# data[].attributes.body
Why are people homeless? No one willingly decides that they want to live without a home, but certain circumstances may force a person's hand. According to HUD, a combination of soaring house prices and low incomes may be the primary reason.

# data[].attributes.headline
Statistics of Homelessness in the United States 

# data[].attributes.subject
Statistics of Homelessness in the United States 

# data[].attributes.body
Homelessness is by far one of our countries greatest issues. You see it everywhere! While going to school, walking your dog, or even grabbing lunch. According to statistics in 2017, there may be as many as
134, 278 homeless people in California alone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the Alliance publishes this updated version of the State of Homelessness, COVID-19 is creating a health and economic crisis in America and throughout the world. It is too soon to determine its ultimate impacts. Thus, this year's report represents a baseline-the state of homelessness before the crisis began. It also reflects some early considerations and predictions about the influence of the pandemic on this vulnerable population.
Homelessness in America

Seventeen out of every 10,000 people in the United States were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2019 during HUD's Annual Point-in-Time Count. These 567,715 people represent a cross-section of America. They are associated with every region of the country, family status, gender category, and racial/ethnic group.

Large Subpopulations. Certain subpopulations are significantly represented within homelessness:

Individuals. Seventy percent of people experiencing homelessness are individuals who are living on their own or in the company of other adults. The remainder (30 percent) are people in families with children.

Males. Homelessness is significantly defined by gender. Sixty percent of all people experiencing homelessness are male. Amongst individuals, the numbers are starker-70 percent are men and unaccompanied male youth.

Unsheltered. Far too many people in America sleep outside and in other locations not meant for human habitation. This group includes more than 200,000 people (37 percent of the overall population). Among individuals experiencing homelessness, the numbers are more dire-1 in 2 are unsheltered.

Most At Risk. Numerical size is one reason to focus on a subpopulation within homelessness. Risk is another. Some groups are much more likely to become homeless than the national average.

Pacific Islanders and Native Americans are most likely to be homeless in America when compared to all other racial/ethnic groups. Within the former, 160 people experience homelessness out of every 10,000 compared to the national average of 17 out of every 10,000. Pacific Islanders and Native Americans are numerically small groups within the U.S., making it more difficult for the U.S. Census Bureau and homelessness services systems to count them accurately. Nevertheless, available data suggest they face significant challenges.

Black Americans, multiracial Americans, and Hispanics/Latinxs are similarly situated. Group members are far more likely to be homeless than the national average and white Americans.

Prioritized Groups. Researchers and the public policy world have emphasized some additional subpopulations. Chronically homeless individuals are disabled and have experienced long-term and/or repeated episodes of homelessness. They are currently 17 percent of the population. Veterans, who are 7 percent of people experiencing homelessness, are prioritized due to their service to our country. And unaccompanied youth, who represent 6 percent of the population, are a vulnerable age group consisting of those under 25 years old.

COVID-19 Vulnerable. According to the CDC, some individuals are at higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19. They include older adults age 65 and over. However, people experiencing homelessness age faster than housed people. Research indicates they have physical conditions that mirror those of people 15-20 years older than them. On a single day, an estimated 202,623 single adults experiencing homelessness are over age 50, suggesting they may be uniquely vulnerable to becoming seriously ill during the pandemic crisis.

An additional CDC-identified risk group is people with pre-existing health conditions. Before the current crisis, growing numbers were experiencing unsheltered homelessness-a living situation associated with poor health. A recent study sampled unsheltered individuals from across the country, finding 84 percent self-reporting existing physical health conditions. Only 19 percent of people in shelters said the same.

Trends in Homelessness

Compared to the previous year, homelessness increased by 3 percent in the 2019 Point-in-Time Count. This marked the third straight year of national-level increases.

Despite this negative movement, the long-term trend has been downward. Overall homelessness has decreased by 12 percent since 2007, the year nation-wide data collection began. The current COVID-19 crisis has the potential to diminish or completely wipe out these modest gains.

Subpopulations. Existing progress has been uneven. Subpopulations prioritized in policy and practice (including funding decisions) have made the most impressive gains over the last decade. Veterans experienced the greatest decreases in homelessness-50 percent. Other subpopulations have realized smaller reductions that, nevertheless, are larger than those in overall homelessness. They include people in families (29 percent), chronically homeless individuals (9 percent), and people experiencing unsheltered homelessness (10 percent).

