pppinternshipnetherlandsfinalreport

Netherlands: Housing Market and Homelessness Initiatives

PPP Internship Final Report

Dutch Rental Housing [Photograph]

Rachel Kim | Preceptor: Andrea Hetling

2

Content

Introduction…………..…………………………….………………………………………………………………………………...…3 Dutch Housing: The Rental Market………………..………………..………..……………….…….………….…………..4 Regulated Rental Market Non-‐regulated Rental Market Social Housing Associations Homelessness in the Netherlands…………………………………….………………….….…………..………………..…7 Overview and statistics Related Policies (Financial Help) G4 Homeless Action Plan 2006 -‐ 2013……………………………………..……………...……………………………..12 Overview First Phase Second Phase Housing First Europe (HFE)……………………………………………………………….…………………………..…….….15 Overview 2 Types of Services Concluding Thoughts Resources………………………………………………………………………………….…………………….………………………19

3

Introduction

This report provides background information regarding the Dutch Housing

Market, homelessness in Netherlands, and two homeless housing programs:

the G4 Homeless Action Plan (“G4”) and Housing First Europe (“HFE”).

The Dutch Housing Market is a unique system that focuses more on homeless

prevention rather than solutions. The rental market makes up about half of the

housing market and is further broken down into two (2) sectors: regulated

housing and non-‐regulated housing.

Furthermore, although the two programs differ greatly, they also supplement

one another in eradicating the homeless issue in the Netherlands. The G4

Homeless Action Plan focuses on providing treatment and social services to

homeless individuals before placing them into a home. However, the Housing

First Europe program houses homeless first and then transitions into treatment

and aid.

4

Dutch Housing: The Rental Market

The Dutch Housing Market consists of 4.4 million owner-‐occupied homes that equates to about 60% of the housing

stock. The other 40% is comprised of Rental Housing. The Rental Market is comprised of just under three (3) million

dwellings and consists of two (2) sectors: regulated housing and non-‐regulated housing. In addition, there has been

a rising demand for niche markets, such as student housing and housing for the elderly.

Regulated Housing

Regulated housing makes up 90% of all rental housing. It is allocated primarily to lower income households and has

an income limit for access to its dwellings. Furthermore, the government determines the rents.

Rent Policies

In order to establish rent policies, regulated rental homes are given point by the government based on quality,

such as: floor area, amenities, and location. The number of points determines the maximum rents that may be

asked. The rents can be changed once a year, but must be approved by the government first.

Rental Housing Allowances

Rental Housing Allowance is a compensation given by the Dutch government to people who have a lower income.

Households with an income up to ₠29,325 (₠21,600 for single persons) may apply for a rental housing allowance.

The exact amount allotted is determined by rent level and the income of the applicant.

5

Tenant Protection Policies

There are measures in place to protect the lower income tenants in regulated housing. For one, there is no

minimum rental period. In addition, residents are protected by a security of tenure meaning that the rental

contract cannot be ended by the landlord without a valid reason. Further, the Rental Arbitration Committee settles

disputes between tenant and landlords.

Non-‐regulated Housing

Non-‐regulated housing, however, makes up about 10% of rental housing and serves middle and higher income

households. The prices may be set by suppliers, and there is no access criteria.

Why So Small?

Non-‐regulated housing is significantly smaller than regulated because of the fiscal incentives promoting owner-‐

occupied housing and easy access to mortgage financing, which leads most middle/higher income households to

prefer buying over renting. In addition, if one’s income increases and exceeds income limit during rental period in

regulated rental housing, then the households does not have to vacate the regulated rental. This has led to a good

amount of households in regulated rental homes to have incomes above the income limit.

Recent Developments

In recent years, the demand for non-‐regulated housing has increased because of the crisis on the housing market

that occurred in 2008. In 2009 to 2012, rentals in the non-‐regulated sector almost doubled, by 100,00 homes.

Further, the non-‐regulated rental market is expected to show strong growth because of economic and

demographic trends and government policy reforms. There is an estimated 59,000 to 74,000 non-‐regulated homes

needed in the coming years (estimated 125,000 to 155,000 rental homes in total).

Social Housing Associations

Social Housing Associations (“SHA”) are private, nonprofit organisations with a legal duty to give priority to housing

households on lower incomes. They are responsible for building, maintaining, selling, and renting social housing as

well as providing other social services. SHA are the primary suppliers of regulated rental homes and supply over

90% of all regulated homes. In recent decades, they have expands activities into non-‐regulated homes. However,

the government has recently pushed SHA to focus on their original goal of supplying lower income households with

affordable housing.

