No one who works in homelessness believes this.

Complexities of definitions and methods aside, I don’t find Mangano’s premature declaration of victory the least bit helpful.

Here’s the thing. When Mangano says “homeless” what he means is “chronically homeless.” He’s talking about, at most, 10 percent of the homeless population.

By focusing national attention on the most dysfunctional minority of the 2 million or more who are without housing, he feeds the victim-blaming ideology that undermines support for a broad anti-poverty agenda.

When people ask why they should first help those who, in some cases, take the least responsibility for their lives, his answer is, “Because it’s cost-effective.”

The logical response to that is, “That may be, but I don’t want them in my neighborhood.” To which he replies, “Then they will wind up costing you even more.”

Call me crazy, but that response doesn’t exactly inspire love for the poor. Pretending for a moment that I’m normal, I’d be more likely to resent the chronically homeless for burdening the taxpayer than to invite them in next door.

As a long-term strategy for ending homelessness and poverty, it leaves a lot to be desired.

For daily posts by Tim Harris, see apesmaslament.blogspot.com