‘Mopping the floor with the tap still running’
A critical case study on structural ethno-racial inequality
and Dutch homelessness policy
MASTER THESIS
Erasmus Mundus Master International Migration and Social Cohesion
Tirza Snoijl (14201767) Dublin, April 2015 Thesis supervisor University of Amsterdam Dr. Martha Montero-Sieburth m.montero@uva.nl Thesis supervisor University of Deusto Dr. Concepción Maiztegui cmaizte@deusto.es Thesis supervisor
University College Dublin Dr. Muireann Ní Raghallaigh muireann.niraghallaigh@ucd.ie
2
Declaration of authenticity
I, Tirza Snoijl, hereby declare that this thesis is my own, and not the work of someone else. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been
acknowledged. I declare that I have been informed of the completion and assessment rules of the MISOCO Program.
Signed,
Tirza Snoijl
Date: April 30th, 2015
Timeline 2006 - 2010 PvAMO Phase 1 2007 Introduction WMO 2008 Opening Instroomhuis 2009 Introduction Regional ties as criterium for shelter 2010 Start CodaG4 2011-2014 PvAMO Phase 2 2012 Recalibration Social Shelter 2013 Introduction Self-sufficiency matrix as part of screening 2014 End of Project PvAMO 2014-2015 Training Illness Management and Recovery Method for staff Instroomhuis 2015 Introduction WMO2015, WLZ, Shift AWBZ to municipalities
Table of content
Introduction ... 8
Chapter 1: Literature review ... 10
1.1 Introduction ... 10
1.2 Individual vs. structural causes of homelessness... 10
1.3 Discourses of deviance ... 12
1.3.1 Disorder and Crime ... 13
1.3.2 Disease and Medicalization ... 15
1.3.3 Race/ethnicity and Racialization ... 16
1.3.3.1 Culturalizing discourses ... 17
1.3.3.2 Colorblindness vs. Cultural visibility ... 18
1.4 Shelters and Shelterization ... 20
1.5 Professionals as Street level bureaucrats ... 22
1.6 Conclusion ... 23
Chapter 2: Methodology ... 25
2.1 Introduction ... 25
2.2 Research Question ... 25
2.3 Methods and Justification ... 25
2.4 Case: Instroomhuis ... 27
2.5 Participants ... 27
2.6 Data collection and analysis ... 28
2.7 Instrumentation ... 31
2.8 Ethical considerations ... 31
5
2.10 Conclusion ... 33
Chapter 3: Individualizing Homelessness ... 34
3.1 Introduction ... 34
3.2 Legal restructuring: Social Security Act (WMO)... 34
3.3 Action Plan Social Shelter - Plan van Aanpak Maatschappelijke Opvang ... 36
3.4 Medicalizing homelessness ... 38
3.4.1 Positioning homeless people ... 41
3.4.2 Contradicting discourse ... 42
3.5 Social professionals in this context ... 44
3.5.1 Frustrations ... 44
3.5.2. Disease and disorder as strategy ... 46
3.6 Supporting individualizing discourse ... 48
3.6.1 Essentializing homeless people ... 48
3.6.2. Faith in universality of homelessness ... 49
3.6.3 Available resources and responsibilization ... 51
3.7 Conclusion ... 52
Chapter 4: Colorblindness and Racialization ... 54
4.1 Introduction ... 54
4.2 Colorblindness in policy ... 54
4.3 Colorblindness as professionalism ... 56
4.3.1 Not speaking race/ethnicity ... 57
4.3.2 Ignoring personal bias ... 58
4.3.3 Diversity as a fact of life ... 59
4.4 Ethno-racial blindness and cultural visibility ... 61
6
4.6 Conclusion ... 66
Chapter 5: Interventions ... 69
5.1 Introduction ... 69
5.2 Shifting responsibilities ... 69
5.3 Mutually reinforcing discourses: shelterization and finances ... 70
5.4 Herstelgericht Werken - Recovery ... 72
5.5 Recovery and deviance ... 75
5.6 Conclusion ... 76
Chapter 6: Interpretation and conclusion ... 77
6.1 Introduction ... 77
6.2 Findings and arguments ... 77
6.3 Ramifications ... 79
Chapter 7: Reflection ... 81
7.1 Reflections on access ... 81
7.2 Reflections on the research process ... 82
7.3 Reflections on confidentiality ... 83
Bibliography ... 85
Annexes ... 91
Annex 1: The Instroomhuis – Getting access ... 92
Annex 2: Interview Protocol for semi-structured interviews (translated) ... 94
Annex 3: Propositions on homelessness (translated) ... 95
Annex 4: Abbreviations ... 96
Annex 5: Important terms ... 97
7
Preface
A wise individual once said that we who are allowed to see further, are enabled to do so because we stand on the shoulders of giants. This man, Isaac Newton, was referring to the great intellectuals that had gone before him. He omitted a very important fact: we cannot endeavor to stand on the shoulders of giants if not for the people that help us climb.
I am indebted to many people and organizations that have supported me, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and financially. I extend my gratitude to VSB Fonds, Stichting Fundatie van de Vrijvrouwe van Renswoude, Hendrik Mullerfonds, Stichting Bekker La Bastide, Genootschap Noorthey and Nuffic for providing me with the scholarships that enabled me to pursue my goals. I am also grateful to the people that have written letters of recommendation on my behalf: Dr. Eileen Moyer, Dr. Anouk de Koning, Dr. Naomi van Stapele, Dr. Sébastien Chauvin, Dr. Martha Montero-Sieburth and Dr. Jan Rath. Those who have given feedback at any stage of the process of writing: my thesis supervisors Dr. Muireann Ní Raghallaigh, Dr. Martha Montero-Sieburth and Dr. Concepción Maiztegui, but also Dr. Alice Feldman, Dr. Stephen Small, Dr. Gloria Wekker and Marisa Raditsch: thank you. I extend my love for the people who have become part of the support system that allows me to maintain my sanity: the Black Europe Summer School cohort of 2014, Dr. Philomena Essed, Dr. Norma Fuentes, Angela Dixon, Mitchell Esajas, Alida Simons, and all my other friends. I thank
Ferdinand van der Velde and Ynse de Vries for their flexibility. And I especially thank all the participants in this research project, without whom this project would have been impossible.
My deepest gratitude, however, is reserved for my family, who has sacrificed significantly to see me succeed. Mom, I am who I am because of you. Imar,
127.0.0.1=♥: your support and patience has no comparison. Jaz, you have been the best travel companion.
This thesis is the culmination of my personal and intellectual struggles of the past two years. I hope it honors your support.
Yours,
8
Introduction
Recent studies have shown that 80% of the homeless population in Amsterdam is male,
70% percent of which are migrants1, and close to three-quarters of the homeless
population have low educational levels (Van Straaten, 2012). Judging from these
numbers, homelessness is Amsterdam is a distinctly gendered, raced and classed
phenomenon. Despite this, contemporary homelessness interventions focus on
addressing individual cases of homelessness, rather than addressing the inequalities the
statistics suggest are at the basis of homelessness.
