THE NEW
NEIGHBOURS AT
STARTBLOK
A study of collaborative planning and the role of
communities in the development of temporary
housing for refugees in Amsterdam.
MASTER THESIS
Urban and Regional Planning
Author: Natalie Minetta Gardner (11362219)
Supervisor: Federico Savini
Co-‐reader: Anna Nikolaeva
Word count: c.16700 excld. references
Date submitted: 25th June 2017
Contents
Abstract ………..………...5
1. Introduction ………..………7
2. Background: Refugee Resettlement in the Netherlands ……….9
National policy………..……….9
Regional response………..………..10
Local implementation………..………12
3. Theoretical framework ………..………15
Temporary housing in resettlement………..………15
Defining temporary housing………..………..15
The role of housing in resettlement………..……..15
Delivery of temporary housing………..…………...17
Collaborative Planning ………..………..18
Basic principles ………..………18
Application in the real world………..………..19
Limitations………..……….20 4. Research design ………..………23 Research questions………..……….23 Conceptualisation………..………...24 Research methods………..………..27 5. Case study: Startblok Riekerhaven ………..………….29
The concept………..……….29
The neighbourhood………..………30
The method of delivery………..……….32
6. Analysis of collaborative processes in Startblok Riekerhaven……….35
Public engagement………..……….35
Transparent communication processes………..…………..39
Co-decision making………..………40
Relationship building………..………..42
Main learnings………..………..45
Achieving mutually acceptable outcomes……….45
Building awareness………..………..46
Unintentional collaboration………..………47
Limitations of research………..………...49
7. Conclusion………..………..51
Bibliography………..………53
Appendix A Interviewee List………..………..57
Abstract
Cities offer great opportunities for refugees. But cities are also facing challenges to keep up with balancing the needs of their refugees with the needs of their citizens. In the past two years, the Netherlands has received ‘record high’ numbers of asylum requests. For those that acquire refugee status, accessing accommodation is the next step towards establishing a life in the Netherlands. But financial and socio-cultural stigmatisation make initial access to the housing market difficult. In Amsterdam, this is exasperated by an additional factor; a shortage of affordable housing. In response, an emergence of purpose-built temporary housing on the margins of neighbourhoods has appeared to accommodate the new arrivals. The urban planning field recognises the role of collaborative, community involvement in facilitating both development of new housing and the integration of refugees. However, initial research into the development of temporary housing for refugees, returned little on the planning process and even less on the involvement of communities. Reflecting upon collaborative planning principles, the research focuses on a case study in Amsterdam Nieuw-West and explores the ways in which the community surrounding the development was included in the process. The findings indicate that community partnerships mostly occurred once the project was operational, often through the project’s inhabitants. Further, it showed the combination of new actors helped to achieve mutually acceptable outcomes and define new practices for the delivery of temporary housing. for refugees. Additionally, I hope to highlight that in our increasingly diversifying cities, a collaborative approach to planning has never been more relevant for bringing people of different interests together to form inclusive environments.
1. Introduction
More than 60% of refugees worldwide live in urban areas (UNHCR, 2016). Recent incidents of
conflict-induced displacement, such as the ongoing war in Syria and political regime change in Eritrea, continue to drive even more people into dense urban areas. Cities offer great opportunities for refugees. But cities are also facing challenges to balance the needs of their refugees with the needs of their citizens. The arrival of asylum seekers to the Netherlands poses a major challenge in the provision of housing. By the end of 2015, asylum requests to the Netherlands peaked at almost 60,000 applications (IND, 2016), of which 70% were granted refugee status (Capital Value, 2016). A place to stay on arrival in a new country is considered a ‘cornerstone’ of the resettlement and integration process of refugees (Zetter & Pearl, 2017). Often reception centres are the first point of residence. That said, minimising the time asylum seekers stay in reception centres is critical for their wellbeing, as prolonged stays in centres limit chances of participation in society and contribute to feelings of isolation.
In the Netherlands, refugee status entitles one to housing within a municipality. But like many European cities, the Netherlands are facing a shortage of affordable housing and they are looking for solutions to accommodate both their citizens and refugees (IFHP-Housing Refugee Report). A lack of good housing can have a negative effect on access to employment, education, and community services (Philips, 2016; Zetter & Pearl, 2017). In turn, delaying the chance to become a contributing member of society and in the longer-term, impacting upon social assistance costs to the host country. In response to the housing shortage, temporary solutions to accommodate asylum seekers and refugee status holders involved additional reception centres, reuse of vacant government buildings (e.g. prisons and schools) and prefabricated temporary units.
The rapid growth of asylum seekers coming to the Netherlands has caused an increasingly polarized debate from local communities in relation to the reception of refugees (Klaver, 2016). In several cases local governments were forced to withdraw their plans for reception centres, after fierce resistance from the inhabitants ((Klaver, 2016). Achieving an integrated approach to resettlement is more than just physical relocation, it requires cooperation with the local community. Neighbourhoods can help orientation and access to social networks, but also increase the sense of belonging (Phillips, 2006). The delivery of temporary housing is currently a collaboration between governmental partners, who are looking for methods that lessen tensions and promote integration.
The primary challenge described above is an age an old dilemma of planning; understanding how best to promote co-existence within diversifying cities. This research explores the development of one temporary housing project as an exercise in planning that opens a dialogue between communities and housing developers to achieve mutually acceptable goals and create a collaborative environment for the two communities to integrate
2. Background: Refugee Resettlement in the Netherlands
The provision of housing for refugees is part of the larger topic of refugee resettlement. This section
introduces the background regarding the terminology, trends, processes and actors involved in resettling refugees at a national through to local scale in the Netherlands. In so doing, I wish to not only illustrate the mechanisms behind the case study project, Startblok Riekerhaven, but to also situate the challenge of housing as an increasingly relevant issue that requires collaboration at all levels of governance.
National policy
An important first step towards understanding resettlement efforts is to define the “refugee’ in the process.
Definition of Refugee, Convention of 1951, Article 1A (2):
"[an individual with] a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."
It’s increasingly common to see the terms 'refugee', ‘asylum seeker’ and 'migrant' being used interchangeably in media and public discourse. However, addressing all groups under the same moniker, neglects the degree of resident status, and thus entitlement, to housing each receives. In this research, refugees are defined a step further than the Geneva convention. From now on in the text, the status of ‘refugee’ is akin to the Dutch term Statushouders (or Status holders); those who have gone through the asylum procedure and received a temporary residence permit, legally entitling them to housing within a municipality of the Netherlands. In contrast, those pending a residence permit are asylum seekers.
