Homelessness and Policy Responses in Times of Economic Crisis: the Dutch Case

9th European Research Conference

Homelessness in Times of Crisis

Warsaw, Friday 19th September 2014

Homelessness and policy

responses in times of crisis:

the Dutch case

Mathijs Tuynman,

Trimbos Institute




Governance & monitoring Central government:

€

system responsibility

Local government:

Primary responsibility

Policy freedom

43 central

municipalities

National Strategy

Plan

Policy monitoring

(Trimbos-institute)

Social Relief and addiction policy 2013 Catchment areas of central municipalities




Effects of crisis impede policy

goal attainment Crisis effects: in the

Netherlands,

1. Financial cuts by

national and local

governments

2. Poverty increased

3. Housing market

imploded

Municipalities: ‘which factors

impede attainment of your policy

goals?’

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

failing collaboration

shortage in housing

influx (new homeless,extramuralization)

financial cuts

% of central municipalities

Top 3: financial cuts, new/ rising nr of homeless, shortage in housing




1. Government financial cuts 1) National grants

to municipalities for

Social Relief,

Public Mental

Health, Addiction

policy:

2011: € 307 mln

2014: € 300 mln

-3%

85

90

95

100

105

110

2011 2012 2013 2014

Ind

ex 2

01

1=1

00

Budget cuts are not evenly distributed nationally

NL Other 39 'Big 4'

2) Not only on social relief:

- Health care (esp. mental,

residential care)

- Social benefits

- Taxes (esp. mortgage

subsidies, housing allowances)




1. Cuts: threats & opportunities

Threats

Less adequate support

and housing fitting to

clients’ needs and

possibilities

Less collaboration /

increased competition

Too high expectations of

clients’self-sufficiency

Opportunities

Less hospitalization and

More orientation on

strengths and recovery

- Outpatient care

- Prevention (district teams)

- Housing First

- (Labor) Rehabilitation

- Consumer-Run initiatives




2. Increase of poverty

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

x 1

00

0

Increase in social benefits since 2008

unemployment (WW) welfare (bijstand)

Restrictions access to:

unemployment benefits

(young; 1 year)

welfare benefits

(household treshold)

Housing rents

increased

‘Landlord charge’

Less buyers, more

tenants




2. Poverty increase and home

evictions After 2011, poorer

households’ buffers are

empty

Convenants municipality

& housing corporations:

Agreement with tenants

on repayment scheme

Corporation notifies care

network

Suspension of execution

of verdict on condition of

cooperation

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

More verdicts, equal evictions

verdicts evictions

88% of home evictions: rent arrears




2. Poverty increase and

homelessness Methodological

limitations

‘New homeless’

Poverty, no addiction/

psychic problems

no access to

shelter, no

registration

Homeless families

Numbers

Inadequate support

and facilities

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012

Ind

ex: t

0=1

00

Is the number of homeless persons rising or falling?

CBS G39 Clients




3. Housing market imploded

Impedes outflow from

social relief facilities to

self-sufficient living:

Stagnating throughflow

in ‘normal’ housing

market less vacant

houses in cheapest

sector

Social housing

corporations have less

financial buffers and are

less cooperative

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006* 2007* 2008* 2009* 2010* 2011 2012** 2013*

bill

ion

€

Collapse of housing market

GNP real estate/ property transactions (lease, trade)




Summary Economic crisis had mostly negative

effects on homeless

Effects were mediated through both

national and local policies

- +/- +

• ‘New

homeless’

• Outflow

• House

evictions

• Homeless

persons ?

• Focus on

strengths and

reintegration




Near future of NL policy (2015+) Health care is reformed

Long-term care is restricted

Mental health care is restricted

Municipalities more responsibilities

Sheltered & supported housing, day care

Participation (sheltered labor, obligation to participate)

Youth care




Discussion 1. There is no real focus shift on strengths

and reintegration

2. Transfer of responsibilities to local

government is risky

3. Primary focus of homelessness policy

should be on housing and poverty, not on

care

Thanks! [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Government & Nonprofit

Homelessness and Policy Responses in Times of Economic Crisis: the Dutch Case