Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube

A recent article published by NBC Connecticut, titled “Organization works to get count of homeless people in Connecticut,” presents the state’s annual homelessness count as a compassionate effort to understand need and guide services.

The story relies on statements from nonprofits and agencies describing outreach, engagement, and follow-up. The reporter was not present during the actual encounters. The people being counted were not meaningfully interviewed. Outcomes were not verified.

Instead, institutional claims were presented as fact.

That distinction matters — because these counts are not symbolic. They are how money moves.

McKinney-Vento Is the Law — But Metrics Have Replaced Its Purpose

Under the McKinney‑Vento Homeless Assistance Act, homelessness explicitly includes people living in cars, tents, and other unstable conditions. The law was designed to remove barriers and prioritize stability — not to shame people for avoiding unsafe systems.

Yet the article repeats a familiar and damaging frame: that people outside are “refusing” shelter.

This framing is false.

People avoid shelters because they have experienced sexual harassment, sexual assault, theft, retaliation, and intimidation — or because they have been told repeatedly that there is nothing available for them.

Avoiding harm is not refusal. It is survival.

By repeating the “stubborn homeless” narrative without interrogating why people avoid shelters, media coverage directly undermines the intent of McKinney-Vento and shifts responsibility away from institutions.

Outreach on Paper vs. Outreach in Reality

The article describes outreach as meaningful engagement — even referencing phone calls.

What actually occurred for many people counted that night was far thinner:

• No intake
• No assessment
• No forms
• No conversation
• No follow-up

In my case, I was handed a piece of paper and they moved on within seconds.

Yet those moments are still logged as “contact,” entered into datasets, and later described publicly as successful outreach.

If no engagement occurred, then the public deserves to ask:

• What exactly is being counted — and what is being claimed?
• Follow the Money — That’s Where the Anger Is Coming From
• Across the country, people are starting to ask the same question:
• Where is all this money going?

Connecticut spends an estimated $40,000–$44,000 per unhoused person per year once shelter contracts, nonprofit administration, and program funding are included.

Yet:

• People remain unhoused
• Rapid rehousing is underfunded
• Prevention is ignored
• Seniors are displaced
• Women avoid shelters because they are unsafe

This is why so many people — including taxpayers — are calling what’s happening fraud.

Not because money exists.

But because outcomes do not match spending.

Taxpayers are being taxed heavily and shown dashboards, headcounts, and media stories — but not results. Homelessness grows. Costs rise. And the same organizations return each year asking for more.

Poverty Farming and Performance Outreach

At the federal level, homelessness policy has drifted away from housing and toward measurement. Funding is tied to:

• Headcounts
• Encounters logged
• Engagement metrics
• What it is not tied to:
• People housed
• People kept safe
• People prevented from becoming homeless

This creates a perverse incentive structure where failure generates more funding than success.
People are pushed into programs designed to fail. When they do, the system logs an attempt, blames the individual, and moves on. Those deemed too difficult or too expensive are quietly discarded — counted, but not helped.

This is what many people are calling poverty farming: a system that manages suffering because suffering is billable.

Media as the Final Layer of the Facade

When media outlets rely solely on nonprofit quotes — without verifying outcomes, examining spending, or centering the voices of unhoused people — journalism turns into amplification.

The public is reassured. Politicians are shielded. Funding continues.

And the people being counted remain exactly where they were found.

That is not accountability reporting.

It is narrative maintenance.

Counting Is Easy. Helping Is Hard.

Connecticut does not lack money, programs, or reports.

What it lacks is a system that ties funding to actual housing outcomes — and media willing to demand proof instead of performance.

Counting people without helping them is not compassion.

Writing about it as if it were is not journalism.

Until headcounts stop being treated as success — and until nonprofits and policymakers are held accountable for outcomes, not optics — homelessness will continue to be counted, filmed, and monetized.

And taxpayers will keep paying more for less.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'