The Netherlands has made several agreements in the last decades to receive refugees. It was one of the first European countries to be affiliated with the United Nations Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) resettlement plan, starting in 1984. The programme offers refugees an opportunity to settle in another country, other than the one they initially claim asylum in. The Netherlands’ original commitment of 500 invitations of resettlement has only in recent years been surpassed, reaching 790 in 2014, in response to humanitarian crises.). In addition, but separate to the UNHCR’s resettlement plan, the Netherlands
receives on average between 10,000 to 20,000 asylum requests annually (Klaver, 2016). In 2015, after a European wide diaspora, applications reached a record high of almost 60,000 (ibid). The situation was common across Europe and another resettlement target was set to ‘share’ the response effort. 120,000 refugees are to be distributed across the various EU member states over the next two years, of which the Netherlands will receive around 7,000 (Government of The Netherlands, 2016). The agreed quota is indicative of how many individuals The Netherlands believes they have the capacity to support.
The journey from the initial application for asylum through to resettlement in a community is predominantly orchestrated between the Dutch government and several independent national bodies. The Immigratie en Naturalisatiedienst (Immigration and Naturalisation service or IND), under the Ministry of Safety and Justices, is responsible for the processing of asylum applications. And the Centraal orgaan oplang Asielzoekers (Central Agency for Asylum Seekers or COA) is charged with responsibility of accommodating asylum seekers in reception centres, during the time the IND processes their requests. a safe home until asylum seeker finds housing with the municipality. On arrival, all asylum seekers are processed through the central reception centre in the Groningen Province, before being reassigned to reception centres across the Netherlands. During the application processing time, asylum seekers are confined to the reception centres to await a decision. Not all requests are accepted and of the 58,880 requests (Immigratie-en Naturalisatiedienst, 2015) in 2015, it is estimated 16,450 refugees received a status in the Netherlands (Klaver, 2016). After a residence permit has been granted to the refugee, the responsibility to resettle goes to the municipalities who are legally required to provide accommodation.
Regional response
In the late eighties, the first asylum seekers centres (AZCs) were founded as an intermediate step before finding (social) housing through the municipality. What was originally intended as an emergency measure became standard (Vluchtelingenwerk, 2017) as municipalities struggled to keep up with the demand to provide social housing. A major obstacle municipalities face is that about half of the asylum seekers who arrived in the Netherlands last year were single men, whilst social housing is mostly designed for families (Pieters, 2016). This is exasperated by pre-existing strains on the social housing system. As cities face a shortage of affordable housing they are looking for solutions to accommodate both the needs of their citizens and those of the refugees (IFHP-Housing Refugee Report). The lack of accessible accommodation has caused a bottleneck to resettlement. Refugees with residence permits are staying longer in reception centres and occupying rooms of those waiting to apply. Today it is estimated that municipalities have resettled more than 19,000 refugees into housing (opnieuwhuis.nl), but there is still a prevalent backlog requiring a place to start life.
Minimising the time asylum seekers stay in the AZCs is critical for their wellbeing, as prolonged time in AZCs can limit chances of participation in society and contribute to isolation. Once every six months the Dutch central government set the municipalities a target for the number of refugees they are to house in the coming period (COA, 2017). This figure is based on the number of people expected to
be granted a residence permit and is also relative to the size of the municipality. During 2015, the increased demand led the central government to coordinate municipalities and provinces to supply additional reception centres and provide more housing. And although national sentiment for the increased arrival of asylum seekers was supportive, at the municipal level the increased reception centres were met with resistance:
Klaver, 2016, Local responses to the refugee crisis in the Netherlands;
“In several cases local governments were forced to withdraw their plans after fierce resistance from the inhabitants. Opposition to (large scale) reception centres was often motivated by fears about social safety, rising crime and the possible presence of Islamic terrorists among the asylum seekers…At the other extreme, the Netherlands witnessed a growing group of thousands of volunteers willing to help…People donated clothing and blankets to the crisis reception centres which sometimes had to be organized overnight and were involved in organizing various activities for the temporary residents at these locations.”
The central government gave municipalities relative autonomy to address the housing shortage in their jurisdiction. And as is common, necessity paved the way for invention and several incentive schemes and alternative forms of housing appeared in across cities throughout the Netherlands. In the absence of a national framework for resettlement at a municipal level, online platform Opnieuwhuis was created as a collaborative effort to communicate these best practices across the municipalities so they can be applied to a particular context. Featured practices include:
• Subsidised housing for refugees- an incentive to accelerate the construction of additional housing capacity for refugees. A subsidy amount available of €6,250 per refugee 18 or older who is housed. Developers must also meet other housing standards and criteria.
• Use of vacant government buildings- central government is going to make vacant government buildings (like offices and barracks) available to municipalities for housing status holders. It is intended to ease the pressure on existing social housing demands.
• The Temporary incentive scheme- enables municipalities, housing associations and other landlords to apply for a grant from the central government to build and renovate social housing. One condition for obtaining a grant is that at least 4 asylum seekers must be able to live in the new accommodation.
Further, to communicate the resettlement task at hand, Opnieuwhuis developed a visualization of resettlement at both provincial and municipal levels (Figure 1). The tool is publically accessible, however it’s usage is limited. Incorporating statistics on available and planned housing stock could turn this tool from informative to actionable.
Figure 1 Map indicating whether municipalities were on schedule to reach their target for resettling status holder,
during the last 6 months of 2016. Dark turquoise: well on track; monthly average of the target is met.Medium
turquoise: slightly behind schedule; compared to monthly average or has a limited backlog. Light blue: behind schedule; far below monthly average of task. Source: adapted from Platform Opnieuwhuis, 2017
Local implementation
The attention now turns to the municipality at the centre of this research; Amsterdam. Amsterdam’s local response to accommodating refugees has been riddled with challenges. In the second half of 2016 the City of Amsterdam was set a target by the central government to accommodate just over 2000 refugees and realised 54% of this figure (Figure 1) (Opnieuwhuis, n.d.). This is comparatively low when you consider Den Haag and Rotterdam achieved 70% and 74% respectively for the same time period (Opnieuwhuis, n.d.). The capital is experiencing a ‘surge in [population] growth’, ‘scarcity in land’ to build on and rising house prices (Ette et al., 2016). Perhaps the municipality’s greatest asset is maintaining ownership over most of the land within its boundaries, which has enabled local government to exert a strong influence on what kind of housing is constructed (Veer & Schuiling, 2005). However, local governments do not produce or transform housing themselves (ibid) but instead rely on a collaboration with Housing Associations (HAs). The 14 not-for-profit HAs of Amsterdam “account for almost 80% of the new housing” built (ibid). In times of urgency the city has relied on HAs to provide housing stock (post WWII). In return the HAs rely on the local government to grant affordable acquisition of land to build on and accompanying permissions (Veer & Schuiling, 2005).