This thesis will examine how individualizing discourses on homelessness shape the
prevention of homelessness among migrants and ethnic minorities in Amsterdam. It
investigates what the effects of the prevailing discourses are on the way structural
causes of homelessness are addressed.
Chapter one will introduce the concepts and the literature that form the basis of the
thesis. The second chapter outlines the research question, the research methods, ethical
considerations, the relevance and the limitations of this project. Chapter three through
five present the findings. Chapter three explores the individualizing discourses that are
used when speaking of homelessness. The fourth chapter addresses policies of
colorblindness as they relate to homelessness discourse. Chapter five investigates how
strength based intervention are relevant to individualizing discourses. Interpretations
1
The word migrant throughout this thesis has its limitations. When referring to migrants, I refer to first and second generation migrants who generally have either the Dutch nationality or a residence permit. The situation of homeless migrants without nationality or residence permit is highly precarious. This however deserves a study of its own and could not be covered in this project.
9
and conclusions are presented in chapter six. Finally, in order to address my specific
10
Chapter 1: Literature review
1.1 Introduction
The aim of this study is to explore the ways in which discourses of deviance influence
the visibility of structural causes of migrant homelessness in the Netherlands. This
chapter gives an overview of the literature on discourses of deviance: specifically
discourses of disorder and crime, medicalizing discourses and racializing discourses.
Connected to the latter, the concept of colorblindness is explored. Subsequently I will
give an overview of the concept of shelterization, as it informs current discursive
patterns of individual responsibility. Finally, I will end with the position of social
professionals as street-level bureaucrats.
1.2 Individual vs. structural causes of homelessness
The literature on homelessness is vast both in sociological and in social work research.
Within the literature there are two primary ways to look at homelessness (Hartnett &
Postmus, 2010). The first way is to look at homelessness as predominantly an individual
problem. This approach warrants interventions on homelessness that are primarily
focused on the rehabilitation of the individual. The other approach regards
homelessness as a structural problem. This approach, while recognizing the effects
homelessness has on individual lived experiences, primarily warrants interventions on
‘the social, political and organizational structure that allows those experiences to exist’
(Brueggeman 2004 as quoted by Hartnett & Postmus, 2010).
The overrepresentation of migrants in the homeless services in the Netherlands warrants
a reevaluation of the structural causes of homelessness. The structural processes that aid
11
housing, slow outflow of vulnerable homeless individuals, economic downturns
(Tuynman & Planije, 2014), high debts, high unemployment levels in the youngest and
oldest segments of the population, rising levels of rent, ambulatory pathways2 for
people with severe psychiatric symptoms, and budget cuts in the welfare sector
(Federatie Opvang, 2013). Many of these processes affect migrants doubly due to
ethno-racial exclusion. To illustrate: 1) unemployment rates among first and second
generation migrant youth in Amsterdam are four times higher than among their white
Dutch peers (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). 2) Overt and covert discrimination in the
labor market still happen, making first and second generation more likely than their
white peers to not be hired, not get promoted, and garner lower wages for the same job
(Nieuwenhuizen, 2015). 3) Migrants are more likely to rent than white Dutch -75% vs.
40% - and are therefore more likely to be affected by rising levels of rent (Sociaal
Cultureel Planbureau, 2009).
Dutch self-understanding as tolerant of difference and enlightened makes it difficult to
analyze and unpack the inequalities between ‘migrants’ and non-migrants in general and
the latter’s overrepresentation within the homeless population of the Netherlands in
particular. It is unclear how discourses on homelessness and colonial discourses on
migration and integration intersect in the social work and policy context surrounding
homelessness and its management. Nor has research been conducted into the experience
of those who occupy a dual position of ‘other’, both as homeless individuals and as
‘immigrants’. This thesis project examines to what extent othering discourses overlap in
2
12
policies dealing with migrant homeless populations and how these othering discourses
are navigated by the people that work in the homeless services.
The critical perspective on social work amongst homeless people in the United States
and the United Kingdom links the exclusion from citizenship, internalized oppression
amongst homeless people (Wasserman, Clair, & Platt, 2012), and the way identity
formation is shaped or hindered by the social work (Stark, 1994). These processes help
to recreate the homeless persons as a self-blaming citizen that strives to adapt to a white
middle class normative model (Lyon-Callo, 2000). Wasserman, Clair and Platt (2012)
demonstrate how processes of exclusion affecting homeless persons follow patterns of
ethno-racial exclusion. However, they do not progress to ask to what extent discourses
of ethno-racial exclusion interweave with discourses on poverty and homelessness, what
the result of such interconnections would be, and whether and how these intersecting
discourses shape social interventions into homelessness. This is what I want to examine
further.
1.3 Discourses of deviance
Within the context of the Netherlands there is a long history of resocialization of
“deviants” [in Dutch: asocialen, literal translation: anti-socials]. Until the late 19th
century social intervention in the Netherlands was primarily based on charity stemming
from the Christian duty of the aristocracy (Dercksen & Verplanke, 1997 [1987]; Hens,
2002). This philanthropy came with the strings of ‘gratitude, respect, diligence, sobriety
and piety’ attached, as these were the virtues expected in return from those on the
receiving end (Dercksen & Verplanke, 1997 [1987]). The Poverty Act [Armenwet] of
13
the state and into the hands of churches and civil society (ibid.). The large scale
industrialization of the late 19th century brought about an increase in unionization of
workers on the one hand a development of progressive liberal ideals on the other. These
movementspushed for ‘enlightening the people’ [volksverheffing] in order to create
more productive workers through better housing and increased (moral) education. This
resulted in legislation that protected the rights of workers. The implementation of these
enlightenment ideals became known as a ‘civilizing offensive’ [beschavingsoffensief]:
‘the deliberate, conscious attempts of powerful groups, including a historically
paternalistic state, at altering the behavior of sections of the population and inculcating
lasting, “civilized” habits’ (Powell, 2013). This pursuit targeted the poor underclass and
its intensity and focus have evolved over the past century in response to changing
notions of autonomy, deviance and new underclasses.
1.3.1 Disorder and Crime
One of the ways in which the causes of homelessness are individualized is through a
discourse of deviance that describes poor individuals as essentially less civilized than
the societal norm. In this narrative the poor and homeless are seen as inherently
disorderly or the source of crime. This discourse undergirds the “civilizing offensive”.
Historically poverty and homelessness in the Netherlands have been surrounded by the
idea that the poor or homeless individual needs to be resocialized (Dercksen &
Verplanke, 1997 [1987]; Rath, 1992). Causes of poverty and homelessness are
individualized (Amster, 2003; Lyon-Callo, 2000) in lieu of focusing on structural
processes that produce homelessness. The poor or homeless individual is labelled as
14
main discourses of deviance used to individualize the causes of homelessness:
disorder/crime, disease, and race/ethnicity.