One group is noticeably falling behind all others. Individuals have only realized a 0.2 percent reduction in homelessness over the last decade. Some are veterans, unaccompanied youth, and chronically homeless. These subgroups have been experiencing greater progress than individuals more generally-but they only make up a minority of the individuals population and help to mask the delayed progress of a sizable majority who are not veterans, unaccompanied youth, or chronically homeless.

Individuals are also solely responsible for the national-level increases in overall homelessness that occurred over the last three years. Individual homelessness increased by 11 percent over that period even as numbers for people in families continued to decrease. This upwards trend exists across a broad range of individuals, including the chronically homeless, men, women, and every racial/ethnic group.

States. As with subpopulations, some states are making more progress towards ending homelessness than others.

Thirty states reduced homelessness since the previous year. Long-term trends further highlight the more successful stories. A majority (37) have reduced homelessness since 2007, with the most significant gains occurring in Michigan (-70 percent), Kentucky (-49 percent), and New Jersey (-49 percent).

Other states have more people experiencing homelessness than they did more than a decade ago. Fourteen have seen their numbers increase between 2 and 72 percent over that period. New and decisive action is necessary to ensure these states build real momentum in the fight against homelessness.

Geographic Regions Experiencing the Greatest Challenges

Identifying the regions with the most challenges informs nation-wide efforts to end homelessness.

Counts. One approach is to examine the locations with the highest homeless counts. They include states such as California, Florida, New York, and Texas as well as Continuums of Care (CoCs) serving New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Texas' Balance of State. These locations share a common characteristic-relatively large general populations. They include major cities and Balance of States encompassing broad expanses of land (with numerous towns and cities).

Fifty-six percent of people experiencing homelessness are in the five states that have the largest homeless counts. More than 1 in 3 are in the twenty CoCs with the highest numbers of people experiencing homelessness. Thus, much of this national challenge is located in a small number of places, with most jurisdictions having a much smaller problem to manage.

Rates. Rates of homelessness are another way of gauging the severity of the problem within a jurisdiction. They reflect the number of people experiencing homelessness in relation to the general population.

Rates across the country are wildly divergent. Amongst states/territories, the District of Columbia (93 people experiencing homelessness out of every 10,000) and New York (47 out of 10,000) have the highest rates. By contrast, Louisiana (6 out of 10,000) and Mississippi (4 out of 10,000) have the lowest rates. Many homeless people reside in high rate jurisdictions. Forty-five percent are in the five states/territories with the highest rates.

Many of the high rate states and CoCs are associated with other notable housing issues. Researchers and advocates cite many of them as having the highest housing costs and highest rent burdens (housing costs as a percentage of income) in the nation.

Some states and CoCs are anomalies. Their counts and rates defy expectations rooted in overall population size and housing costs. Those states and communities may possess unusual characteristics tied to history, government policy, or culture. Some may have homeless services systems that are either highly effective or falling far short of their potential.

COVID-19. Counts and rates typically offer useful information about the challenges facing homeless systems-they reflect the number of people who need homeless services. During the current pandemic, there is a new challenge-the number of people who contract an infectious illness (COVID-19) while needing homeless services.

Self-quarantine, social isolation, and stay-at-home orders are difficult, if not impossible, to follow when you do not have a home. Thus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has offered guidance on how to best serve people in shelters and unsheltered locations. Meeting COVID-19-related health needs is putting new strain on homeless services systems, especially those with large numbers of infected consumers.

Recent research predicts the number of COVID-19 cases that will arise among people experiencing homelessness in the nation's counties. Those facing the most severe challenges mainly reside in major cities such as Los Angeles, New York City, San Jose, Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

Homeless Assistance in America

Homeless services systems do not have enough resources to fully meet the needs of everyone experiencing homelessness. Thus, it is helpful to examine the difficult decisions they must make, including how to allot the limited funds available to them.

Temporary Housing. Over the last five years, the number of temporary housing beds (Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, and Transitional Housing) has decreased by 9 percent.

A national-level snapshot of these beds during the Point-in-Time count is informative. Individual community circumstances vary. However, in the aggregate, systems were able to offer a year-round bed to only 51 percent of individuals and 100 percent of people in families (the latter with a surplus of over 15,000 beds).