The task to provide accommodation for refugees requires the same collaboration between the two actors. Reportedly, the municipality along with the HAs aim to deliver 1,000 additional homes in temporary locations intended for young people, students and refugees (Housing Europe, 2016; Obbink, 2016). Mixing these groups in new developments has become a prerequisite in an effort to foster integrated communities (housingeurope, 2016). Startblok Riekerhaven is one of an emerging group of conceptual projects that combine young Dutch citizens with young refugees (Amsterdam district Nieuw-West will see two more similar projects later in 2017). In her report on the ‘Local responses to the refugee crisis in the Netherlands’, Klaver notes that the reaction at local levels towards refugee centres has been mixed at best. Still, public opinion polls indicate that there is significant support for the reception of refugees and a substantial willingness to familiarise refugees with the surrounding neighbourhood (Klaver, 2016).
The Dutch central government has clearly defined objectives for accommodate a backlog of refugees still dwelling in AZCs. However, as local municipalities, HAs and planners embark on this task, they face the greater challenge of navigating local implications of the nationally set targets. The role of academia in this is to study the structures, relationships and processes in place that enable them to meet this target in a harmonious and beneficial way to both host and refugee. If not to find improvements, then to share observations of best practices.
3. Theoretical Framework
Each year, more than 30 million people worldwide are displaced by disaster, development, and conflict
(Faas et al., 2015) driving even more people into already dense urban areas. It is an enduring challenge, one which requires balancing resettlement of the displaced with the host communities, in order to achieve integration. This section observes the literature of two concepts relevant to resettlement; Temporary Housing and Collaborative Planning. The two create a frame through which to view the ‘problem’ and the Analysis (section 6).
Temporary housing in resettlement
Defining temporary housing
Temporary housing can take on various forms; from rented apartments to basic tents. The temporality refers to its purpose as an intermediate shelter before a person returns to their original or stable housing option (Lévy-Vroelant, 2012). They may be built in response to urban renewal, natural disasters (Félix et al., 2013; Johnson, 2007), forced labour migration or, as is the focus of this research, conflict-induced displacement. Regardless of the causation, it’s defining characteristic across the literature portrays it as an exception from the ‘normal’ housing stock brought about by ‘abnormal’ circumstances (Lévy-Vroelant, 2012). Although characteristically ad-hoc, ‘abnormal circumstances’ such as disaster relief, have become relatively predictable allowing for governance to develop response frameworks. Sadly, conflict-induced displacement seems likely to increase and as such large numbers of refugees may not be able to return to their homelands. Currently, theories on temporary housing response for refugees feature as one phase of a larger framework on resettlement including education, employment and active citizenship ( UNHCR, 2013, 2015). This trend in the literature signals that temporary housing’s basic function is evolving from that of emergency shelter to a tool for integration in host societies. For the purpose of the research I differentiate temporary housing from emergency shelter, as accommodation intended for use up to a few years and as a transitionary stage before permanent housing.
The role of housing in resettlement
A place to stay on arrival in a new country is considered a ‘cornerstone’ of the resettlement and integration process of refugees (Zetter & Pearl, 2017). When a person is displaced due to conflict, the consequences are greater than the physical act alone. Landlessness; homelessness; joblessness; economic marginalisation; increased morbidity; food insecurity; loss of access to common property; and social disintegration (Cernea, 2000). Cernea’s ‘impoverishment risks’ are an attempt to operationalise the effects of displacement into a framework to aid priority setting in resettlement
planning. In an urban context, addressing homelessness is a high priority. More than just a shelter, temporary housing grants the stability to order life in the new country (Carter, 2008; Dutch Refugee Council, 1999). Additionally, unlike confined refugee camps, temporary housing is credited with granting opportunities for engagement with the host community. Accounts of recently arrived refugees link a lack of appropriate housing to the disruption of education, employment, health, belonging and family reunification (Carter, Polevychok, Friesen, & Osborne, 2008; Murdie, 2008; UNHCR, 2013).
Dutch Refugee Council, 1999:
“A home provides security and privacy … It is this notion of feeling safe that makes housing such a key-issue in integration for refugees. Once a refugee feels safe in the place where he is staying, one of the basic needs for starting to build on a new life has been fulfilled”
Until now the discussion has focused mainly on the individual benefits of housing for the individual refugee. But, historically housing has been the principal means through which we’ve supported our individuals and societies (e.g. through Housing Acts). Carter and Polevychok in their work ‘Housing is Good Social Policy’ assert that housing can also serve the economic interests of the host society.
Carter & Polevychok, 2004 in Carter, 2008:
“Secure housing establishes the circumstances for access to other formal and informal supports and networks. Good housing for immigrants facilitates and reduces the length of the resettlement and integration process. Good housing also reduces long-term costs to society in other areas such as health, education, social assistance and employment insurance.”
The phrase ‘Good housing’ should be stressed as not all housing is beneficial. Despite the emphasis placed on housing, experiences of refugees in the private rental market are overwhelmingly negative, including poor housing conditions; discrimination and extortion by landlords (Philips, 2006; Carter et al., 2008; Murdie, 2008). This in turn leaves them vulnerable and intensifies their social exclusion. The provision of social housing is one way public authorities can ensure access to decent and affordable housing to promote social cohesion and to facilitate the integration of migrants and refugees in society. Although one could easily resign to the idea that the private rental market is in the business of extortion, perhaps it is more constructive to ask why those most vulnerable are forced to turn to it in the first place?