Dercksen and Verplanke describe several historical tenets surrounding this discourse of
crime and disorder in the Netherlands (1919-1970). Firstly the process of categorization
as 'unacceptable families' [ontoelaatbare gezinnen] that led to the institutionalization of
these families in order to teach them 'acceptable' ways of inhabiting a home, well into
the 1970s. The aim of this process was to 'enlighten the populace' [volksverheffing], an
ideal solidly grounded in both religious and enlightenment ideals. Secondly, the process
of the expansion of the interventions from 'mere' house training into the realm of
holistic behavioral management. Thirdly, the production and development of scientific
knowledge surrounding the possible causes and solutions to the 'problem of unsocial
nuclear families' [vraagstuk van de onmaatschappelijke gezinnen]. (Dercksen &
Verplanke, 1997 [1987], pp. 7-8).
Rath (1992) places the resocialization of deviants within the context of a Dutch
community norm of 'staged civility' [burgerlijkheid] that includes good hygiene, poise,
budgeting skills and employment amongst other things. It necessarily entails othering
and problematization of those poor enough to be deemed not to live up to these
standards. The problematization of deviance occurred mostly when it was deemed to
occur in the lowest of social strata, as higher classes were either absolved from the
occurrence of unsocial behavior, or its occurrence was not subject to the same
problematizing discourses let alone coercive confinement aimed at resocialization
(Dercksen and Verplanke, 1987: 248). Deviant disorder was made out to be part of a
minority group that was subsequently 'subjected to social pressure in order to conform
15
Little research has been done as to how these discourses affect first and second
generation migrants who become homeless. Their unique situation as both an
ethno-racial other and a classed other may affect their position. In terms of normativity, they
could be regarded as doubly deviant.
1.3.2 Disease and Medicalization
Medicalization happens when a social issue, like homelessness, becomes defined ‘in
medical terms, using medical language to describe a problem, adopting a medical
framework to understand a problem, or using a medical intervention to "treat" it’
(Conrad, 1992, p. 211). This process can happen either at the conceptual, institutional
and interactional level, and is a matter of degree rather than absolutes (Conrad, 1992).
According to Foucault, medical knowledge is used to categorize and normalize aspects
of human beings within the context of power dynamics (Rabinow, 1991, p. 17). This
normalization makes it necessary for those bodies who (potentially) deviate from the
norm, to be subjected to disciplinary 'techniques and procedures' (Foucault, 1975:211).
The latter serve to both punish and correct deviance from the norm.
The causes of homelessness are oftentimes viewed through a medical lens. The
homeless individual is discursively portrayed as either the source of disease or as
inherently physically ailed, mentally ill or addicted (Amster, 2003; Snow, Baker,
Anderson, & Martin, 1986). As a result of this framing the homeless person becomes
somebody who needs to be either contained or treated. This approach has been criticized
in the academic literature for several reasons. Firstly, the prevalence of (mental) illness
among the homeless population has been called into question by several scholars
16
medicalization of the issue of homelessness has no basis in an actual prevalence of
medical and mental issues among the majority of the homeless population (Snow,
Baker, Anderson, & Martin, 1986). Secondly, medicalizing discourses are critiqued for
shifting the attention away from structural issues that contribute to homelessness,
instead focusing on a supposed ‘individualized pathology’ of the homeless individual
(Lyon-Callo, 2004). Finally, the production of and the reliance on medical knowledge,
in general, has been critiqued for perpetuating societal power dynamics, by using
medical knowledge to establish norms which justify interventions that are punitive or
corrective to those who are deemed deviant from those norms (Bourgois, 2000;
Rabinow, 1991).
1.3.3 Race/ethnicity and Racialization
Racialization is the way in which race is given meaning and made to be of relevance to
social and institutional relations within a particular context (Garner, 2010).
Racialization happens as part of a power dynamic in which certain racial markers
(phenotypical, cultural, religious or otherwise), whether ‘real’ or imagined, are treated
as essential to all individuals within a group and made of influence in the distribution of
power within that context (Garner, 2010; Warmington, 2009; Small & Solomos, 2006).
Racialization has material consequences (Warmington, 2009; Brubaker, 2002; Knowles,
2003) for those racialized as they are subjected to ‘systematic marginalization and
17
1.3.3.1 Culturalizing discourses
3In the Netherlands racialization tends to happens through cultural discourses. Since
overt racial language is frowned upon, ethnicity is used as an approximation for it.
Ethnicity is defined by one's birthplace or the birthplace of one's (grand)parents (Yanow
& Van der Haar, 2013, p. 236), through the use of the term allochtoon, meaning 'not of
this soil' (Geschiere, 2009, p. 187) The term captures the Dutch method to maintain
racial distinction between white and non-white Dutch, primarily based in presumed
cultural difference. Despite the seemingly neutral indicator of birthplace, allochtoon has
become a means through which culturalized differences or problems can be addressed,
without using overt racial language (Jacobs & Rea, 2009, p. 17). Culture based on
birthplace, rather than race, is the means through which ethno-racial distinctions are
made (Yanow & Van der Haar, 2013, p. 227). As Weiner (2014: p. 4) puts it: ‘This
terminology inhibits the social acceptance of multiple-generation non-European
immigrants who share nativity, language, culture and citizenship with “native Dutch”
but exist as “non-white” or “alien” “ambiguous citizens”.
The Dutch self-understanding as tolerant of difference and enlightened makes it difficult
to analyze and explain the inequalities between ‘migrants’ and non-migrants in general,
and the latter’s overrepresentation within the homeless population of the Netherlands in
particular. One then needs to consider what the problematization of migrant identities
3
Parts of the line of thought in this paragraph were first developed as part of an essay titled ‘How can one not be ethnic: a literature review of race, ethnicity and allochtony’ for the course ‘Dynamics of
International Migration, taught by Sébastien Chauvin at the University of Amsterdam in the fall semester of 2013 of MISOCO.
18
looks like, how it interacts with other problematizing discourses, and how these
influence the way migrant homelessness is addressed.
1.3.3.2 Colorblindness vs. Cultural visibility
Colorblindness hinges on the belief that race, culture or ethnicity are not – or no longer
– relevant nor necessary to appreciate the lived experience of people (Neville, 2008). In
the Netherlands colorblindness has a specific history. The Netherlands was (and some
might argue still is) one of the empires that engaged colonial conquest, Trans-Atlantic
slave trade, enslavement and genocide (Wekker, 2014). Despite this fact, the country
has a narrative of itself as historically tolerant, ‘color-blind’ and ‘anti-racist’ (Nimako &
Willemsen, 2014; Wekker, 2014). Because of this self-image race is a ‘dirty word' in the
Netherlands.