6

Housing Associations are responsible for:

● Housing older people, people with a disability and those needing assisted housing;

● Building and letting social property such as schools and sports facilities;

● Appointing caretakers and neighbourhood managers;

● Maintaining houses and the immediate surroundings, such as alleyways and parking spaces;

● Selling rented properties to tenants and other house seekers

Sources: (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, May 2014), (Government of the Netherlands: Housing), (Ministry of the Interior and

Kingdom Relations, May 2014)

7

Homelessness in Netherlands

Overview and Statistics

In the Netherlands, the homeless are defined as those that have no fixed addresses, sleep rough on the streets or

in public buildings, in homeless shelters, or with relatives or friends. In early 2009, over 17 thousand people

between the ages of 18 and 65 were homeless in the Netherlands. This equates to 17 in every 10 thousand

residents of this age group (CBS Statistics Netherlands 2010). In 2010, there were an estimated 23 thousand

homeless people in the Netherlands (CBS Statistics Netherlands 2013).

Further, one in three homeless are found in the 4 major cities (Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague, or Rotterdam),

and the largest category of homeless people are unmarried men between 30 and 50 years of age.

Homeless women, however, tend to be younger and less often have a non-‐western background. It is found that

two in every ten homeless are women, and more than 30% of homeless women are 18 to 30 years of age versus

20% of men (CBS Statistics Netherlands 2010).

8

In 2012, the homeless number jumped to 27 thousand homeless people. Nearly half of the homeless were found in

the four major cities. Four in every five homeless are men, and one in five are women (CBS Statistics Netherlands

2013).

On 1 January 2013, an estimated 25 thousand people in the Netherlands were homeless, marking the end of the

rising trend in homelessness (CBS Statistics Netherlands 2015).

9

With the economy rising and the government implementing housing initiatives, such as G4 Homelessness Action

Plan and Housing First Europe, the homeless population seems to be dwindling daily. None the less, the existing

10

homeless are predominantly found in the four major cities, with nearly 40% living there. In the major cities, ¼ of

the homeless are aged 18 to 30 and ¾ are older. Outside of the major cities, one in three are young (CBS Statistics

Netherlands 2015).

Related Policies

The Welfare Act, 1994

This policy decentralized homelessness policies and drug addiction services. It required municipalities to

implement services for homeless people in their region; however, not all received funding to do so.

The Social Support Act (WMO), 2007

The WMO replaced the Welfare Act and implied a stronger decentralization of social welfare and health policies. It

defines nine (9) performance fields:

1. Promotion of social cohesion and quality of life,

2. The provision of prevention-‐focused support to young people,

3. The provision of information, advice and client support,

4. Support for informal carers and voluntary workers,

5. Promotion of social participation of people with disabilities (including mental health),

6. Provision of services to people with disabilities,

7. Policies on homeless services, women’s refuges and domestic violence,

8. Policies on addiction, and

9. The organisation of public mental health care.

Financial Help

Work and Social Assistance Act (WWB)

The Work and Social Assistance Act grants a minimum income to anyone legally residing in the Netherlands who

has insufficient means to support himself/herself. For most groups the amount o social assistance benefits is

related to minimum wage. People who receive social assistance are required to accept generally acceptable labor.

If the claimant refuses to cooperate in efforts to find employment, the social security administration will reduce or

stop the benefits entirely. (Blommesteijn & Luuk Mallee, April 2009)

Unemployment Benefit (WW)

Your employment history will determine the amount and duration of payments from Unemployment Benefit. It

comprises the first two months at 75 percent and thereafter 70 percent of your last earned salary (there’s a

11

maximum daily rate of EUR 195.96 gross). You must have worked for 26 out of the previous 36 weeks before the

first day of unemployment (may be fewer if you are a musician or artist, or not in regular employment). It can be

restricted if other benefits are in operation. (Van Ruitenbeek, 2012)

Source: (Blommesteijn & Luuk Mallee, April 2009), (Van Ruitenbeek, 2012), (CBS Statistics Netherlands 2010), (CBS Statistics Netherlands 2013),

(CBS Statistics Netherlands 2015)

