HELP US PROVIDE MORE
The debate over government too often gets reduced to two choices:
Spend more or cut services.
I reject that choice.
There is a third option:
Get better at delivering.
If we reduce waste, improve contracting, catch problems sooner, and direct money toward programs that demonstrate results, we can provide more effective services without constantly asking residents to pay more.
That matters in a region where families are already struggling with housing costs, utilities, transportation, childcare, and taxes.
Every dollar wasted is a dollar that cannot go toward treatment, transit, housing, public safety, parks, or other services residents depend on.
Being responsible with public money isn't separate from providing strong public services. It's how we protect them.
the goal
Set measurable goals. Publish the results. Scale what works. Change what doesn't.
That's how we restore trust in government—and make every public dollar work harder for the people it is supposed to serve.
A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR KING COUNTY
Practical. Compassionate. Accountable
If you believe government should be ambitious about helping people and equally serious about measuring results, join the campaign.