Speaking of race is associated with racism of the far right (Bonilla-Silva, 1997) and
disavowed as incommensurable with progressive ideals and liberal concepts of the
individual (Knowles, 2003). Since the terms race and racism within this context are
mostly associated with Nazism, eugenic projects and the extreme right (Yanow & Van
der Haar, 2013) explicit racial categorization is avoided. Instead Dutch public
discourses on otherness, both politically and otherwise, rely upon culturalized notions of
race, used to circumvent nationality and differentiate between citizens. This is done on
the basis of their presumed cultural characteristics, that are hierarchically structured and
place the imagined white Dutch cultural characteristics (which in turn are reified as
orderly, problemless, and homogenous in race, values and traditions), at the top of the
proverbial totem pole and migrants/minorities at the bottom (Weiner, 2014). The
19
belonging and on political ideas surrounding the treatment – and position – of migrant
groups (Jacobs & Rea, 2009). Race-based colorblindness in the Netherlands is thus
offset by the visibilization of culture that has become a proxy for racial differentiation.
Colorblindness is adopted as a means to evolve beyond a history of oppression (ibid.).
Colorblindness in policy and social work practice can and has been criticized by critical
race theorists (Haney-Lopéz, 2010; Garner, 2010; Warmington, 2009; Bonilla-Silva,
2006; Vargas, 2014). Colorblind ideology in practice often means that measures based
in group identification cannot be taken, barring political action against collective
inequalities in the face of vastly unequal outcomes by rendering these inequalities
invisible and unspeakable.
Within the research in the Netherlands attention is given to the economic and safety
motivations behind ideas of social intervention. However, since colorblindness is
equated with progressive non-discrimination (Bonilla-Silva, 2006), motivations of
ethno-racial homogeneity that could possibly underpin social interventions are under
researched. The existence of race, racism and racialized discourses in the Netherlands is
vehemently denied (Essed & Hoving, 2013), and generally little attention is given to the
colonial past of the Netherlands in mainstream public discourse (Nimako & Willemsen,
2014; Wekker, 2014). Similarly in Dutch academia, critical scholarship on racism is
hindered by the emphasis on colorblindness, ‘the national denial of racism’ and ‘the
lack of independent granting agencies’ (Weiner M. F., 2014, p. 731; Essed & Nimako,
20
1.4 Shelters and Shelterization
Shelterization is a form of ‘demoralizing and desocializing’ institutional dependency
that is deemed to be specific to homeless shelters (Marcus, 2003, p. 134; Gounis, 1992).
It is based in Goffman’s concept of a total institution, defined as ‘a place of residence
(…) where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for
an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed formally administered round of
life’ (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii).
A critique of homeless shelters specifically, but in-patient institutions more generally,
arose in the 1980s-1990s. Shelterization, a long term psychological consequences of
shelter life, was said to occur in people who had to adapt to the rules and regulations of
shelters (Stark, 1994; Marcus, 2003; Schut, 2008). Shelterization can be likened to
institutionalization, and is said to occur when a homeless person is focused on and
adapts to life within a shelter to such an extent that the initial goals of acquiring housing
become secondary to maintaining a place in the shelter (Schut, 2008; Stark, 1994). The
possibility of shelterization is more likely in long-term shelter residents in environments
where a focus on speedy return to regular forms of housing is underemphasized (Schut,
2008). Ethnographic work from critical perspectives has demonstrated that individuals
inhabiting shelters for longer periods of time experience them as limiting, infantilizing,
(DeWard & Moe, 2010; Hoffman & Coffey, 2008; Lyon-Callo, 2000). Shelters are
critiqued for enforcing internalized oppression amongst homeless people (Wasserman,
Clair, & Platt, 2012) and infringing upon their dignity and ability to maintain their
regular contacts, experiences and identities (Stark, 1994). These processes are said to
participate in the shaping of the homeless person as a self-blaming citizen that strives to
21
The concept of shelterization has been critiqued as giving too much credence to
potential negative effects shelters may have on homeless individuals and risk, by
placing the blame for long-term homelessness on institutionalizing or shelterizing
effects of life in the shelters rather than more salient socio-economical processes of
exclusion (Marcus, 2003, p. 135). Moreover, it assumes an institution that is closed off
from wider society, without differentiating between potential degrees of shelterization
(Davies, 1989).
The current debate in policy, social work and the homeless services in the Netherlands
is how to deal with the potential negative effects of shelterization that is purported to
make homeless individuals dependent upon social work interventions and welfare
(Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011; Gijzel, van, Wilken, & Brink, 2013; Ministerie van
Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport, 2010). The movement against institutionalization
started in the ‘70s as part of the empowerment movement (Brouwers, Van
Gestel-Timmermans, & Nieuwenhuizen, van, 2013; Van Gestel-Timmermans & Brouwers,
2014). However, this idea has been co-opted in neoliberal discourse and is used to
further propel the notion that homeless individuals should be or become self-sufficient
individuals without supportive structures in place. Moreover, the notion of potential
dependency promotes the idea of a retracting state welfare system in conjunction with
increased punitive measures towards those who are in need of support (Wacquant, 2009;
22
1.5 Professionals as Street level bureaucrats
4The implementation of policy, within the context of the homeless shelter, lies with those
who interact with them the most, namely the social professionals. The role of the social
professional is deemed to be a pedagogical one, as they are supposed to encourage the
homeless individual to portray everyday behaviors that are deemed to be essential for an
independent, self-sufficient life: such as punctuality, housework skills, keeping
appointments, and abiding by rules (OAW Welzijn en Maatschappelijke
Dienstverlening, 2008). This is explained by the concept of a street-level bureaucrat,
defined by Lipsky as a professional who has frequent interactions with the people who
are the object of policy (Moore, 1987, p. 75). The social worker can be seen an executor
of state and organizational policies at the level of individual interaction. In that sense
they straddle a divide between government policy and everyday practice, as their hands
implement the disciplinary tactics aimed at the homeless person.
Lipsky explains the contested nature of the position of those that implement policies
(Moore, 1987). This contestation is because a street level bureaucrat needs to constantly
juggle their own judgment, organizational structures, resources, time management and
service user demands (Moore, 1987, pp. 75-76). Policy implementation is intermediated
by the complex position of the street-level bureaucrat, and everyday demands that
conflict with the official discourse. In that sense professionals help shape the everyday
reality service users encounter.
4
I first developed the line of thought in this paragraph as part of an essay titled ‘Violence in the homeless shelter’ for the course ‘Vulnerable Groups’, taught by Patrick Brown at the University of Amsterdam in the fall semester of 2013 of MISOCO.