12

G4 Homeless Action Plan 2006 -‐ 2013

In 2003, an IBO study (inter-‐departmental policy research study) focused on all services for homeless people and

sought ways to formulate policy recommendations. The study states that too many people apply for shelters and

stay too long in these shelters. This is because of shortage of decent housing opportunities and discrimination

towards homeless people on the housing market, which leads to people living on the streets. The report called for:

1. Prevention services to avoid evictions and to avoid an accumulation of financial debts

2. A coordinated approach for persons who leave care institutions or prison

3. The development of more expertise and competence as regards social workers

4. A national framework to collect data on homelessness

5. A stronger governance role for local authorities

6. The introduction of a client-‐centred approach and case management techniques to accelerate the outflow

out of homelessness.

Overview

These six recommendations led to the birth of the G4 Homeless Action Plan. In 2006, the national government and

four (4) major cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, and the Hague) decided to create a long-‐term strategy to

eradicate public nuisance behavior by homeless people and to develop a client-‐centered approach combining care

and housing for each individual.

(Hermans, 2012)

The G4 target population are the actual homeless and residential homeless. Actual homeless persons are defined

as those not having their own living accommodations and therefore, sleep at least one night a month outdoors or

make-‐use of one-‐day emergency accommodation. A residential homeless person lives in residential homelessness

services.

13

Further, it is comprised of two phases: first phase (2006-‐2010) and second phase (2010-‐2013).

Four (4) Major Aims

1. To provide 10,000 homeless men and women with incomes, living accommodation according to the

individual’s need, evidenced-‐based care programs, and realistic forms of employment.

2. To prevent homelessness caused by eviction, with the number of evictions to be reduced by 30%. In the

case of evictions still occurring, alternative and sufficient accommodations must be provided.

3. To end homelessness as a result of detention or leaving residential care institutions.

4. To significantly lower the level of public nuisance caused by homeless people.

Five (5) Yearly Indicators

Five (5) yearly indicators were created to monitor the progress of the G4. They were as follows:

1. Stability index (# of homeless with stable accommodation and income)

2. Number of evictions per year and evictions leading to homeless per year

3. Number of cases of homelessness after detention

4. Number of cases of homelessness after leaving residential care

5. Number of convictions and number of reports of harassment

First Phase

The first phase of the G4 took place from 2006 to 2009. The target population for this time was the actual

homeless and residential homeless. In the four major cities, the total amount of people for this population

accounts for over 10,000 persons.

During this time, every homeless person received a personal plan with social services, such as health care, housing,

income, labour and more. This client-‐centered approach was run under the direction of the municipality. A local

coordination center was installed and run by the joint homeless services. The coordination center had field co-‐

coordinators, and each individual was assigned a client manager. The first phase had impressive results regarding

both preventative and curative measures.

Interim Results in 2010

At the end of 2010, 12,436 homeless people had a personal plan and 7,476 were in a stable mix of housing, a legal

income and relatively stable contact with the social services. The continuum of care model requires individuals to

address their health needs (drug misuse, mental health issues, etc.) before they can transition to independent

tenancy. If he or she fails, he or she moves down the “staircase of transition” and are pushed further away from

their end goal.

14

(Busch-‐Geertsema, 2013)

Second Phase

The second phase happened from 2010-‐2013 and sought to reintegrate these persons into society. It also created

stricter policy indicators that increased the pressure for cities. In addition, three goals were added to the G4: (1)

prevent homelessness/re-‐entry into homelessness, (2) avoid rough sleeping by getting people into homelessness

services, and (3) to integrate persons into society.

Further, this phase expanded the target group to persons at risk, which consists of at least 20,000 more people

from the four major cities. This widening of the target population called for greater cooperation at the local level

and different policy sectors, such as poverty policies, housing policies, labour market policies and mental health

care. It forced the 39 smaller cities to be responsible for social services for this new target population. However,

because of recent policy/budget changes and municipality inadequacies, the second phase was not as successful as

the first.

Sources: (Hermans, 2012), (Busch-‐Geertsema, 2013), (Pleace, Teller, & Quilgars, 2011)

15

Housing First Europe (HFE)

The Housing First Europe project took place from August 2011 to July 2013. It was a social experiment funded by

the European Commission, DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, under the PROGRESS program. HFE

had five (5) test sites (Amsterdam, Budapest, Copenhagen, Glasgow, and Lisbon) that collaborated and exchanged

information with five (5) peer sites (Dublin, Gent, Gothenburg, Helsinki, and Vienna). These ten (10) sites were

where Housing First projects were implemented.

