14.5. 2025
The Time That Remains
When I first worked in the homelessness sector as a young civil servant in the 1980s, I quickly learned a lot what doesn’t work: emergency accommodation, temporary shelter placements, dormitory type hostels, shared rental apartments with minimal support, and the staircase model that required abstinence, etc. However, the understanding of housing as a permanent solution was already emerging, leading to the development of the first supported housing units, although these were still shared apartments. The practice of acquiring individual apartments from the private market to be used as rental housing for homeless people was also beginning, though no one at the time could have predicted its revolutionary impact.
For a couple of years, I also worked as an assistant at the Accommodation Centre for the City of Helsinki, which provided referrals to vacant hostel spaces on weekdays. Getting a referral in winter felt like winning the lottery. Yet, every day, 20 to 40 men gathered in the waiting room. That experience taught me what I later recognized as the difference between strategy and tactics, as described by Michel de Certeau in The Practice of Everyday Life. We may design services with well-intended strategies, but homeless people are not passive objects of these plans. Instead, they develop their own interpretations and tactics in response.
When I opened the door for men to enter the Accommodation Centre, few expected to get a referral. For most, it was a daily ritual—an opportunity to spend a few hours in a warm place and perhaps take a few discreet sips from a hidden bottle while waiting. It became clear that humour was a vital survival tool.
In 1986, I travelled to London on a study visit with a couple of colleagues. The trip sparked ideas that led to the creation of a day centre for homeless people in Helsinki and the publication of Asukki, a homelessness-focused newspaper inspired by The Big Issue. But what struck me most was that none of the experts or service providers we met in London spoke about housing or ending homelessness. Instead, the response to homelessness centered on shelters, hostels, and food distribution for people sleeping rough.
A New Era in Homelessness Policy
When I returned to homelessness policy work in 2006—after more than 15 years of developing and researching social services—much had changed, but too many familiar problems remained. The expansion of affordable social housing had made a significant difference: there were, in reality, no homeless families. By then, Y-Foundation had already acquired several thousand apartments. You could say that everyone whose only issue was the lack of housing had been housed.
Yet, some outdated structures persisted. For instance, the new hostel I had overseen in 1985 was still in operation. No longer considered the best temporary accommodation, it had instead become the worst—a place no one wanted to go. The service system was still largely based on the staircase model.
In 2008, Finland adopted a radical new national policy to end homelessness, which we called Housing First (though not the Housing First). In principle, we turned the system upside down: a permanent home, with a personal rental contract, became the foundation for everything else, including individual support. A crucial part of this policy was the effort to minimize temporary accommodation. This was achieved by converting existing hostels and shelters into supported housing, where every resident had their own apartment, with on-site staff available to provide support if needed.
Homelessness began to decline in 2012, following the renovation of Helsinki’s last major hostel. From 2008 onward, total homelessness in Finland decreased by over 50%, and long-term homelessness fell by more than 60%. However, last year, for the first time, homelessness increased slightly. This was an entirely predictable outcome of the current right-wing government’s decision to cut social welfare and housing benefits. We still hope this setback will be only a temporary deviation from our long-term policy—at least until the next elections in 2027.
What Made the Change Possible?
The key factors behind Finland’s success in reducing homelessness have been analyzed many times, so I’ll simply list some of the most important. Firstly, it was housing. A variety of housing options tailored to different needs, including varied support arrangements. Secondly, prevention, including affordable social housing, housing benefits, and housing advisory services. Also, as important as what was done was also how it was done. The method of implementation probably was the biggest individual factor. National programs included comprehensive, holistic plans with concrete quantitative targets and secured financing, creating a solid foundation for an exceptionally broad partnership between state authorities, cities, and NGOs.
In recent years, I have also come to believe that one reason for our success was the relatively low political importance of homelessness. This paradoxically helped build political consensus for national programs. Homelessness was not a politically divisive issue because it did not require major legislative changes, and financing came from multiple sources, mostly outside the state budget. Of course, the official explanation for Finland’s commitment to ending homelessness is the core value of our society—”no one is left behind”—which all political parties claim to uphold. But I wouldn’t underestimate the role of political pragmatism.
Internationally, there is now broad agreement on what works in ending homelessness: prevention, Housing First, Housing First-informed approaches, and housing-led policies. Data systems, training, research, and the sharing of best practices have all improved. In fact, we are now sharing good practices so actively that soon we may need a good practice for sharing good practices.
Have We Lost Sight of the Goal?
So why do I feel a sense of stagnation or, at best, very slow progress? Have we shifted our focus away from ending homelessness? Are we satisfied with ”small mercies”—minor victories? Have we lost sight of the vision of a world without homelessness? Are we merely managing homelessness as part of a system that perpetuates it?
Homelessness organizations must reassess their role in today’s world. Is everything they do contributing to ending homelessness, or are they increasingly focused on surrogate functions because they cannot tackle the root causes? Have annual homelessness conferences become moments to celebrate progress—or markers of our collective failure?
Ending homelessness rests on three pillars: housing, support, and means. Of these, only housing is directly related to homelessness itself. Support is linked to various needs that may or may not be related to homelessness, while ”means” refers to financial security—the ability to afford basic living costs, including rent. If all three pillars are in place, prevention works, and homelessness becomes rare.
Yet homelessness organizations primarily focus on support—providing services for those experiencing homelessness or assisting individuals transitioning into stable housing. When it comes to housing and means, we rely on external actors.
So far, no deus ex machina solution has emerged to solve the issues of housing supply or financial security. If advocacy is our only tool, then we must intensify our efforts to convince politicians that ending homelessness is a societal responsibility.
But perhaps it is time for us in the homelessness sector to stop waiting for solutions from elsewhere and start asking what we can do. In housing, we have two main options: either we begin building and acquiring housing ourselves, or we find credible housing partners. Addressing financial insecurity is more complex, but one approach could be partnering with organizations that provide job opportunities—offering both support and a means of economic stability.
The Biggest Change Always Starts Within
Whenever I speak about ending homelessness as the only acceptable goal, I am often met with friendly, understanding smiles. Yet, even at the risk of being dismissed as a naïve idealist, I firmly believe that pragmatic utopianism is the only ethically acceptable approach. Time is running out. Ending homelessness is no longer just a social policy issue—it is a matter of human rights and a fight to protect democracy itself from erosion.
In my personal mythology, Icarus did not fall because he flew too high. He fell because someone had tied a chain of cynicism to his ankle, dragging him down.
Juha Kaakinen
Professor of Practice, Tampere University
The essay was written for an international meeting Solving Homelessness in UK organized by Crisis at St George’s House, Windsor Castle on the 10th and 11th of April 2025.