23
Relations and subjectivities play a pivotal role in the positioning of social professionals
and the way they relate to policy. This is mainly because within the contexts of the
homeless shelter, interactions are not one-off occasions. The homeless person lives
within the confines of the homeless shelter in which the professional works. The
professionals shares parts of the daily lives of the homeless person. They share meals,
wake-ups, coffee, smokes, and banter, jokes, but also physical care and moral,
emotional and administrative support4. The relationships, developed over time, frame
the methods available to engage in pedagogical and bureaucratic behaviors. Disciplinary
and pedagogical interventions become intertwined with these interpersonal interactions.
1.6 Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the literature that formed the framework for this thesis. The
framing of the causes of homelessness as either individual or structural informs the
interventions that are taken to prevent homelessness. Discourses of individual deviance,
such as disorder, crime, disease and race/ethnicity, form the basis of interventions that
focus on rehabilitation rather than structural reform. In the Netherlands, however,
discourses of cultural deviance serve as a proxy for discourses of race. This is informed
by the self-understanding of the Netherlands as progressive and colorblind. Ideas
surrounding shelterization also shape interventions of rehabilitation. Prevention of
dependency can be used to legitimize a withdrawal of state resources and an increase in
the responsibilization of individuals.
Social professionals, as primary interactors with service users, perform an important
role. They serve as implementers of policy, and have to strike a balance between their
25
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the primary research questions of this thesis. Informed by critical
social work theory, it presents a justification for the chosen qualitative methodology and
document analysis as methods for data collection and analysis, with the Instroomhuis as
a case study. It gives a first introduction of the case and participants. In conclusion
ethical considerations, the validity and the limitations of the research are explored.
2.2 Research Question
This thesis sets out to examine how individualizing discourses on homelessness shape
the prevention of homelessness among migrants and ethnic minorities in Amsterdam. In
order to do so I will first examine which individualizing discourses prevail in the
Netherlands, how these discourses shape the current policy and social work
interventions and strategies of resolving homelessness, and how migrant homeless
individuals are imagined within this discursive framework.
2.3 Methods and Justification
This thesis builds on critical and structural social work (Mullaly, 1997; Bailey & Brake,
1975; Allen, Briskman, & Pease, 2009). These approaches to social work are informed
by critical theory which emphasize a kind of social work that aims to address social
inequality rather than individual deviance (Mullaly, 1997). This basic tenet informs the
goals of this thesis: to explore how discourses of homelessness affect the position of
26
This thesis focuses on homelessness policy as it developed since 2006 until now. The
Instroomhuis and its political context are used as a critical case study. This location is important because of its original status as a pilot within a governmental project, which
is now rolled out nationwide, and because of its special location as a hub within the
landscape of homeless services in Amsterdam. My familiarity with the Instroomhuis as
an employee was beneficial in gaining access. However, it came with additional ethical
challenges which are explored elsewhere in this thesis.
A qualitative approach to data collection and a qualitative analysis of the documents and
interviews influenced by critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2010; Leeuwen, van,
2008) were best suited to allow me to get at the ways broader policy affects discussion
on structural inequality. The main benefit of a critical approach to a case study is that it
aims to understand power relations and dichotomies in contexts in which they normally
remain unspoken. However, one of the major critiques of this method of analysis is that
the method brings external (etic) categories and interpretations to analyze certain texts
in ways in which people that created them/use them would probably not (emic)
(Matheson, 200.). The risk is that I, as researcher and interpreter, would be able to be
accused of ‘over-reading’ or exaggerating based on my own personal agenda and
political persuasion, the aim becoming ‘critique rather than understanding’ (ibid.: 8).
One of the ways to counter this methodological pitfall, according to Matheson, is to
enhance the critical analysis with broader triangulation, as I aimed to do, and by
allowing understanding of the material to not mean consensus with its framing (ibid:
27
2.4 Case: Instroomhuis
5The Instroomhuis was founded in 2008 as part of a national project, Action Plan Social
Shelters (PvAMO) [Plan van Aanpak Maatschappelijke Opvang], coordinated by the
Dutch Government to eradicate homelessness. The Instroomhuis was to be a
one-stop-shop, where multiple organizations worked together to provide streamlined,
personalized care to the homeless populations in Amsterdam. The partnership of social
work organizations Leger des Heils and HVO Querido, the Health Department (GGD),
the municipal Work and Income Services (DWI), and the mental health and
rehabilitation organization, Mentrum, in this location was to ensure a centralized,
integrated chain-approach to homelessness. It would increase partnership, enhance
communication, ensure professionalization, promote efficiency, and, most importantly,
ensure that the oft lengthy time on the street of the homeless population would decrease
significantly.
2.5 Participants
The social professionals in the Instroomhuis are divided across three teams: the shelter
[nachtopvang], the Central Access Point [Centrale Toegang] (CT) and, since December
2014, the Central Access Point Protected Housing [Centrale Toegang Beschermd
Wonen] (CTBW).The shelter houses 50 people at a time and is run by social
pedagogical workers [Sociaal Pedagogisch Werkers] (SPW)6, who are responsible for
life in the shelter, maintaining a civil atmosphere, engaging residents on a personal level
5
For a description of the process of gaining access to the Instroomhuis see Annex 1
6
The stated requirement for SPW is an associates degree in Social Work or Social and Cultural Work, or its equivalent in either education or work experience (two years education in a four year bachelor would suffice). (OAW Welzijn en Maatschappelijke Dienstverlening, 2008).
28
and motivating them to meet the requirements of the process (attend additional
screenings). SPW also report individual behavior and conversations they have with or
observe between homeless individuals in the digital system (Clever). In the CT contact
persons7 are responsible for conducting intakes and case management of homeless
individuals in the shelter or in ambulatory pathways (see below). The CTBW is a new
initiative that adopted the centralized approach that has been common to Social Shelters
within the PvAMO. Their focus is on individuals, homeless or otherwise, who have a
psychiatric or physical need for housing with support present around the clock.
The 11 participants in my case study were selected from the two social organizations
working in the Instroomhuis either as a Social Pedagogical Worker at the associate’s
degree level (SPW2) [Sociaal Pedagogisch Medewerker 2] or as a Caseworker at
Bachelor level [Contactpersoon]. I also interviewed on person from middle
management. Three respondents were male, and eight were female. Six respondents
were from ethnic minorities and five were white Dutch.
2.6 Data collection and analysis
I collected three types of data. Firstly, I chose project documents of the Action Plan
Social Shelter (PvAMO) [Plan van Aanpak Maatschappelijke Opvang] as part of which the Instroomhuis was founded. These documents were mostly found online. For the
selection of these documents I used the following criteria: most importantly, they
needed to relate to the policies and policy shifts surrounding homelessness in
7
The stated requirement for CT is an Bachelor degree in Social Work or Social and Cultural Work, or its equivalent in either education or work experience (OAW Welzijn en Maatschappelijke Dienstverlening, 2008).