With the exception of Budapest in some of the points, the HFE test sites all worked with a client-‐centred approach

and individual support plans, having regular home visits as a rule (and with an obligation for clients to accept

them), worked with relatively high staff-‐client ratios (ranging between 1: 3-‐5 and 1: 11), and offering the

availability of staff (or at least a mobile phone contact) for emergency cases 24 hours a day, seven days a week

(Busch-‐Geertsema, 2014).


Overview

Majority of participants in all projects were long-‐term homeless people. Most of them were between the ages of

36 and 45 or older. Glasgow was the only site in which half of the participants younger than 36. Further, most of

the participants had no regular employment when they began the HFE program and were living either on some

sort of transfer benefits or had no income at all. Participants were predominantly men and nationals of the

countries where the projects were located (Busch-‐Geertsema, 2014).

Moreover, because the Housing First project sought to place homeless persons into permanent housing as quickly

as possible while simultaneously providing individual support when needed and on a voluntary basis, it greatly

16

contrasts the G4 program approach. The G4 provided treatment and social services, transitioned people through

stages, and then moved them into homes once they were housing ready. HFE, essentially, does the reverse.

The core service delivery and philosophy of the HFE services includes: (Pleace and Bretherton, 2013, p26)

● Separated housing and services in that housing is not “earned”, but rather provided as right. Accessing

and staying in housing is not conditional on treatment compliance.

● Choice is respected. Service users are able to help plan their own support. There is no requirement to

undergo treatment and/or cease use of drugs and alcohol. HFE strives to give users a sense of security and

a place to create a normal life in their home.

● Intensive support with a high staff to service user ratio and frequent contact between both parties. There

are support services for mental and physical health, drug/alcohol use, education, employment, and

interpersonal skills.

○ Direct provision of support -‐ assertive community treatment (ACT)

○ Indirect provision of support -‐ intensive case management (ICM)

● Population = chronically homeless meaning they have recurrent or sustained experience in living rough

(on the streets) and/or stays in emergency and other temporary supported housing for short term use or

which is part of a staircase system. Service users have high rates of severe mental illness, poor physical

health, problematic drug and alcohol use and may also exhibit low-‐level criminality and nuisance

behavior.

● Harm reduction approach. HFE recognizes that ending drug/alcohol abuse can be a difficult and complex

process. It seeks to do so with minimal damage to one’s well-‐being.

● Open-‐ended and flexible support meaning that services users are not required to meet certain goals.

Further, support is not set to a fixed period of time.

Discus Amsterdam (HVO-‐Querido)

Discus rents houses to the homeless to provide assistance in housing and living. The program aims to supply

housing and from there work on psychological and social rehabilitation. Discus currently has approximately 190

clients with a varied background of homelessness caused by or related to addiction and/or other ailments for

years. Discus Amsterdam works closely with mental health institutions such as Arkin and inGeest. Further, Discus

works in four (4) teams from three (3) different locations -‐ Discusstraat, Mauritskae, and Johan Huizinga Avenue).

Two (2) Types of Services (Pleace and Bretherton, 2013, p28)

Scattered Housing First (SHF)

This model includes services following the operating principles of Housing First, defined as: enabling choice,

providing intensive support (using ACT: assertive community treatment/ICM: intensive case management),

17

targeting chronically homeless people, using a harm reduction framework, having an open-‐ended not time

restricted, access to support services, and separating housing and care. These forms of Housing First services are

provided by mobile support teams to people in scattered, ordinary housing.

Communal Housing First (CHF)

This form of HFE includes single site services following the operating principles of Housing First, in which people

live in a cluster of communal or congregate housing.

Concluding Thoughts (Busch-‐Geertsema, 2013)


Housing First approach facilitates high rates of housing retention and proves that it is possible to house homeless

persons even with the most complex support needs in independent, scattered housing. Further, the different test

sites allows for diverse and extensive data to be returned. The sites also competitively encourage one another in

their endeavours -‐ especially when one site does particularly well.

