The topic of refugee centres causes a lot of turmoil. When a proposal is made to open a new COA location, there is likely to be a protest against these plans. These protests can be really effective and often stop the opening of new centres. Is that what is best for the neighbourhoods? What are the actual problems with the shelters? And is not opening more, or even closing current locations the best solution to these problems?
Rise of criminality surrounding COA locations
The protests around COA locations are mostly held because people are scared that crimes will increase once a location is opened. These fears are genuine; people want to live in safe environments. And even more importantly, they want to feel safe in their homes. However, the fear that their environment will become less safe with a COA location is deceptive and informed by misinformation.
Although the criminality levels in neighbourhoods with COA locations are slightly higher than average, this is not due to the centres. These neighbourhoods already had higher crime rates without the centre, and they did not change after the arrival of the shelters. The safety of a neighbourhood is essentially unaffected by having a COA location.
To read more on the criminality rates of refugees, you can find the article on criminality here (with link).
“None of the analyses showed that the presence of a COA location has a demonstrable effect on the level of neighbourhood crime and on the individual propensity to become a victim of a crime. Furthermore, when distinctions are drawn by type of COA location, composition of the residents, and occupancy (an indicator of the average number of residents) in relation to the number of neighbourhood inhabitants, no significant effects were found” [Source]
Overcrowded shelters
While public debates often focus on the impact of COA locations on surrounding neighbourhoods, many of the challenges are found inside the centres themselves. The stories from the people I have interviewed about these centres are often quite distressing: sharing a living space with strangers who have also experienced trauma, having no certainty about the future, and having limited possibilities to work or settle in the unfamiliar country they have just entered.
“You cannot go anywhere without permission. For example, when we get our ID for a year, it’s written behind it: ‘you are not allowed to work or to travel’, so you cannot do a lot. And you’re scared, you’re still washing off the freshness of living a war”
Even though these living conditions in themselves are already ethically questionable, they have worsened over the past couple of years. Many refugees are living in (crisis) emergency centres for long periods, while these facilities are meant to host refugees only temporarily. Funding for the facilities was sparse, resulting in a worse living environment for asylum seekers. These emergency centres are dirtier, have improper beds, and create a system in which the residents have to move repeatedly to new centres. In 2022 , the Dutch court ruled that the shelters are detrimental to the inhabitants and failed to meet several European standards. Still, this is the ‘home’ for almost half of the asylum seekers living in the COA locations.
Currently, the COA locations are overcrowded and unable to provide decent living conditions. There are simply not enough shelters in the Netherlands for the amount of asylum seekers in need of shelters. This fact is sometimes used as an argument for why we should not allow more refugees to come to the Netherlands. This seems quite a logical thought. However, experts argue that it is essentially impossible to lower the amount of people seeking refuge in a country. Additionally, this overcrowdedness is not solely caused by new asylum seekers entering the Netherlands. The main source of insufficient accommodation is the financing of the COA and IND, which is based on inaccurate forecasts of how many refugees will enter the Netherlands. Furthermore, almost a third of the people staying in the COA locations already have a residence permit and should move to proper housing. However, the IND is behind on cases, creating a delay. This delay, along with the current housing crisis, means that status holders are stuck in overcrowded COA locations.
To read more about the housing situation, how refugees influence it and how refugees get appointed their houses, read the housing article here (with link to the article).
Health risks
The Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ) is a government organisation that keeps track of the living conditions of asylum seekers. In a recent study, they found that the living conditions for asylum seekers can be harmful for their health, especially for vulnerable groups like the elderly, children, people with chronic illnesses or disabilities, and pregnant women.
“It was very difficult living in the asylum centre. Because you have to live with people you don’t know. One toilet for nineteen people. There was no privacy”
The IDG found that many refugees have to stay in (crisis) emergency centres that are meant to be temporary. This means that refugees live with subpar facilities and living conditions. The use of emergency centres requires many refugees to move regularly to other COA locations. Being frequently relocated makes the continuity of care almost impossible. For vulnerable people, this can result in serious increases in health problems and worse care outcomes. For example, pregnant women in COA locations have quite higher chance of dying due to their pregnancy than the average Dutch resident.
“When I was transferred from the family side to the men’s side of the asylum centre, that [felt like a] prison. There are a lot of people with mental issues. You put them together like: ‘do your thing’. They come together and ‘good luck”
The IGJ study found similar issues in mental healthcare. Every time a refugee is relocated, they will be placed at the bottom of the waiting list of the new area. This lack of a stable living condition leads to incredibly long waiting times to get professional psychological support from the Dutch association for mental health and addiction care: the Nederlandse Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg (GGZ). Refugees are one of the most vulnerable groups to suffer from mental health issues. Not getting proper care in time has many consequences, such as a further decline of conditions. It also heightens the pressure on the Dutch psychological care system, which is already quite strained with increasing waiting times, staff shortages, and a growing demand for care. Life in COA locations often strains asylum seekers’ mental health. Overcrowding, limited privacy, and the absence of support networks make mental stability difficult.