29
Amsterdam as they pertained to the case study. The Instroomhuis was founded in 2008
as a result of a joined product between the four big cities (G4) of the Netherlands:
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. I therefore limited my scope to
governmental and municipal policy documents with regards to the project PvAMO and
its follow-up that were produced from 2006 onwards.
Secondly, it was important to sketch the rapidly changing political discourse that took
place over the same period of time, which saw not one but two major adaptations in
social policy. I therefore opted to include two policy documents concerning the Social
Support Act of 2007 (WMO) [Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning] and its successor,
the Social Support Act 2015 (WMO2015).
Thirdly, during the research process, I noticed that the social work methodology
Herstelgericht Werken (in English: Illness Management and Recovery) had become imperative within the context of the social shelters. The speedy implementation of this
methodological framework influenced the ways in which people spoke of their work
setting. Therefore, a methodology description of Systematisch Rehabilitatiegericht
Werken (Systematic Rehabilitation Focused Action) by Movisie8 was included in the
analysis.
Fourthly, semi-structured interviews and a focus group with employees within the
homeless shelter were conducted. All 20 employees working for the two social
organizations were contact via email to request their participation to both a focus group
8
Movisie is the Dutch national research centre for social issues such as welfare, participation, social care and social safety.
30
and an individual interview. This was done after gaining permission from the
management of the Instroomhuis. Attached in the email was a description of the
research, the time investment and the consent form. The initial response rate to this
e-mail was 10%. Due to my familiarity with the respondents and my presence in the
homeless shelter as a co-worker, the response rate went up in the following weeks to
55%.
The intention was to conduct two focus groups to address general discursive patterns,
and interview the participants in each focus group to gain a better understanding of their
personal relation to the subject. However, the limitation of working in a 24-hour shelter
made it difficult to pinpoint joint availability of participants. Therefore only one focus
group was conducted with 5 participants, diversified by organization, work level and
seniority. The focus group session lasted one hour and 16 minutes. Four out of the five
participants to the focus group were interviewed individually. The other individual was
not available for a one-on-one interview, due to other obligations. Six additional
participants were interviewed without participation in a focus group. In total ten
interviews were conducted. On average the interviews lasted about one hour, with the
shortest being 50 minutes and the longest being 1 hour and 43 minutes. Finally,
additional conversations with co-worker participants outside of the interview settings
were documented using daily field notes after working hours.
The interviews were transcribed and coded using ATLAS.ti. Codes were developed
using both the concepts from the theoretical framework developed and concepts that
31
2.7 Instrumentation
For the purpose of the semi-structured interview, I created a short list of cues and
questions (see appendix). However, as is the nature of semi-structured interviews, these
prompts merely served as a guideline. For the focus group I adapted an instrument
generally used to elicit debate within social work training. This list of propositions (see
appendix) was used to initiate the debate on structural inequality within the focus group.
2.8 Ethical considerations
Upon beginning this research project I expected many of the ethical challenges to arise
from my previous and current relationship to the homelessness sector. I expected them
to come with strings attached in the form of expectations and norms concerning my
roles within the organization. I felt the issues that may arise from the power dynamics
of an employee of the service interviewing vulnerable individuals using the service
would be too complex to navigate in the span of two months. My multiple role as
employee and researcher would give rise to conflicting obligations. For example, as a
researcher, my commitment to confidentiality would be juxtaposed with my duty as an
employee to disclose information that may be relevant to the trajectory of the service
user. Moreover, my presence in the homeless shelter as a colleague and familiarity with
the respondents may have influenced the response rate.
Since this research project was relatively short, I attempted to avoid many of these
tensions primarily by focusing on individuals working in the shelter, rather than service
users. This decision was spurred along by the inability to gain ethical clearance to
conduct vulnerable group research. Although I stand by that decision because of the
32
I realize I would now make a different decision. My approach has excluded a crucial
element to the issues discussed in this project: the voices of service users. Who better to
speak on the discourses surrounding migration, race and homelessness within the
shelters than those who live the experience? This give rise to some of the question I will
be grappling with for the months and years to come: who benefits from an emphasis on
vulnerability in research ethics? If research ethics eventually lead to the exclusion of the
voices of the vulnerable from academic scholarship, are they still ethical? What are the
ramifications of researching a setting in which you are simultaneously employed, how
does it affect my judgment, my rigor, my approach and my positionality? How will I
navigate these matters in the future? These are slow question, which will not be
answered from one day to the next. Further reflections can be found in chapter 7.
2.9 Relevance and limitations
My thesis topic is relevant to migration/integration studies and social work. My thesis
will touch upon migrant incorporation in host cultures and the way in which general
forms of exclusion affect migrants. Social work over the past years has increasingly
become aware of culturally sensitive praxis and intercultural communication. However,
this thesis will address the ways in which ethno-racial inequality interlinks with
economic and social exclusion, to create a homeless population that is predominantly
from minority groups. Individualizing discourses may obfuscate the structural
inequalities that leave migrant men more susceptible to homelessness. Unpacking these
interconnections will provide social work practitioners and policy makers with the
ability to create counter narratives that serve to repoliticize homelessness. This could
serve as a starting point to rethink what is good practice in the struggle against
33
There are several limitations to my approach. Firstly, the limited time-frame allows for
a very narrow approach to the material. This thesis has to therefore be seen as
preliminary research into something that deserves wider attention. Secondly, more
research is needed into the lived experiences of black, migrant and refugee homeless
individuals and their view on the ways in which intersection exclusions shape their
experiences while being homeless.
2.10 Conclusion
This thesis sets out to examine how individualizing discourses on homelessness shape
the prevention of homelessness among migrants and ethnic minorities in Amsterdam.
Considering the framing of this research question, a critical discourse analysis of widely collected qualitative data was best suited to gain an understanding in the way discourses give rise to intervention that may or may not address structural inequality. The
Instroomhuis within its political and institutional context was selected as a case study
34
Chapter 3: Individualizing Homelessness
3.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the political and policy context of Dutch homelessness. It also
describes the ways in which this configuration is contested in literature and in the
stories of the professionals who work within this setting. In order to do so I will also
draw from policy documents, respondents, and my own insider knowledge of the
context.
This chapter will also examine the way in which homelessness has been framed during
the development and implementation of the PvAMO since 2006. It will demonstrate that
the classification of homeless individuals from the inception of this project has
primarily been in terms of psychiatric illness, criminal background or both. It will
explore how these discourses are used to frame homelessness as an individual
pathology, warranting interventions at the individual level. Despite data that became
evident during the course of this project, that demonstrated the limitations of a focus on
disease and disorder, the individual framing has remained prevalent and intensified in
the past decade.