However, caution must still be heeded despite these positive results. Firstly, two sites -‐ Copenhagen and Glasgow -‐

were still at a fairly early stage, and many of their service users were at risk of losing their tenancy because of their

many addiction and mental health problems. In addition, Housing First projects must be wary of housing

costs/costs of living as they need to be able to cover long-‐term for persons who fail to earn enough money by

employment. This proved to be particularly difficult for the test site in Budapest because of its weak welfare

system . Lastly, one of the main challenges to Housing First projects relate to securing quick access to housing.

18

Necessary Elements for Success (Busch-‐Geertsema, 2013, p11)

Regarding HFE, there have been five (5) main recommendations for success:

● HFE shows that the majority of the target group, including people with severe addiction problems, are

capable of living in ordinary housing, if adequate support is provided

● Rapid access to housing

● Housing costs and the costs of living must be covered long-‐term for those persons who cannot earn

enough money by employment

● Multidimensional support of high intensity must be available as long as it is needed

● Need to carefully consider how to deal with nuisance and neighbourhood conflicts

● Housing First support staff have to meet particular requirements: they need to show respect, warmth and

compassion for all service users and put their preferences and choices at the very core of support work

Sources: (Busch-‐Geertsema, 2014), (HVO-‐Querido), (Busch-‐Geertsema, 2013), (Pleace and Bretherton, 2013)

19

Resources Cover Dutch Rental Housing [Photograph]. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-‐estate-‐news/netherlands/amsterdam/dutch-‐property-‐investors-‐foreign-‐property-‐invest-‐report-‐round-‐hill-‐capital-‐marijn-‐snijders-‐international-‐property-‐investors-‐netherlands-‐property-‐investors-‐cbre-‐global-‐investors-‐wooninvesteringsfonds-‐propertize-‐8769.php.

Dutch Housing: The Rental Market

Government of the Netherlands: Housing. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/topics/housing/contents/housing-‐associations.

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. (May 2014). Investing in the Dutch Housing Market. (Publication No. B18_624534). The Hague: The Netherlands. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/documents/leaflets/2015/10/02/investing-‐in-‐the-‐dutch-‐housing-‐market

Homelessness in Netherlands

Van Ruitenbeek, Sanne. (Updated 2012). Dutch social security system explained. Retrieved from http://www.expatica.com/nl/about/Dutch-‐social-‐security-‐system-‐explained_100578.html.

CBS Statistics Netherlands. (03 December 2010). 17 homeless in every 10 thousand Dutch [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-‐GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2010/2010-‐3266-‐wm.htm

CBS Statistics Netherlands. (24 December 2013). 27 thousand homeless in the Netherlands [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-‐GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2013/2013-‐4016-‐wm.htm

CBS Statistics Netherlands. (05 March 2015). Statistics Netherlands: Rising trend in homelessness appears to have come to an end [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-‐GB/menu/themas/veiligheid-‐recht/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2015/stijging-‐aantal-‐daklozen-‐lijkt-‐voorbij.html

G4 Homeless Action Plan 2006-‐2013

Hermans, Koen. (December 2012). The Dutch Strategy to Combat Homelessness: From Ambition to Window Dressing?. European Journal of Homelessness, 6(2): 101-‐118. Retrieved from http://www.feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/ejh6_2_policy1.pdf Pleace, N., Teller, N., & Quilgars, D. (December 2011). Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. European Observatory on Homelessness Comparative Studies on Homelessness, 1. Retrieved from http://feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/feantsa_eoh-‐studies_v1_12-‐2011.pdf

20

Housing First Europe (HFE)

Busch-‐Geertsema, Volker. (2013). Housing First Final Report. Website: Habitat for Humanity. Retrieved from http://www.habitat.hu/files/FinalReportHousingFirstEurope.pdf.

Busch-‐Geertsema, Volker. (August 2014). Housing First -‐ Results of a European Social Experimentation Project. European Journal of Homelessness, 8(1), 13-‐28. Retrieved from http://feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/article-‐01_8.1.pdf.

HVO-‐Querido. (Unknown). Discus Discustraat. Retrieved from http://hvoquerido.nl/locatie/discus-‐discustraat-‐15/

Pleace, Nicholas, & Bretherton, Joanne. (December 2013). The Case for Housing First in the European Union: A Critical Evaluation of Concerns about Effectiveness. European Journal of Homelessness, 7(2), 21-‐41. Retrieved from https://www.york.ac.uk/media/chp/documents/2013/np_and_jb.pdf

pppinternshipnetherlandsfinalreport

Documents