For five days beginning June 10th of this year, mayors from across the country convened in Chicago for their 73rd Annual Conference. Included among this year’s agenda items was Resolution #28: Streamlining the Definition of Homelessness in America. The resolution—submitted by Mayors Mark Begich (Anchorage, Alaska), Doug Palmer (Trenton, New Jersey), and Irma Anderson (Richmond, California)—calls for the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness and the President to officially recommend that all federal departments and funding sources adopt a common definition of homelessness. Furthermore, the resolution strongly implies that such a definition should include children, youth, and families who reside in motels and doubled-up situations.

The proposal represents another step forward in the war against homelessness in this country. If adopted, this measure allows greater flexibility among government agencies as to how the homeless are defined and served. On another level, the redefinition suggests a shift in focus from a reactionary to a proactive approach to ending homelessness in America. Because the proposal is a landmark effort to marshal diverse government resources toward a common goal and is a textbook example of inductive reasoning and persuasive rhetoric, it warrants being presented here in full:

WHEREAS, in no town, city or state in America can an individual or family working full-time and earning the minimum wage, or receiving assistance under the Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, afford a one-or two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rental rate established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban and Development (HUD); and
WHEREAS, in its ‘Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities,’ the United States Conference of Mayors reports that requests for shelter by families with children went unmet 32 percent of the time in 2004; and families with children is the fastest growing segment among the homeless; and 560f the reporting cities states that homeless families may have to break-up in order to find shelter; and
WHEREAS, at least 3,500,000 persons are likely to experience homelessness during a year in the United States, 40 percent of which are children; and
WHEREAS, families with children who cannot access shelters cannot consider the streets an option, are often found doubled- and tripled-up with friends and relatives, and frequently move between multiple locations; and
WHEREAS, families without stable housing face transportation barriers which make job retention and children’s school continuity difficult; and
WHEREAS, addressing homelessness of families at a local level is complicated by the multiple definitions of homelessness used by various federal departments and programs; and
WHEREAS, United States Department of Education includes in its definition of homeless those students/families who have lost their housing and stay with friends or relatives, as well as those living in motels due to lack of alternate adequate accommodations; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors does hereby request that the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness and the President call for all federal departments and funding sources to adopt a common definition of homelessness.1

Unlike the narrow HUD definition, the definition used by the Department of Education (ED) acknowledges that the population includes not only adults but also families and children with capabilities and needs that are quite different from their single adult counterparts. The language of the HUD definition describes members of the homeless community as individuals who lack “a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence”2 and who sleep at supervised shelters, institutions designed to provide temporary lodging, or places not designed for human habitation.” Program assistance is based on “income eligibility requirements,” and the homeless individual is entitled to “assistance under the Job Training Partnership Act.”3 This definition focuses on the individual’s housing situation, income, and eligibility for job training—characteristics that might be helpful in identifying and assisting a homeless adult yet have little application for identifying the needs of a homeless family, child, or youth.

The Department of Education’s definition, however, addresses the homeless population in more comprehensive and realistic terms by putting particular emphasis on the children and their needs. Per Title VII, Subtitle B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a homeless person is, as in HUD’s definition, someone who lacks a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” However, the definition is focused on “homeless children and youths” rather than individuals per se. Should the resolution be implemented, the HUD definition of homelessness will have to be revised to include additional individuals who live in homeless situations in order to expand services to those in great need. As it stands, however, the ED definition targets children and youths who are abandoned or awaiting foster care or who must live with another family, in motels or camp grounds, in shelters, in cars, in parks, in public spaces, in abandoned buildings, in substandard housing, in bus or train stations, or in similar circumstances due to inadequate accommodations. As is the case for individuals in the HUD definition, the ED version identifies children and youths as homeless if their primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not intended for human habitation. This definition also applies to migratory children who similarly qualify as homeless.4

In its 2005 Legislative and Policy Agenda, the National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness supports expanding HUD’s definition of homelessness, which, it says, “will recognize the realities of family homelessness by including doubled-up children, as well as children and youth sheltered in other temporary, inadequate locations.” The HUD definition overlooks families who are doubled-up or staying in motels, while the ED definition helps “provide school access, stability, and services to homeless children and youth, regardless of where they live.”5

By implication, the mayoral resolution and adoption of an expanded definition of homelessness could represent a major step toward redirecting the government’s approach to the war on homelessness from reactive to proactive. HUD naturally centers much of its effort toward housing the current homeless population through programs like the Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care Program, Single Room Occupancy Program, and the Emergency Shelter Grant Program. When the homeless phenomenon began to coalesce into a definable population three decades ago, the government’s initial and quite understandable reaction was to remove its homeless citizens from the street, find them jobs, and house them. Had the number of homeless people not continued to increase due to economic recessions, layoffs, and a steady influx of migrant workers, this approach might have remedied the homeless situation. However, the problem continued to grow until it had become the present epidemic, and HUD’s best efforts have not been sufficient to remove people experiencing homelessness from our streets. Due to the limitation of the HUD definition, many adults, families, youth, and children have not received the services they need to win their personal battle with homelessness.

Since 2002, when the McKinney-Vento Act redefined homelessness with an emphasis on children and youth, agencies and funding institutions have increasingly taken an education-based approach to the problem. Federal school grants, lunch programs, eased enrollment requirements, scholarships, and curricula designed to heighten homeless awareness are helping homeless students gain educational and vocational skills. These skills are preparing them for future college attendance or entry into the work force (thereby empowering them to buy their own homes) while teaching them how to avoid being homeless adults. Compared with the cost of providing a homeless individual subsidized housing, adult GED classes, and medical and vocational rehabilitation, the investment in a homeless child’s education is negligible.

If homelessness is redefined according to the mayors’ resolution, those who currently cannot provide for their own housing will still have recourse to programs and services that will meet their immediate needs. More importantly, the children who cannot at present care for themselves will have alternatives to growing up homeless in America.

1 www.usmayors.org/uscm/resolutions/73rd_conference/Res2005023.htm
2 A fixed residence is one that is stationary, permanent, and not subject to change. A regular residence is one that is used on a regular (i.e., nightly) basis. An adequate residence is one that is sufficient for meeting both the physical and psychological needs typically met in home environments.
3 Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I, § 11302 of the US Code: General Definition of Homeless Individual
4 For a complete definition, see Subtitle B of Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.)
5 www.npach.org/npach_leg_agenda_2005.pdf