Presentation given by John van Leerdam, Cebeon, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at a FEANTSA seminar on "Funding strategies: Building the case for homelessness", hosted by the Committee of the Regions, June 2012

1. Cost-benefit analysis of tackling
homelessness in the Netherlands
Findings of a national study
7th European seminar of local homeless strategies
John van Leerdam
Cebeon, Amsterdam
Brussels, June 8, 2012

2. Headlines
1.Context: why has this study been set up?
2.Method: how was the research carried out?
3.Results: what are the main findings?
4.Follow-up: how has the research been
received?

3. 1. Why has this study been set up?
immediate cause:
•agreement on 2nd stage of G4-plan
•increasing pressure on available budgets (national and regional/local)
•shifting focus from care/cure to prevention and social support
aims of research:
•policy effects: quantify main benefits of homeless policies on other domains
•optimalisation: clues for improving homeless policies and other public services
•methodology: develop framework for useful cost-benefit analysis of policy domain
why Cebeon:
•effective research trusted by government, municipalities and experts
•specific insights and data on regional target groups and costs of homeless policies
•expertise on broad set of (complex) local/regional policy domains

4. 2. How was the research carried out? (1)

5. 2. How was the research carried out? (2)
approach:
•distinguish between different subpopulations and their consumption of public
services (financed by public budgets)
•determine main ‘movements’ between subpopulations
•quantify benefits of these ‘movements’ as avoided/saved expenses of public
services
scope:
•complexity of homelessness: intricate connections with other policy domains
(‘chains’) > homeless policies as set of ‘public services’
•benefits: using existing studies/data and focus on main (quantifiable) benefits on
other policy domains
•costs: using available data related to (efficient) homeless policies (HP) focused on
desired ‘movements’ between subpopulations

6. 3. What are main findings?
cost-benefit analysis shows:
•prevention is better and cheaper than cure
•in a shelter is better and cheaper than on the street
•effective policy requires efforts of all chain partners
main benefits are avoided costs of services like:
•(semi)clinical cure (health care)
•property crimes, police-guidance (law & order)
•eviction (housing)

7. iIlustration: potentially homeless
• main costs: support and guidance
• main effect of homeless policies (HP):


8. 4. How has the research been received?
• experts qualify methodology and results as plausible
• costs and benefits of homeless policies on political agenda
 national level: study send to Parliament as useful complement to 2nd stage of G4-plan
 regional/local level: results are successfully used to prevent too large or ineffective
funding reductions
• follow-up research:
 Pilot G4 on prevention: cost-benefit analysis as 1 of Triple Aims
 Cebeon will use developed framework to built this local case (250 people followed
about 2 years and compared with similar reference-group in ‘business as usual’-
setting)
• overall lessons for effective cost-benefit analysis:
 conduct sound research (analytical framework and data available)
 consult broad group of experts in main fields of interest
 couple with an ‘eyecatcher’ such as G4-plan and use best practices to promote
results
 contribute to ‘balanced’ decision making about necessary budget cuts