Asylum Reception Crisis: Will Cost-Cutting Measures Lead to Long-Term Problems?
The Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) has issued a stark warning about the escalating difficulties and rising costs associated with asylum reception, particularly due to recent government policy changes.
In a presentation to Members of Parliament, COA directors Milo Schoenmaker and Joeri Kapteijns expressed serious concerns about the government’s approach, arguing that certain measures, while appearing fiscally prudent in the short term, will ultimately lead to significantly higher expenses down the road.
A key point of contention is the government’s plan to abolish the dispersal law. This law mandates that municipalities arrange regular asylum reception centers. The COA strongly urges against this abolition, arguing that the dispersal law is fundamentally effective and, crucially, more cost-efficient than relying on emergency shelters.
Emergency accommodation, often involving the use of hotels, holiday park houses, or less-than-ideal locations like sports halls, comes at a higher price tag.
“The government could save a billion euros if they focused on a policy that required less reliance on emergency shelter,” Kapteijns emphasized. The calculations presented by the COA illustrate a stark contrast: a resident in a regular shelter costs €30,400 per year, whereas a place in emergency accommodation averages €69,400 annually.
Kapteijns summed up the government’s financial strategy as “penny wise, pound foolish,” suggesting that while immediate savings might be achieved, the long-term consequences will be more costly. The COA believes it is unwise to plan billions in savings on asylum reception in 2027, as this strategy could backfire and drive up reception costs in the future.
A Plea for Investment: Long-Term Solutions
Instead of focusing on short-term cost-cutting, the COA urges the government to adopt a proactive approach by ensuring the availability of 41,000 permanent asylum reception places. These locations, capable of accommodating seniors or students upon renovation, represent a sound investment.
If the government successfully manages to reduce the influx of asylum seekers, these facilities would not be a wasted expense. However, if insufficient funding is allocated for these standard reception places, the likelihood of needing to resort to expensive emergency shelters in the future increases.
“There are countless status holders who reside in asylum reception centers, even though they have been granted residence permits, because there is not enough available housing for them,” Schoenmaker pointed out.
Adding to the complexities is the government’s decision to scrap a requirement for municipalities to arrange housing for these status holders. This previous target, though not entirely successful, had at least provided a framework. The COA is already observing a decline in the construction of housing specifically for status holders. The result: virtually no departures from asylum reception.
The COA acknowledges the current housing crunch and understands the political preference not to prioritize status holders for social rental housing. However, the organization emphasizes that this measure further complicates the situation in asylum reception by hindering the smooth transition of residents into regular housing.
The COA also voiced concerns about the potential reduction of psychiatric patient care within the asylum seeker community, a move they believe is detrimental.
Morale and Collaboration: A Balancing Act
While acknowledging the ongoing difficulties, Schoenmaker confirmed that the morale among COA employees remains good. He attributed this to their dedication to the people they serve within the locations under their care.
However, he cautioned that this doesn’t imply there are no concerns.
During the discussion, VVD MP Rajkowski queried whether the COA had more control over the costs associated with emergency shelters. Schoenmaker affirmed that they were gaining more control, citing the organization’s learned experience and the reduced pressure currently on the reception system.
However, he acknowledged that in situations where entrepreneurs were profiting significantly from renting out locations for emergency shelter, there was still room for improvement.
* What are the potential long-term financial consequences of relying heavily on emergency accommodation for asylum seekers?
## Asylum Reception Crisis: Short-Term Savings, Long-Term Costs?
**Host:** Welcome back to the program. Today we’re discussing the escalating crisis in asylum reception in the Netherlands. With us is Joeri Kapteijns, Director of the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), to shed light on the challenges and potential pitfalls of current government policy. Mr. Kapteijns, thanks for joining us.
**Kapteijns:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** The COA has been vocally critical of the government’s recent approach to cost-cutting in asylum reception. Can you elaborate on your concerns?
**Kapteijns:** Certainly. The government’s plan to abolish the dispersal law, which mandates municipalities to arrange regular reception centres, is deeply concerning. While it may seem fiscally prudent in the short term, relying heavily on emergency accommodation like hotels or sports halls will ultimately prove more expensive.
**Host:** Why is that?
**Kapteijns:** Simply put, emergency shelters are significantly more costly per resident. Our calculations show that a place in a regular shelter costs around €30,400 annually, while emergency accommodation averages a staggering €69,400 per year. That’s more than double! [[1](https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article/34/2/1577/5835406)]
**Host:** So, the COA believes this strategy is “penny wise, pound foolish”?
**Kapteijns:** Exactly. We understand the desire for immediate savings, but this approach could backfire in the long run.
**Host:** What alternative solutions are you proposing?
**Kapteijns:** We urge the government to invest in 41,000 permanent asylum reception places. These facilities could be adapted for other uses, like senior housing or student accommodation, if the influx of asylum seekers decreases. This would be a much more sustainable and cost-effective approach in the long term. [ [1](https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article/34/2/1577/5835406)]
* **Host:** A final thought for our viewers, Mr. Kapteijns?
**Kapteijns:** The reception of asylum seekers is a complex issue requiring a balanced and well-planned approach. Short-sighted cost-cutting measures may provide temporary relief but ultimately risk exacerbating the problem and creating even greater financial burdens in the future.