Access to the housing market is often complex for refugees, be that for economic (market availability) or social (language barriers) reasons. Whilst studying the experiences of refugees in Toronto, Murdie observed that although immigrants and refugees face similar problems as ‘native’ low-income households, the former two may face additional obstacles such as limited finances and an absence of social network supports (Murdie, 2008) to help them find accommodation. But what drives them to this vulnerable place? The root cause is a shortage of housing stock and choice. In an interview on the influx of refugees to Germany, Director of the Deutsches Architekturmuseum, stated poignantly "We don't have a refugee crisis, we have a housing crisis” (Dullroy, 2016). A view that is also reflected in The Urban Agenda for the EU which identified a shortage of affordable housing options as a ‘bottleneck’ towards integration in cities. Cities, such as Amsterdam, struggle to provide access to affordable housing to meet the needs of refugees and migrants without displacing the needs of their citizens.
Five solutions emerge from the literature: 1) to offer existing social housing (Carter, 2008; Phillips, 2006; Zetter & Pearl 2017); 2) to build new social housing (Opnieuwhuis, n.d.); 3) to transform existing (empty) buildings (e.g. schools, offices, private residential building) into housing (Deprez & Labattut, 2016); 4) to subsidise the private rental sector to provide adequate affordable housing (Opnieuwhuis, n.d.) and 5) to build quick construct temporary units (Levy-Vroelant, 2012; Zhang et al. 2016). Option 1 appears as the most favourable in enabling public authorities to ensure ‘good housing’ standards are met. However, a lack of social housing stock means the other options must be considered. From a project management perspective options 2, 3, are more complex and may face longer development times. Encumbered by planning permissions the development may take longer that the urgent need for housing. Option 5 ‘to build quick construct temporary units’ is a growing solution, especially reusable containers or frames that can serve a purpose outside of accommodating refugees. The case study of this research, Startblok Riekerhaven, falls into this category.
Delivery of temporary housing
Once a decision has been made to build extra stock, location and density are the next consideration. The debate pivots between the benefits of remoteness vs. inclusivity. We know this thanks to an emergent collection of research into the local reception of refugees in Europe (Klaver, 2016; Phillips, 2006; Zetter & Pearl, 2017; Zorlu, 2016). Perhaps in part due to the increased quantity of asylum seeker centres (AZCs) opened in the last two years. Refugee housing developments often require vacant land, which is found in the outskirts of cities or on the margins of pre-exiting neighbourhoods ((Phillips, 2006)). On the one hand, developments on the outskirts of cities have access to vacant, usually cheaper land. The absence of an existing neighbourhoods can also reduce chances for objection. But shelters on the outskirts of cities have also been critiqued for resembling “low-rise, barrack-style” accommodation (Oliver Elser in Dullroy, 2016) that serve only to isolate and exclude the inhabitants further.
At the other end of the spectrum, locating a housing development on the margins of a pre-exiting neighbourhood attracts its own problems. In his work on the attitudes of Dutch communities towards nearby AZCs, Zorlu echoes what we see playing out in the media; the social dilemma of humanitarian compassion to help refugees conflicted by ‘Nimbyism’ (Zorlu, 2016). Nimbyism, the ‘Not in my back yard’ movement, is rooted in our aversion to change in our surrounds. The general consensus may support the building of housing for refugees, so long as it does not disrupt one’s routine and comfort zone. In the specific context of accommodating refugees, there is an additional motivation behind opposition; fear. In her work on local responses to AZCs, Klaver writes of fears about social safety and, in extreme cases, “the possible presence of Islamic terrorists among the asylum seekers” (Klaver, 2016). Zorlu and Phillips have also suggested a relationship between the social demography in the receiving community and their attitudes towards reception centres. Their findings indicate that persons enjoying “stronger socio-economic security” are significantly less likely to hold negative attitudes (Zorlu, 2016) whilst areas of poverty, community fragmentation and over-stretched resources are more likely to suffer tensions with “negatively labelled” newcomers (Phillips, 2006).
When located near a host community, temporary housing not only provides shelter but can promote strong social, economic and cultural ties to develop. It does this through creating spaces of informal conversation and social interaction. Through the exchange of local knowledge and of processes,
refugees can overcome some of cultural obstacles and become more self-reliant. One approach to cultivating these relationships lends from the UNHCR ‘Community Approach’ (UNHCR, 2015; Pascucci, 2017) which involves activities such as holding consultations with community representatives about the location, mobilizing resources and networks to accommodate the refugees. If we take the stance that housing is the primary means of establishing life in a community, the development phases of temporary housing provides an occasion to acquaint locals and refugee residents. Who together can work to ensure mutually acceptable outcomes are achieved.
Collaborative Planning
Basic principles of collaborative planning
Collaborative planning has become a fundamental element of creating our urban spaces. It is an approach to urban planning that gathers stakeholders and engages them in a process to make decisions together in a manner that respects the positions of all involved (Healey, 1997). The collaborative paradigm idealises, that above all planning is an interactive, communicative activity (Innes, 1995). Which in turn has made it a favourable approach for reducing conflict between diverse actors (Ponzini & Palermo, 2009). My research continues a literary trend of exploring how planners can coordinate with communities on politically sensitive topics (National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI), 2008; Roy, 2015; Sandercock, 2000) through collaborative planning. As with any theory, the paradigm is open to interpretation. In this paper, I borrow a combination of theories from the work of Arnstein, Healey, Innes & Booher and Sandercock to build my own interpretation of collaboration through which to explore the case study.
Collaborative planning rose to prominence in the 1990s (attributed to Patsy Healey), as an alternative paradigm from tradition models of rational spatial planning. During the late 1980s in western Europe, our cities began to decentralise their governance; opting for an institutional design that redistributed power over the delivery of services (such as housing) to the private sector and local communities. The mechanisms through which urban issues were discussed and managed also changed to reflect the new diversity of agendas, power-relations and personalities. A communicative approach, focusing on consensus building and collaboration was key in coordinating the multiple actors. As such, collaborative planning is more than an act of participation in which diverse ideas are gathered; it’s a means of establishingpartnerships.
Based on the collaborative planning approach as described by Healey, we can surmise seven basic principles. Collaborative planning is: (1) an interactive and interpretative process; (2) undertaken among diverse communities; (3) organised in ways which require respectful interpersonal and inter-cultural discussion within the public realm; (4) focused on the arenas where public discussion takes place and where problems are identified, strategies are evaluated and conflicts mediated; (5) a means to opening up discussions which, in turn, generate new inclusionary planning rhetoric; (6) a chance for participants to gain new knowledge of other participants in addition to learning new things about themselves, their relations, interests, values, and understandings; (7) a process that enables participants to achieve their goals in mutually acceptable ways (Healey, 1997, 1998). Such an approach is in theory more efficient
as it creates opportunities for objections and ideas to be debated in the early stages of a development. Rather than once a development has been realised in brick and mortar.
