ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

a dutch orange and a big apple

•
•
Alexander Hogendoorn
Alexander Hogendoorn

This document compares approaches to homelessness in Rotterdam, Netherlands and New York City. It notes that while the scale of homelessness is much larger in NYC, as a percentage of the population it is higher in Rotterdam. Both cities face challenges in addressing homelessness among young people and families. The document discusses programs and policies in each city, and notes there is still more to be learned by comparing approaches between different contexts.

1 of 3
Download to read offline
A Dutch Orange and a Big Apple Alexander Hogendoorn MSc Rotterdam, 20 augustus 2010 In a recent publication John Mollenkopf compares The Dutch Orange (The Netherlands) with the Big Apple (New York City). An interesting comparison, and one that limps at the same time you start making it. Should we compare Amsterdam with Manhattan and Rotterdam with The Bronx, and our ‘municipalities’ with the boroughs of NYC? And the diversity of immigrants of NYC with those of Rotterdam or the Netherlands? Nevertheless -following John Mollenkopf-, it is interesting to confront practises and approaches with eachother. During my holidays I had the opportunity to speak with Rich Lombino (casemanager at Coalition for the Homeless) and Scott Auwarter (senior manager at Bronxworks), both optimistic and driven professionals, working on a better future for ‘volnurable citizens’ and fighting homelessness in NYC. The encounters with both Rich and Scott were inspiring and an occasion to reflect on ‘the Rotterdam approach’ I am acquainted with. Same challenges? In recent years the city of Rotterdam developed a strong practise in ending homelessness, above all for the rough sleepers, adults who suffer addiction and/or other psychiatric disorders and street prostitutes. Five years ago the city counted a number of 2.900 homeless individuals over 23 years. About 2.500 (86%) had entered one of the newly developed programs in January 2009. Key factor was an integrated approach and the development of long-term supportive housing and working programs. That costs a lot, but outcome evaluation showed a significant reduction of overall social costs (mainly due to criminality and expensive repetitive crisis interventions). Not to mention the health and social outcomes for the individual itself and the city as a whole.
Nowadays Rotterdam faces the challenge of ending homelessness of ‘the rest group’ and the estimated 400 newcomers a year, and to develop a sustainable approach for the about 1000 homeless youngsters (under 23 years), and the improvement of preventive practices. The number of homeless people in Rotterdam seems to be ‘nothing’ compared to the 39.243 homeless New Yorkers and the 120.381 individuals that faced homelessness in fiscal year 2009. However, (taken into account the number of inhabitants) in NYC about 0,47% of the inhabitants are homeless and in Rotterdam the number of homeless people decreased from 0,65% homeless inhabitants about five years ago to 0,3% nowadays. There is always a whole world behind the numbers. For example: policy officials in Rotterdam count with a number of 1000 homeless youngsters. But recently a Dutch advocacy group claimed that this number is just ‘the top of the iceberg’. And that is not different in NYC. The Coalition for the Homeless claims that the number of homeless people (mentioned above) is much higher than the official numbers show. Due to that number the city is more or less effective in their policy and gives more or less attention to social problems. Although the economic crisis has a remarkable effect on the increase of homeless people, the Coalition for the Homeless demonstrates a strong correlation between NYC policy and the rising number of homeless people. And that is (in the meantime) a different story in Rotterdam. What we seem to share is the fact that homeless youngsters are ‘hidden’. They are not visible on the streets and they don’t show up in the homeless circuit. “We hardly see individual homeless youngsters in our programs”, Scott told me. They must be somewhere, because federal data showed an increase in homeless students. Scott told me about the families that show up in their shelters. In NYC (or the States) they distinguish primary homeless individuals (adults) and families. And with the parents the children show up in the shelters, more than 16.500 children recently. They need a different approach than long-term homeless individuals. (resource: coalition for the homeless)
In Rotterdam we hardly hear about homeless families. Is that because the children are replaced to foster care when a family falls into homelessness? Or because of the more preventive approach and supporting facilities for ‘multiproblem families’? Or do other factors play a role? Tasting oranges and apples We cannot compare oranges with apples, or change one in another. But there is a lot possible manipulating the taste of one or an other. That is something I have learned by the case of ‘homeless Rotterdam’ and that is something to take into account within both the practices of NYC and Rotterdam.