3.2 Legal restructuring: Social Security Act (WMO)
Essential for the implementation of the PvAMO and the start of the Instroomhuis was a
shift of the financial responsibility for care and welfare from the state to the
municipalities. In 2007, the Social Security Act [Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning]
(WMO) was introduced in the Netherlands. This Act forms the basis for all welfare
policies in the Netherlands. At its inception, the WMO was heralded as means through
35
to professionalize social organizations. It gave municipalities the control of welfare
policies, requiring them to invite tenders for social services.
Many responsibilities for the provision of welfare that up until the introduction of the
WMO were the responsibility of the state were outsourced to municipalities. The main
theme of the WMO was self-sufficiency: citizens were expected to do things themselves
to the extent to which they could, only appealing to state or municipal provision if and
when they themselves or the people around them could no longer carry the burden.
The introduction of this law changed the vision of social interventions and the role of
social organizations. Their task was no longer to provide welfare, but to support the
citizen in his quest for welfare. Long term support became limited to those with the
diagnosis that made them eligible. The successor of this act, the WMO2015 was
introduced on January 1st, 2015 shifting more administrative responsibility to
municipalities, and emphasizing self-reliance of citizens even more. Whereas the
original WMO left some welfare responsibilities to the state, under the WMO2015,
welfare and care are the full responsibility of the municipalities. More importantly,
within the WMO2015 the citizen is required to deplete all other options for support
before looking to the government for help (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014).
As part of the introduction of the WMO, the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Bijstand
(AWBZ) or General Act Extra-ordinary Support underwent significant transformations.
The AWBZ is generally referred to as a provision by the government for long term care
and medical risks that are not covered by general health insurance. Since January 2015
this act has been replaced with Act Long Term Care [Wet Langdurige Zorg] (WLZ),
36
tasks have become the responsibility of municipalities, who simultaneously have to
promote self-sufficiency.9
The WMO has been criticized for being managerialist in its intentions, for lacking a
well-founded vision on care and welfare, for increasing the gender divide by
exacerbating the care responsibilities of women, for allowing the state to meddle in
private affairs and for being an austerity measure (Houten, 2005). However, it has been
widely implemented, partially because of the politically felt need that the social
organizations and welfare in general were to professionalize and become more efficient
in order to prove its merit (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport, 2010).
The introduction of the WMO therefore gave rise to a ‘New Style of Welfare’ [Welzijn
Nieuwe Stijl], a program published by the Department of Public Health, Welfare and Sport [Ministerie VWS] (ibid.). This political document revamped social intervention,
pushing for a more individual, strengths based and financially efficient approach.
3.3 Action Plan Social Shelter - Plan van Aanpak Maatschappelijke Opvang
The introduction of the first WMO paved the way for the implementation of the
PvAMO. As part of the PvAMO 21,000 individuals throughout the Netherlands were
given an integrated personal plan. Of these individuals 11,000 were able to secure a
stable income, stable housing (be it within the social services or in independent
housing) and structural support (Tuynman & Planije, 2014, p. 6). Moreover, the
evaluation documents claim that the implementation of this plan was instrumental in a
9
It is important to note that long term care is paid for from the budgets of these acts, this includes housing within a social shelter that serve homeless individuals with a diagnosis. This forms an incentive for social organizations to submit to the medicalized perspective as discussed below.
37
reduction of public disturbance and crime by homeless individuals by 53%, and a
decrease in evictions by 22% as compared to 2005 (ibid.). Despite this gargantuan
national effort - that required coordination of resources, agencies, policies and
professional capacity – the PvAMO has been unable to address some of the root causes
of homelessness or the forces that create stagnation in the process. This includes both
internal and external forces such as the lack of affordable housing, slow outflow of
vulnerable homeless individuals, economic downturns (ibid.: p. 11), increase in levels
of debt, high unemployment levels in the youngest and oldest segments of the
population, rising levels of rent, deinstitutionalization of people with severe psychiatric
symptoms, and budget cuts (Federatie Opvang, 2013).
The exact number of homeless people in the Netherlands remains elusive. The transient
nature of the homeless population makes it difficult to put a number on the homeless
population in The Netherlands or in Amsterdam. Moreover, the inherent bureaucratic
invisibility and the lack of registration in municipalities add to the elusiveness of the
homeless population. Similarly, certain homeless individuals, although not having a
place to call their own, can rely on support of family and friends. This may prevent
them from showing up in statistics. Simultaneously, methods of counting the homeless
population are far from uniform: from counting rough sleepers only, to including those
in precarious forms of housing in which they are not the primary tenant or owner, to
including all those who make use of some form of social shelter (even when not
previously unhoused). Hence the estimates on the make-up of the homeless population
vary wildly. Nationally the number of unique (previously) homeless individuals known
to the system has increased from 55,230 in 2010 to 60,550 in 2013 (Federatie Opvang,
38
homeless for the first time. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics the national
homeless population – not including non-nationals or irregular migrants - went up from
23,000 in 2010 to 27,000 in 2012 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2015).
notwithstanding the disparate numbers, the consensus seems to be that homelessness is
on the rise in spite of the implementation of PvAMO.
3.4 Medicalizing homelessness
From its inception the PvAMO was mainly focused on an estimated ’21,800 people in
very vulnerable situations’ within the four major cities of The Netherlands: Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht - also called the G4 (Rijk, 2006: 6). Of these 21,800
individuals 7,650 were assumed to be factually homeless10 and 2,500 were living in
shelters within the G4, while the rest was considered ‘at risk of becoming homeless’
(ibid.: 7). This presumed reservoir of (potentially) homeless individuals was categorized
as vulnerable (see figure 1) because they ‘cannot solve their problems’ or ‘provide
themselves with means of existence’ due to ‘psychiatric disorders (including problems
with addiction) or (…) severe psychosocial problems’, and ‘simultaneously have
multiple problems in other areas’ (ibid.: 6).
10
Defined in the same document as ‘persons who do not have their own living space and for a place to sleep depend on: sleeping rough (…), sleeping inside walk-in shelters (…) including crisis shelters, sleep inside with friends, acquaintances or family without the prospect for the next night’ (Rijk 2006:7)
39
Table 1a11: Categories of vulnerable people in the G4 (partially overlapping with Social Shelters)
Amsterdam Rotterdam The Hague
Utrecht Total
Long-term care dependents12 (chronic psychiatric clients), those languished and dilapidated13
6,000 7,000 4,400 4,400 21,800
Care-avoiders14 who generate disturbance 2,000 1,500 400 800 4,700 Multiple offenders
Addicted 1,100 600 350 350 2,400
Psychiatric disorder 400 350 250 118 1,118
Addicted and psychiatric disorder 400 350 300 100 1,150
Other 300 425 100 50 875
Total 2,200 1,725 1,000 618 5,543
Figure 1
The assumption here is that individuals who (may) become homeless do so primarily
because of their psychological or psychosocial state which interferes with their ability to
‘participate’ (ibid.). This image of the ‘classical homeless’ who is ‘addicted to hard
drugs, wandering with psychiatric problems’(Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011: 2) informed
the approach of the PvAMO with an emphasis on getting these individual off the streets.