Collaborative planning is not a simple agreement to work together, rather it must be nurtured through governance systems. An alternative name for this is the institutional design. Healey reveals that institutional design can foster collaborative planning through two ‘levels’; hard infrastructure and soft infrastructure (Healey, 1997). Hard infrastructure refers to the formalised institutions, rules and resources that regulate governance. Consider this the citizen advisory boards, task-forces or housing policy. Soft infrastructures are the practices that develop and maintain the ‘hard’. Consider these “conflict resolution, mediation, relation-building, and mutual learning.”(ibid). Like all infrastructure, the hard and the soft are established to enable flow of something valuable; knowledge and competence.
Application in the real world
Collaborative planning ‘opens the floor’ to individuals of varying political powers and knowledge to work together. Especially in case of politically sensitive decisions, an inequality among participants can appear more severe and deter effective collaboration. Communicative techniques help to overcoming the knowledge gap between planners and community, levelling power relations (HafenCity Universität, 2016). Faced with the challenge of how to accommodate the present and arriving refugees, HafenCity University in Hamburg and MIT worked to create a (literal) urban model to identify areas or refugee accommodation in Hamburg (ibid.). They found a visual planning tool better facilitated expert and non-expert stakeholder collaboration by bridging communication and knowledge gaps. Utilising a simulation system model and Lego bricks as a planning tool, users could analyse and discuss each parcel of land. Eventually categorising them into one of three groups: areas already designated for the use of refugees; vacant sites with housing potential; and vacant sites that could not be repurposed (Larson & Noyman, 2016). Although feedback from the sessions was valuable, the researchers also found that the tool encouraged discussion in the wider public.
Generating a wider public discussion can stimulate collaborative partnerships. For example information campaigns targeted at both the general public and providers of accommodation can help to reduce prejudices ((Dutch Refugee Council, 1999). Additionally, outreach and educational initiatives concerning asylum, migration and antidiscrimination can bring public support for resettlement projects (EU Resettlement Network, n.d.; Klaver, 2016;). Frameworks from organisations such as the EU Resettlement Network also emphasise the involvement local residents’ skills and knowledge by providing opportunities for them within resettlement projects (EU Resettlement Network, n.d.). In relation to housing, local residents can assist in areas such as neighbourhood orientation (ibid) in the capacity of accompanying but not replacing professional integration services or support. In this sense, collaborative planning is a process that can lay the foundation for cooperation in the operation of projects. Through the research I discovered that there are a wealth of handbooks prescribing frameworks through which multi-levels of governance can collaborate with communities and vice versa (Dutch Refugee Council, 1999; EU Resettlement Network, n.d.; NCCRI, 2008; UNHCR, 2013, 2015). However, the ‘cookie-cutter’ quality of these frameworks, neglects the context of the culture or specific challenge being faced. What the sector is lacking is academic research on actual cases of collaborative planning in refugee resettlement.
The resettlement of refugees, in itself, provides a chance for participants to gain new understanding of other participants’ interests and values, in addition to learning new things about their own (Healey, 1997). The neighbourhood provides spaces for encounter, in which refugees and host communities can meet. It is noted that the neighbourhood is key in refugees accessing community resources (Carter et al., 2008; Murdie, 2008) but is also a means ofnurturing understanding. Refugees’ well-being and resettlement into communities can be supported by ‘harder’ infrastructures (such as the Dutch Refugee Council or COA). But it’s also important to recognise that ‘much of governance occurs outside of formal institutions’(Healey, 1997). This is to say that ‘softer’ collaborative infrastructures (such as relationship building and spaces of interaction) in a local environment can support resettlement too.
Limitations
It is easy to dismiss the ideals of collaborative planning as precisely that; ideological. Clarence Stone’s work on systemic power in community decision-making, exposes the role of engrained political powers in ‘trumping’ collaborative efforts in planning (Stone, 1980). In other words, political agendas can still succeed over community input. Although published over 30 years ago, it is still relevant in today. In a 2015 paper on collaborative planning with communities, Roy notes “While such processes [of
collaborative planning] may result in community empowerment…market-led planning projects are more likely to co-opt the high democratic principles of collaborative/communicative planning theory”
(Roy, 2015). Roy believes one way in which collaborative processes are co-opted is through selectively choosing or ‘choreographing’ those involved in the planning in order to avoid disagreement (ibid.). This undermines the basic principle of including diverse values and limits community involvement to merely informing while maintaining the overall development plans.
Collaborative planning practices are critiqued for being too superficial and often deficient in original thinking (Palermo & Ponzini, 2010). If not all actors have equal power to object or contribute, the collaboration becomes more akin to informing or placation (Arnstein, 1969a). Challenging the ‘status quo’ is an important process in generating new ideas. However, in situations of placation, citizens can advise but ultimately the powerholders retain the right to judge the feasibility of the advice (ibid.). Citizen participation can increase the quality of decisions, add legitimacy, increase empowerment of individuals (Arnstein, 1969a) and promote commitment to a project (Roy, 2015). However, if mistreated it can results in distrust from those involved. Potentially sullying support for the project at hand and future attempts at collaboration.
For all the talk of knowledge exchange and redistribution of power, the role of the public in planning is largely determined by the nature of the planning enterprise being undertaken (Lane, 2005). Often it is the case that full consultation or the formation of new partnerships are not possible; for example in the urgent accommodation of refugees. On the one hand, the emergency of the situation requires fast and easily-available solutions. On the other long-term perspective, support from the local community is necessary for successful integration of the newcomers (NCCRI, 2008; UNHCR, 2013). In situations where time is limited, or consultation of the public is impractical communities may wish to delegate areas of decision-making to smaller groups (Lane, 2005). For example, community leaders, local officials, or experts. What is important in this process is creating opportunities for informal invention and for local initiatives to partner with the initiators of projects, ensuring that community values are represented too.
4. Research Design
Of the two themes explored in the Theoretical Framework, collaborative planning provides the analytical structure for my research. This section defines the research questions, conceptualises collaboration into measurable observations, and describes the methods selected to answer the research questions.