“The experience living in the asylum centre? It feels like you are not living on earth but on air. You have no documents, you are no one, you only have your memories”
Children in COA locations
The situation in refugee centres is not up to par for children. They have the right to a stable environment with privacy and safety. Yet, according to the IGJ, many children in COA locations do not have secure surroundings. They often lack privacy and experience a lot of turmoil and, in some cases, even unsafe conditions. Frequent relocations, due to the temporary nature of many refugee shelters, make the situation worse. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United Nations, every child has the right to life and development. The current state of COA locations does not comply with the agreements made in the convention, creating unjustifiably high risks of permanent damage for children and failing to uphold their universal rights.
“States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”
The Distribution Law (De Spreidingswet)
The distribution law was adopted in February 2024 to address the problem of insufficient COA locations by making it a legal duty for municipalities to house asylum seekers. The law increased the number of permanent locations spread throughout the country, decreasing the need for emergency accommodation. The division of shelters is based on the number of citizens and the prosperity of the municipalities.
In April 2025, the Dutch government proposed revoking the distribution law. The official Advisory Council Migration expressed concern about this resolution:
“The Council is concerned about the lack of justification, the fact that this plan is not carefully aligned with other measures and the fact that an instrument that appears to be working properly will be abolished without any operational alternatives returning in its place.”
The COA also advises against this, stating that the distribution law is necessary for multiple reasons:
The report from the COA reveals that the distribution law is working well. It is creating new permanent COA locations that operate more humanely whilst saving money. The law is facilitating better organised accommodation distribution. This results in better facilities and residents having to move less frequently, which ultimately leads to better healthcare. Additionally, this promotes participation and contribution to society for asylum seekers.
Even though COA locations seem disoptimal, they remain important to provide shelter to asylum seekers in the Netherlands. Still, people are scared of asylum seekers and having COA locations near their neighbourhoods. While these fears are largely based on misinformation, the feelings are real, and people’s concerns need to be heard. However, just stopping the creation of new centres does not solve any problems. On the contrary, it worsens overcrowding in existing facilities.
There are currently not enough centres to accommodate the number of asylum seekers. This results in constant relocation, inadequate facilities, unstable environments for children, and a lack of support. Limited access to proper healthcare exacerbates the situation, underscoring the urgent need to improve conditions for residents, COA employees, care providers, and the healthcare system as a whole.
To improve the situation, we need more permanent facilities. They will not solve every issue, but they can create a better situation for everyone involved by creating more stability, reducing maintenance costs, and improving the living conditions of the residents.
The story of Michael
Michael has been living in the Netherlands for 3 years, but he is still awaiting a decision on whether he gets a resident permit. He loves working out, works in a restaurant in Zwolle, and would love to invite his friends to his home. However, due to issues in his procedure he still lives in a COA location, waiting and unsure about his future.
Before Michael came to the Netherlands, a friend of his told him about the asylum procedure. Thinking he knew what to expect, he came to the Netherlands. Sadly, he was disappointed with the reality:
“She told me ‘you are going to ask for asylum, they will look for a place you need to share and that's it.’ But when I came here they sent me to Ter Apel. It was a tent with about 40/50 people, not a house.”
“Even some people died, even a baby, I think. Not in my tent, there were many tents. They said it's because in the Netherlands the places were full, full of refugees. So they didn't have a place for us. And I didn't understand anything because I didn't speak English. I was in a country where I didn't know anything and I was afraid.”
He lived there for 20 days, after which he was moved to an emergency location in Rotterdam made of shipping containers. Afterwards, he was sent to the COA location in Budel, which is nearly as big as the one in Ter ِApel, which was also rather awful. Finally, he was sent to the asylum centre in Dronten, where he now shares a place with two other asylum seekers.
His living situation is still not great. Michael lives with an older man who has mental problems. He slams with doors and pans, screaming throughout the night. Instead of receiving proper mental health care, he is in an asylum centre. Unfortunately, the COA does not have actionable steps to take to address the situation.
“The COA, they are always coming to us. And they say: ‘Ah, we cannot do anything. We cannot do anything.’ Yeah, but he needs to be in a different place.”
Living in this situation is stressful. Michael wants to live a normal life, but he notices that he tries to avoid being at the centre.
“Because in my house I'm going to sleep and I prefer to sleep till the next day. And when I'm free, I'm going to the gym, I'm going to the groceries, but I prefer to do something.”
Still he is positive, trying to focus on the people around him.
“I try to be a normal person. I try to do my best at my job and also with my friends. I try to be kind because it’s the people who make me a little bit happy”