Vulnerability is not seen as inherent to the precariousness and uncertainty that
accompanies homelessness, nor to the social inequalities that heighten the risk of
homelessness in specific segments of the Dutch population. The markers of
vulnerability are defined in terms of psychiatric illness, care, disorder and crime – the
latter only in combination with the former three.
11
This table is taken and translated from page 6 of ‘Plan van Aanpak Maatschappelijke Opvang’ (Rijk, 2006)
12
(literally translated from langdurig zorgafhankelijken), meaning those who are likely to be dependent upon support systems, such as shelters
13
(literally translated from verkommerden en verloederden)
14
(literally translated from zorgmijders), meaning those who actively avoid care or support systems provided by either the government or social organisations.
40
Within the discourse of the PvAMO, homelessness and the risk thereof are seen as
intricately connected if not inherent to the mental state of the individual and the way
they themselves affect their surroundings. Crime and disorderly conduct are cited as
consequences of homelessness.
‘A result of homelessness is, because of their wandering behavior and dilapidated state; they oftentimes cause disturbances in public spaces or commit crimes. (Rijk, 2006, p. 6)
This categorization used in the PvAMO is at the basis of the policy, policy documents,
project documents, PvAMO related research, PvAMO evaluations, and proposed
interventions from 2006 onwards. Discourses of mental illness, disturbance and crime
define the ways in which homeless people are imagined. More importantly, they have
become the foundation on which interventions aimed at homelessness are based.
The strands of homelessness, mental health, crime and disturbance have become
discursively intertwined. In the original PvAMO this connection was created in such a
way that the resolution of the former has become unfathomable without a partial
resolution of the latter three and vice versa. This discourse of deviance leads to
interventions of which the goal is not to merely challenge issues surrounding access to
affordable housing. The strong link between the idea of homelessness and deviance in
fact requires interventions that address forms of presumed individual deviance that leads
to homelessness, as illustrated by the next quote.
‘Realization of the primary goals would lead to a final situation within the four big cities that will contain the requirements that allows the 21,800 vulnerable people to participate within society within their realm of possibilities, without being a disturbance to their surroundings as a
result of homelessness and crime. This does not mean that deviant behavior is eradicated, that nobody will become homeless. There is a limit to the malleability of a society without
disturbance. “Deviant behavior” has always existed and the Dutch society will have to accept that. Be that as it may, when people meet their demise because of that behavior and/or cause
unacceptable disturbance, this calls for government intervention. It depends upon local
41
3.4.1 Positioning homeless people
The previous quote also paints an interesting relation between society and
vulnerable/homeless people. In this quote homelessness is linked to crime and is
primarily problematized by the disturbing effect this might have on the ‘surroundings’.
Individual ‘deviant behavior’ is seen as the primary cause of homelessness. It is
‘deviant behavior that has the potential to lead to the ‘demise’ of ‘vulnerable people’
into homelessness. Homelessness is thus portrayed as resulting from individual
deviance.
Society is portrayed as a unit, though not an uncontested one. Society is malleable
[maakbaar], but only limitedly so. Deviance is not portrayed as inherent to social order,
but as something outside of ‘Dutch society’ that the majority needs to accept as long as
it does not lead to ‘unacceptable disturbance’ for the majority. Society is therefore
reified as problemless. This reinforces the idea that the causes of homelessness should
not be sought within society but with homeless individuals.
One of the recurring goals of the PvAMO is the improve participation of the homeless
population. There is an assumption that the way in which homeless individuals relate to
the rest of society is somehow deviant from the norm, which is active citizenship and
participation. Rather than the idea that the homeless population is inherently part of
society and connected to it in variety of ways (family, public space, citizenship,
individual relations, friendships, social institutions), they are instead discursively placed
either outside, at the bottom or at the fringes of society.
After seven years the target group has be able to participate in society again, within its own realm of possibility (…) (Rijk, 2006, p. 4)
42
In this quote a division is made between society or surroundings and
vulnerable/homeless/criminal/deviant individuals. Primarily vulnerable people are
constructed as a source of disturbance, homelessness and crime that affects their
surroundings. The division between vulnerable individuals is further maintained by
contrasting them against a wider society in which said individuals are to be allowed to
participate ‘within their realm of possibility’. The assumption here is that participation
of the vulnerable is currently not acceptable because of ‘disturbance (…) as a result of
homelessness and crime’.
Although participation is said to happen ‘within their realm of possibility’, full
participation by vulnerable people according to their ability is not assumed. It is
something to be created rather than expanded on. Not acknowledging the ways in which
vulnerable people can and do participate and contribute to society and surroundings,
even when ‘deviant’, discursively places ‘vulnerable people’ outside of an otherwise
neutral society.
This positioning problematizes the homeless individual and invisibilizes structures
within society that contribute to the production of homelessness. The construction of
society as inherently problemless and the homeless individual as inherently flawed
warrants interventions that primarily target the individual rather than at society.
3.4.2 Contradicting discourse
As the PvAMO progressed there has been an increasing awareness of the fact that a
medicalizing framework preferences individuals with ‘diagnoses and multiple
problems’ to the exclusion of those individuals who do not have ‘severe, multiple
43
housing and shelters are primarily reserved for those who meet medicalized individual
criteria, access to emergency shelter is not given to those who are ‘merely’ homeless.
This group is offered financial aid and an employability program (ibid.) rather than
emergency housing. This approach is explained as follows:
‘The question is whether that [access to social shelter for people who are homeless without other issues] should happen. Relatively light problems are best suited for solutions that are not too invasive, and that do take over the responsibility from people who can carry that responsibility themselves’ ( (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011, p. 3).
Respondents state that in recent years there have been more interventions taken to aid
people who do not meet the medicalized criteria. These interventions include, but may
not be limited to, ‘increase of spaces in passantenhotels15’ and creating links to general
social work organizations16 to help individuals who are homeless but do not meet the
criteria for shelter. However, notions of self-sufficiency and shelterization, together
with austerity measures targeted at social projects that are not legitimized through
medical discourse, interfere with solutions that surpass prevention. This leaves
individuals whose homelessness is deemed by political discourse to be a ‘relatively
light’ problem, without interventions that address their immediate need for shelter. Nor
is homelessness among similar individuals prevented at the structural level.
15
Literally: passerby hotels, low-cost hostels for homeless individuals who do not meet the OGGZ criteria, are employed etc.
16
Between May 2011 and March 2012 a pilot called Maatschappelijke Dienstverlening Niet OGGZ (Social srvices non-OGGZ) was implemented where homeless individuals who were screened but did not meet criteria for social shelter were directed to general social work (Rina-Urbani, 2012). This project was deemed successful, but respondents indicate that it was not continued, probably due to financial
