July 2, 2019

This morning we got an early start as we headed to Utrecht University to hear a talk from Dr. Nienke Boesveldt about the homelessness policy in the Netherlands. The lecture was packed with information, both about the Netherlands' policies and aims for eradicating homelessness, and also with data from her own research. One of the things that was most striking about her talk was how she compares each region's goals and outcomes for homelessness to interviews with people from the area who are actually utilizing the care provided by the region. One of the reasons that this stuck out to me was because it takes a qualitative approach to what is often approached as a quantitative question. It is easy to say that a number, such as the number of people utilizing shelters, is representative of the efficacy of a program, or representative of the larger homelessness problem itself, but when it comes to people's lives, I think it's important to take a more involved approach, such as Dr. Boesveldt and her team are doing when they interview the users of homeless services. These interviews are also more useful than going by the numbers, because they not only give insight into the efficacy of a program, but also give clear feedback about how future innovation can be implemented. By involving the user in their future plans, programs can become more tailored to the needs of each community more quickly than if city planners were simply to guess how the programs should be changed.

I was also interested by how they approached the topic of mental health in the homeless population, and how this places an emphasis on the potential for every homeless person to live a fulfilling life after addressing their mental health issues. This perspective seems to be a stark contrast from the United States, where we typically perceive homelessness as a personal issue, whether or not an individual is believed to have mental health issues. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to homelessness (partner with police and psychiatric resources), the Netherlands have been able to more effectively treat homelessness, rather than just creating a space for this population to sleep (like a shelter) and then considering the problem handled. Other than the different perspective on mental health with relation to homelessness, I also noticed a major difference between the NL and the US in how homelessness occurs. In the NL the homeless population is primarily migrants and Eastern Europeans who have been displaced and are now searching for a home in this country. In the US, however, it is not uncommon for a long-time citizen who already has a job and house to lose their home through misfortune and end up in perpetual homelessness for years to come. I got the sense from Dr. Nienke's talk that this would be far more preventable in the NL, as there are programs in place which could intervene before the individual hit rock bottom. Similarly, if an individual's mental health was interfering with their work and lifestyle, they would have access to resources provided in their region, rather than being asked to find resources on their own. Although these programs work well in the NL, it would take major changes across various departments in the US to put similar programs in place. I wonder whether it is useful to draw from this example when thinking about how to address homelessness somewhere like Seattle, or whether it would be more beneficial to consider a place more similar to Seattle's situation.

After Dr. Nienke's lecture, we headed to the Salvation Army in Utrecht for a short discussion on how they contribute to addressing the homelessness problem. I really loved this discussion, because it involved people who were more involved in working with the homeless population on a day-to-day basis, so they had a more personal touch to everything being discussed. One thing which really seemed smart to me was the way that the Salvation Army building also housed many other groups involved with the homelessness problem, such as mental health organizations. This setup interested me because it is a relatively easy step towards facilitating collaboration between groups all working towards a common goal, and also benefits the user. By housing all of the commonly used resources in one building, it becomes more likely that a person experiencing homelessness will be able to find what they need, and know where that resource is housed for any future needs. I see housing all of these organizations together as a process innovation, because it makes the process of helping people run more smoothly both for the organizations involved (who now have greater access to their target population) and to the users.

The visit to the Salvation Army was our last scheduled activity for the day, so after we left we decided to wander Utrecht a bit. Talia, Brian, and I ended up shopping for a while (I bought a bodysuit), and then we found a place to eat dinner next to a canal. It was lovely! They also provided board games for us, so we decided to play Yahtzee while we ate. We then made the journey back to Amsterdam so that we could make it to a bar in time to watch the US and England compete in the Women's World Cup semi-final game. We won! Go USA! We plan on watching the finals when we arrive in Delft on Sunday.