More Related Content

a dutch orange and a big apple

  • 1. A Dutch Orange and a Big Apple Alexander Hogendoorn MSc Rotterdam, 20 augustus 2010 In a recent publication John Mollenkopf compares The Dutch Orange (The Netherlands) with the Big Apple (New York City). An interesting comparison, and one that limps at the same time you start making it. Should we compare Amsterdam with Manhattan and Rotterdam with The Bronx, and our ‘municipalities’ with the boroughs of NYC? And the diversity of immigrants of NYC with those of Rotterdam or the Netherlands? Nevertheless -following John Mollenkopf-, it is interesting to confront practises and approaches with eachother. During my holidays I had the opportunity to speak with Rich Lombino (casemanager at Coalition for the Homeless) and Scott Auwarter (senior manager at Bronxworks), both optimistic and driven professionals, working on a better future for ‘volnurable citizens’ and fighting homelessness in NYC. The encounters with both Rich and Scott were inspiring and an occasion to reflect on ‘the Rotterdam approach’ I am acquainted with. Same challenges? In recent years the city of Rotterdam developed a strong practise in ending homelessness, above all for the rough sleepers, adults who suffer addiction and/or other psychiatric disorders and street prostitutes. Five years ago the city counted a number of 2.900 homeless individuals over 23 years. About 2.500 (86%) had entered one of the newly developed programs in January 2009. Key factor was an integrated approach and the development of long-term supportive housing and working programs. That costs a lot, but outcome evaluation showed a significant reduction of overall social costs (mainly due to criminality and expensive repetitive crisis interventions). Not to mention the health and social outcomes for the individual itself and the city as a whole.
  • 2. Nowadays Rotterdam faces the challenge of ending homelessness of ‘the rest group’ and the estimated 400 newcomers a year, and to develop a sustainable approach for the about 1000 homeless youngsters (under 23 years), and the improvement of preventive practices. The number of homeless people in Rotterdam seems to be ‘nothing’ compared to the 39.243 homeless New Yorkers and the 120.381 individuals that faced homelessness in fiscal year 2009. However, (taken into account the number of inhabitants) in NYC about 0,47% of the inhabitants are homeless and in Rotterdam the number of homeless people decreased from 0,65% homeless inhabitants about five years ago to 0,3% nowadays. There is always a whole world behind the numbers. For example: policy officials in Rotterdam count with a number of 1000 homeless youngsters. But recently a Dutch advocacy group claimed that this number is just ‘the top of the iceberg’. And that is not different in NYC. The Coalition for the Homeless claims that the number of homeless people (mentioned above) is much higher than the official numbers show. Due to that number the city is more or less effective in their policy and gives more or less attention to social problems. Although the economic crisis has a remarkable effect on the increase of homeless people, the Coalition for the Homeless demonstrates a strong correlation between NYC policy and the rising number of homeless people. And that is (in the meantime) a different story in Rotterdam. What we seem to share is the fact that homeless youngsters are ‘hidden’. They are not visible on the streets and they don’t show up in the homeless circuit. “We hardly see individual homeless youngsters in our programs”, Scott told me. They must be somewhere, because federal data showed an increase in homeless students. Scott told me about the families that show up in their shelters. In NYC (or the States) they distinguish primary homeless individuals (adults) and families. And with the parents the children show up in the shelters, more than 16.500 children recently. They need a different approach than long-term homeless individuals. (resource: coalition for the homeless)
  • 3. In Rotterdam we hardly hear about homeless families. Is that because the children are replaced to foster care when a family falls into homelessness? Or because of the more preventive approach and supporting facilities for ‘multiproblem families’? Or do other factors play a role? Tasting oranges and apples We cannot compare oranges with apples, or change one in another. But there is a lot possible manipulating the taste of one or an other. That is something I have learned by the case of ‘homeless Rotterdam’ and that is something to take into account within both the practices of NYC and Rotterdam.