I believe that everyone who is really aware of homelessness and/or homeless people  wants to see an end to homelessness. Nobody wants to end it more than those who've been "literally homeless," e.g., slept in shelters, on the streets, or other places "not meant for human habitation," and those who care about them. That includes those of us who have worked for years (or decades) to help homeless people break the cycle of streets, shelters, emergency rooms, and, for far too many, jails. It's even more important to those of us who have lost too many people that we cared about to the concrete killing fields of homelessness. But at least some of us understand, all too well, how complicated homelessness is, how much money it will take, and how long it will take to adequately address the myriad of issues that create and perpetuate homelessness. Nothing works to end homelessness without housing. Nothing. But homelessness is about a lot more than housing.

I don't believe that we can end it by simply changing the criteria under which we determine whether it’s ended. Webster's New World Dictionary, 4th edition defines "end" to mean over— finished— concluded—ceased to exist—stopped--done away with. I don't believe that it can be ended by announcing that it’s ended in a city or anywhere else as long as there are homeless people sleeping on the streets and/or in shelters, regardless of how much progress has been made in “ending” it. 

I still don't believe that homelessness will be ended simply because people who want so much to end it set a goal of ending it, found it impossible to meet the deadlines (for perfectly understandable reasons), but still want to call attention to the exceptional work that’s been done in reducing homelessness in a city. What I do believe is that we owe it to homeless people and the general public to exhibit the kind of integrity that we expect (or desperately want) from our local, state, and federal governments. 

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, where I was so proud to serve as a program analyst for six years during the 1990’s, recently released their description of “What it Means to End Homelessness”

 "An end to homelessness does not mean that no one will ever experience a housing crisis again. Changing economic realities, the unpredictability of life, and unsafe or unwelcoming family environments may create situations where individuals, families, or youth could experience or be at-risk of homelessness. An end to homelessness means that every community will have a systematic response in place that ensures homelessness is prevented whenever possible or is otherwise a rare, brief, and non-recurring experience."   

That’s not what I think an end to homelessness means. In fact, when I was working at HUD and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness during the Clinton administration, the Council produced a plan. Priority Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness, clearly outlined the history of homelessness and the myriad of issues, personal and structural, that create and perpetuate homelessness. No timetables were set because everyone knew that the very nature of government makes it impossible to predict the future of legislation and funding to meet the myriad of needs. When asked if the title should be The Federal Plan to End Homelessness, I remember responding that “We can’t say that! It’s a good plan, but we know it won’t end it.” No doubt, that’s the reason I rarely talk in terms of “ending” homelessness. It did, however, make clear that “The ultimate objective of this report is to achieve the goal of “a decent home and a suitable living environment” for every American” (acknowledging that it was the goal of the Housing Act of 1949.)

That’s why I’ll take Webster’s definition of “End.” What do you think?