Research questions
As established, housing is a ‘cornerstone’ in refugee resettlement. Not only does it provide access to neighbourhood services, it’s also the location in which the first stages of integration play out between locals residents and refugees. My belief is that the development of new housing projects for refugees presents us an occasion to acquaint locals and new arrivals in a way that leaves both sides feeling positive about the changing dynamic in the neighbourhood. According to the literature, most resistance to asylum centre projects comes from a place of unknowing and nimbyism from the local community towards the ‘new comers’ (Klaver, 2016; Zorlu, 2016). However, the inclusion of local communities in collaborative planning has shown to defuse racial tensions and build social capital (Innes & Booher, 2004). Therefore this research explores;
In which ways are receiving communities included in the delivery of temporary housing project Startblok Riekerhaven, if at all?
To investigate this question further, the research addresses the following sub questions:
• What collaborative processes occur between the developers and the surrounding community
in Nieuw-West district?
• What are the challenges or barriers to inclusion of the surrounding community in the delivery
of temporary housing project Startblok Riekerhaven?
• What do answers to parts i) and ii) tell us about the role of community in the delivery of
temporary housing for refugees?
This research focuses on a single case study (see section 5) in the Netherlands that combines students and young refugees in temporary accommodation; Startblok Riekerhaven in Amsterdam, Nieuw-West. The project was initiated by De Key, Socius Wonen, the City of Amsterdam and OmniPlan who served as the project management team. Within the research questions they are collectively referred to as the ‘developers’.
Conceptualisation
The key concept of the research questions is collaboration. At the surface it is a straightforward term; ‘to work jointly with others’ (Collaboration, n.d.). But applied to the context of planning with a community, the concept itself encompasses a range of characteristics. For example, a person may deem a characteristic of collaboration to be a physical act such as public consultation meetings, whereas another considers it to be more abstract such as the trust between actors. A methodological distinction is in reality complex, as the ‘physical’ and the ‘abstract’ dimensions overlap. I attempt to clarify them by introducing two terms adapted from Healey’s two levels of institutional design for collaborative planning:
Hard structure characteristics- physical acts such as public engagement, transparent communication
and co-decision making.
Soft structure characteristics- abstract qualities such as relationship building and interaction between
groups.
Hard structures and soft structures occur concurrently. They exact upon each other, constantly forming and shaping the mechanisms and the collaborative experience. Thus, the intention of viewing collaboration through it’s hard and soft structures is to ensure value isn’t given to just one or the other. Rather, as with a pair of 3D glasses, the two ‘lenses’ combine to form a whole picture of collaboration (Figure 2).
By its nature a concept is subjective. Although not ‘real’ in terms of a definitive example in itself, it has a definite relationship to things that are real and measurable (Babbie, 2006). Informed by the academic works of Healey, Innes & Booher, and government frameworks such as UNHCR, a list of observable indicators can be drawn up that signify the presence (or absence) of collaborative planning’s characteristics. These indicators establish a concrete way to observe the social phenomena of collaborative planning. The table below (Table 1) is a schematic of collaborative planning’s characteristics and indicators. Note that the characteristics have been separated into their hard and soft structures of collaborative planning. The list is not exhaustive, but is reflective of characteristic that
were most emphatically identified in the Theoretical Framework as being important to collaboration and integration. An explanation of each follows the table.
Table 1 Selected characteristics and indicators of collaboration in the planning process
Public engagement is an effort to democratize the planning process and necessary for community empowerment (Roy, 2015). Specifically in the delivery of housing, it provides opportunities to make connections between existing and new initiatives as well as to raise awareness of local issues (Laurian & Shaw, 2008). In order to gain or maintain public support for the reception of refugees, local governments have often invested in dialogue with the local population about plans on the opening of new (crisis) reception centres ((Klaver, 2016).
Indicators of public engagement
Meetings informing locals- can be measured through the frequency and attendance of locals to public meetings. Sandercock describes meetings as the creation of a space in which perceptions might shift and where public learning might occur. If used ‘correctly’ meetings informing are not just one-way, but can open a two-way dialogue for concerns, questions and ideas to be raised (Sandercock, 2000).
Community outreach teams- public engagement can be observed by the existence of outreach groups who practice awareness raising activities. In his study on participation, Roy describes the purpose of outreach as important for actively engaging, informing residents to ensure a project ‘reflects the aspirations of its many neighbourhoods’ (Roy, 2015)
Transparent communication- involves the timely sharing of information with stakeholders and those affected by project decisions. Ensuring availability of information to the general public aims to raise awareness of the project’s goals, provide opportunities to debate and understand the decision making process (Laurian & Shaw, 2008)
Co lla bo ra tiv e Pl an ni ng S tr uc tu res Ha rd St ru ct ur e Characteristic Indicators
Public Engagement - Meetings informing locals
- Community outreach teams
Transparent Communication
- Documentation of decisions - Dissemination of materials
Co-‐decision making - Shared goals
- Conflict resolution processes
So ft St ru ct ur e Relationship building
- New relationships/ partnerships formed - Interaction between groups
Indicators of transparent communication
Documentation of decisions- the documentation of municipality meetings, planning proposals and
public meeting outcomes are important to legitimising decision-making and enabling the public to understand how and why decisions were made.
Dissemination of materials- can be measured by publically available materials across offline and online channels. Arnstein notes that informing the general public is most frequently through one-way communication tools such as the news media, pamphlets and posters (Arnstein, 1969b). Nowadays, this has expanded to include online channels such as email, social networks, developer websites and municipal archives.
Co-decision making-In the context of this research refers to the involvement (to some degree) of the neighbourhood in creating the goals of the project. Communities are more likely to feel heard and supportive of a project when the municipality needs are consistent with neighbourhood goals (Roy, 2015).
Indicators of Co-decision making
Shared goals- the creation of objectives that benefit both the goals of the local residents and those of the refugees.
Conflict resolution processes- politically charged developments such as refugee housing, can be met with resistance. Processes to overcome resistance may include conflict assessment (to identify obstacles and ways of overcoming), formal complaint procedures and negotiation tactics.
Relationship building- is a goal of collaboration that encourages understanding of different perspectives and develops ties between stakeholders. More than just isolated interactions it is the product of spending time frequently together, developing new partnerships and lying the foundation for collaboration on future projects.
Indicators of Relationship building
New relationships/partnerships formed- new relationships or partnerships between stakeholders and community groups can go towards building capacity to participate and act in the future ((Laurian & Shaw, 2008) It can be measured by accounts of social ties, networks and formal organizations that have developed as a result of the mutual housing project.
Interaction between groups- the UNHCR framework for ‘New Beginnings’ stresses the importance of spaces that enable informal and formal conversations and social interactions between public and developers. This can be observed through accounts of when and how the public and developers came into contact during the project. It also includes the interactional spaces and events in which the side come together, whether deliberate or spontaneous.
Research methods
The data is drawn from archival material and interview transcripts. Data collection took place between April-May 2017 across Amsterdam and Utrecht in the following stages.
First, statistical evidence of asylum applications and acceptances were sourced from governmental department, Immigration and Naturalisation Service who provide monthly reports. For statistics on refugee distribution and housing allocation in the Netherlands, independent platform Opnieuwhuis provided interactive maps visualizing data pulled from the COA. The main purpose of using national statistics is to place the case study in its country-wide context.
Secondly, planning proposals, partnership agreements and meeting minutes prepared by De Key and the municipality of Amsterdam were mostly accessible through online archives, but additional documentation was provided via interviewees. This information has been important for developing a timeline of the decision-making stages, forming a picture of the collaboration that occurred, as well as developing interview questions.
Thirdly, five in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a local politician of Nieuw-West, the housing association De Key, the project manager from OmniPlan and two staff who are also residents at Startblok Riekerhaven. A sixth interview was conducted via email with a social enterprise organization leader for Nieuw-West, but returned underdeveloped answers due to the format of the questioning. As such they appear less in the analysis section. A seventh ‘ad-hoc’ interview was conducted with an resident from IJburg visiting Startblok, the material is used only for anecdotal purposes. No community members from the surrounding area of Startblok were interviewed during this research. Initial inquest showed a potential 3,000 residents to interview. Rather than developing a sample population to represent the wider community’s experience, I selected social delegates (local politician and social enterprise organization leader) to provide insight. of Nieuw-West. The interviews were coded and categorised into common topics and messages. Individual, semi-structured interviews were chosen to gather in-depth accounts from participants, as well as giving opportunity to quickly revise questions as new information emerged during the interview.
Lastly, several site visits to the case study, Startblok Riekerhaven, were conducted to gather interviews and direct observations of the project. The development has operated for a year at the time of writing and although residential, is understandably private. Visits are thus limited to monthly open information sessions.
5. The Case Study: Startblok Riekerhaven
This section illustrates the case study, Startblok Riekerhaven (Figure 3). Key information on the
stakeholders, planning phases and neighbourhood can be found here. Collaboration is only lightly touched upon in this section, and instead covered in the Analysis (section 6).
Figure 3 Outside Startblok Riekerhaven’s prefabricated living units. Source: Researcher's own. 2017
The concept
Startblok Riekerhaven (‘Het Startblok’ in Dutch) is a temporary accommodation housing project for refugees and Dutch nationals 18-27 years old. It was the joint project of the City of Amsterdam, housing association De Key, The Centraal Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers (COA) and the Nieuw-West district. Other actors involved in advising on project management and the social management of the site include; OmniPlan and Socius Wonen. The facility, opened in July 2016 and accommodates 585 youth in Amsterdam Nieuw-West, on a vacant plot of land previously the site of a sports park. At the time of opening the project was the first of its kind in the Netherlands combining 50% Dutch youths with 50% refugee youths (Syrian and Eritrean status holders representing the majority). The project’s aim is to give all residents “a good start for integration into Amsterdam” (Startblok, n.d.) by stimulating contact between the two groups of youth to accelerate integration. There is a strong focus on self-management; residents are responsible for daily operations of the complex including public relations. Therefore, a specific recruitment process for residents has been designed to determine those who are motivated to live and contribute to this experimental community. The combined housing of the two groups of young people is also intended to ease the pressure on the social housing market which lacks options for young singles. “I didn’t want just status-holders — I have a responsibility to my constituents
to also provide housing for young people from this district” recalls Achmed Baâdoud, Chairman
Executive of New West (Riemerink, 2016).
The initial concept was born from a negotiation between De Key and the City of Amsterdam. De Key, nearing the end of a land lease, was in need of a plot to relocate their Amsterdam Houthavens student complex. Whilst the City of Amsterdam was in need of accommodation for refugees out from AZCs to reach the resettlement target set by the state for the municipality. The question of where to put the temporary accommodation went to Laurens Ivens, Amsterdam’s alderman for housing (Baâdoud, personal interview, 2017; Reimerink, 2016). Sportpark Riekerhaven was not only vacant land of ‘sufficient scale’ (De Key & Amsterdam Gemeente, 2015b), but was a strategic decision prepare the land for future housing developments to take place in Nieuw-West.
The neighbourhood
The site occupies the previous Sportpark Riekerhaven in Amsterdam Nieuw-West (Figure 4). Situated between the A10 ring road to the east, and the M50 metro line on the west, it is partially hidden from residential areas by the taller office blocks and over pass transport lines surrounding it. The area consists of two parts; to the north there are mainly offices and a few small businesses. The nearest neighbourhoods are around 1km away north of Vlaardingenlaan and west of Johan Huizingalaan. The nearest commercial and social services area is found with 1km at Delflandplein in (Westlandgracht) where there are several shops, a community centre and schools. An initial feasibility survey described this side as experiencing “a lot of vacancy” (De Key & Amsterdam Gemeente, 2015b). To the south-west, there is the IBM Business Park (IBM on map) which contains several businesses including Post.nl Post Sorting Center and IBM's headquarters.
Main access to the site is possible through a long drive that leads only to the Sportpark. Onsite at Sportpark Riekerhaven, there are a few neighbouring stakeholders who continue to operate; a handball club, two dog breed associations and an annual music festival. Occupying the north of the sports park, Startblok Riekerhaven consists of 565 modular accommodation units, an onsite recreational clubhouse, resident support services buildings and open playing fields surrounding it (Figures 5&6). Accommodation comes in two forms; 463 individual self-contained living units and 102 private rooms in apartments with shared facilities. The buildings themselves are the reassembled materials from De Keys previous incarnation of student housing that resided in the Houthavens, Noord Amsterdam. The site had insufficient utilities and transport infrastructure, and underwent a yearlong construction project. Starting in January 2016 and continuing through the move-in date July 1st (the last access road was lay April 2017). De Key have rented the land from the municipality on a short-term lease of nine years. After which the intent is to transform the land into a mainly residential area (De Key & Amsterdam Gemeente, 2015b; OmniPlan Project Assistant, Interview, May 26, 2017).
Figure 4 & 6 Startblok site building plans in northern half of Riekerhaven Sportspark. Source: OmniPlan, n.d.
Figure 4 Radial distances (at 500m intervals) around the location of Startblok in relation to neighbouring communities Source: Adapted from De Key, & Amsterdam Gemeente. (2015b)
Nieuw-West has undergone substantial renewal of its pre-war housing. As such the population composition is expected to change dramatically as 3,750 new homes are built in the area (Amsterdam Gemeente, 2016). Demographically, it is anticipated that the renewal and ‘lower-cost’ housing will attract students and new starters in property. Nieuw-West is culturally diverse. Mr. Baâdoud claims “167 nationalities” (Baâdoud, Interview, June 8, 2017) live in the area that has established large Moroccan and Turkish communities. Economically, the location has been described as “a vulnerable neighbourhood with relatively many social problems” (translated from Amsterdam Gemeente, 2016). An excerpt from De Key’s ‘feasibility study’ explains further:
Security coordinator (veiligheidscoördinator) in De Key, & Amsterdam Gemeente 2015b (translated, 2017):
“Delflandplein and Staalmanplein are a stone's throw from Riekerhaven. In particular, Staalmanplein has a history of criminal youth groups, a lot of nuisance among young people. The immediate vicinity of Riekerhaven appears to be a neighbourhood with a lot inhabitants who have a socially and economically weak position. In the last few years a lot has been invested into the neighbourhoods and squares, both on physical and social aspects…. Slowly we see the neighbourhood improve, but still very fragile.”
The method of delivery
Due to a combination of factors (including De Key’s end of tenancy at the Houthavens site) the project timescale was condense to under a year. The following is a summary of the relevant phases
June 8 2015 Feasibility Study Sept 1 2015 Communication Plan Sept 1 2015 Urban Planning Plan
Oct 2015 Recruitment of Startblok consultant panel Nov 1 2015 Start dismantling Houthavens site
Nov 4, 2015 Final Proposal in public meeting with municipality Dec 14, 2015 Public information meeting
Jan 15 2016 Relocation of buildings to Sportpark Riekerhaven July 1, 2016 Startblok opens
The duration of the operation is nine full years from the date of the first actual rental (per current plans, from 15 June 2016). In the agreement, the municipality is responsible for building infrastructural services and preparing the site, whilst relocation and construction of the prefabricated units remains the responsibility of De Key. Project management, including communication with the surrounding businesses and neighbourhood, was a cooperative responsibility of OmniPlan, De Key and the municipality. Once operational, residents self-management of the site, overseen by Socius Wonen’s project manager. As such they are responsible for enforcing rules, social activities and building relationships with external partners in the community. As I will discuss in the analysis, a common theme to surface in both the interviews and desk research was the accelerated process through which the
housing was delivered. This combined with the perception of what constitutes as a neighbourhood has greatly influenced the ways in which the receiving communities were included in the delivery of Startblok Riekerhaven temporary housing project.
There were a variety of stakeholders involved in the development and management of Startblok Riekerhaven including The City of Amsterdam, De Key, OmniPlan, Socius Wonen and Startblok Resident Staff. Additionally, the project received support from two specialist refugee organisations; The Centraal Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers (COA) and Vluchtelingenwerk. Below is a brief description of the main stakeholders responsible for the delivery of the project:
The City of Amsterdam or Amsterdam Gemeente - is the municipality. It was one of the initiators of the project and was involved across three levels of governance. Firstly, through Building and Housing Alderman Laurens Ivens; who was responsible for meeting the state-set quota for rehousing refugees in Amsterdam. Secondly, through Nieuw-West District Chairman Achmed Baâdoud; who represented the neighbourhood’s interests. Baâdoud is thought to have negotiated the 50/50 Dutch and refugee intake with Ivens, to also meet the housing needs of his neighbourhood. Thirdly, through the
planning department; who provided support to developer De Key and OmniPlan on the social, environmental and physical aspects of the proposal.
De Key- Is a housing association in the Netherlands specialising in providing temporary accommodation for young adults and students (the Starter market). They have a variety of accommodation across Amsterdam, Diemen and Zandvoort. Some projects consist of prefabricated container housing that can be dismantled and reassembled. De Key to acting as interim tenants on land reserved for future developments; as is the case with Sportpark Riekerhaven. Together with the City of Amsterdam and Socius Wonen they were one of the original initiators of the project. Although the daily management is done on site, they continue to oversee business operations.
Socius Wonen- Is a housing association in the Netherlands specializing in providing accommodation for young adults and refurbishing vacant office spaces. They have several projects across Utrecht, Amsterdam a couple in Wageningen and one in Leiden. Together with De Key and the City of Amsterdam they were one of the original initiators of the project. They worked as Project Coordinator on Startblok, setting up the self-management style and continue to coordinate the Self-management Team.
OmniPlan- Is a spatial planning company that specialise in procedural, process and project management.They work with governments, utilities and commercial parties to deliver infrastructural, residential and commercial projects. Two members of OmniPlan were assigned as project managers to Startblok and worked simultaneously with the City of Amsterdam and De Key to produce the plan strategy. They were primarily responsible for administrative tasks, scheduling of the project phases and communication with stakeholders. They are also working on the permanent redevelopment of the site in the future as residential housing, once the Startblok lease is finished.
Startblok Resident Staff- Self-management is a key component of Startblok and is divided into two functions. Firstly, a Social Management team, who take care of social cohesion amongst tenants and ensure house rules are respected. Secondly, the General Management team who take care of daily
operations. The GM team consists of an Administration Manager, Maintenance Manager
, the
Grounds Team and the Handyman Team. Perhaps most relevant to this research is thePR, communication and social implementation Managers.
Responsible for promoting Startblok and maintaining good relations, they became the contact point with the neighbours of Riekerhaven and external organisations. Centraal Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers or COA- Is the central department for sheltering refugees. They are responsible for the intake, shelter, guidance and return the refugees in the Netherlands, whilst the IND processes the asylum application. The COA contributed to the plans and concept of Startblok. They continue to be responsible for the selection of the status-holders for Startblok.
Vluchtelingenwerk- Is an organization that aims to represent the interests of refugees and asylum seekers in the Netherlands. They provide counsel integration, work and education to help arrivals start a life in the Netherlands. The Vluchtelingenwerk contributed to the plans and concept of Startblok. They continue to offer their support services to the refugee at Startblok