During the winter months, some communities temporarily supplement these year-round beds with seasonal ones. Nevertheless, many people are unsheltered, living on the streets, in abandoned buildings, or other locations not suitable for human habitation. Being unsheltered is mostly a challenge for individual adults, but some families with children are also in these living situations.

COVID-19 is creating a new type of emergency. According to an early estimate, 400,000 new units are needed to prevent the spread of the virus and care for the sick. These accommodations would allow for social distancing, quarantine, and isolation for people who are typically in crowded shelter settings or living unsheltered.

Permanent Housing. While the number of temporary housing beds decreased by 9 percent, the number of permanent housing beds (Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, and Other) increased by 20 percent over the last five years.

These numbers reflect a shift in policy priorities. Renewed emphasis is on ending homelessness by moving more people into permanent housing, rather than allowing them to linger indefinitely in shelters and unsheltered locations.

Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have participated in this trend over the last five years, growing their number of permanent housing beds. Eleven states and territories increased them by more than 50 percent over this short period of years.

Currently, 57 percent of all homeless system beds are designated for permanent housing.

Common Forms of Assistance. Nationally, the most common type of homeless assistance is permanent supportive housing (PSH). Forty-one percent of system beds are in this category which has grown by 96 percent since 2007. Emergency shelter beds, the second most prevalent intervention, have increased by 38 percent since 2007.

Rapid rehousing, the newest type of permanent housing intervention, is continuing along a path of rapid growth. There are 87 percent more beds in this category than there were five years ago.

Transitional housing is the only intervention on the decline-there are 55 percent fewer beds in this category than there were in 2007. This shift is a part of the trend towards more investment in permanent housing solutions.

Populations at Risk of Homelessness

Many Americans live in poverty, amounting to 38.1 million people or 11.8 percent of the U.S. population. They struggle to afford necessities such as housing.

In 2018, 6.5 million Americans experienced severe housing cost burden, which means they spent more than 50 percent of their income on housing. This marked the fourth straight year of decreases in the size of this group. However, the number of severely cost burdened Americans is still 13 percent higher than it was in 2007, the year the nation began monitoring homelessness data.

Another measure of housing hardship is "doubling up," or sharing the housing of others for economic reasons. In 2018, an estimated 4 million people were in these situations. Some of these people have fragile relationships with their hosts or face other challenges in the home, putting them at risk of homelessness. Over the last five years, this number of doubled up people has been trending downward but is still 12 percent higher than it was in 2007.

Over the last decade, the nation hasn't made any real progress in reducing the number of Americans who are at risk of homelessness.

Further, few states are realizing significant improvements in these areas. Within the category of severe housing cost burden, Colorado tops the list but has only reduced its numbers by 13 percent since 2007. Over the same period, Colorado is also the state making the most significant progress in the doubled up category-however, its number only decreased by 34 percent. Most states are seeing their severe housing cost burden and doubled up numbers grow.

Sources and Methodology

Data on homelessness are based on annual point-in-time (PIT) counts conducted by Continuums of Care (CoCs) to estimate the number of people experiencing homelessness on a given night. The latest counts are from January 2019. Point-in-time data from 2007 to 2019 are available on HUD Exchange.

Rates of homelessness are a comparison of point-in-time counts to state, county, and city population data from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program, accessed via American FactFinder (table PEPANNRES: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population, 2018 version). Most CoC boundaries align with one or multiple counties, and about a dozen align with cities that are entirely within one county. However, four CoCs align with city boundaries spanning multiple counties (Atlanta, GA; Amarillo, TX; Kansas City, MO; and Oklahoma City, OK). For these, the population was estimated based on prior year trends.

Data on homeless assistance, or bed capacity of homeless services programs on a given night, are reported annually by CoCs along with point-in-time counts. These data are compiled in the Housing Inventory Count (HIC), which is also available on HUD Exchange for 2007 through 2019.

Data on at risk populations are from analyses by the National Alliance to End Homelessness of the Census Bureau's 2018 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, accessed via American FactFinder. Poor renter households with a severe housing cost burden are households whose total income falls under the applicable poverty threshold and who are paying 50 percent or more of total household income to housing rent. For people living doubled up, poverty is based on the composition and income of the entire household as compared to the poverty thresholds. A person is considered living doubled up based on his or her relationship to the head of household and includes: an adult child (18 years old or older) who is not in school, is married, and/or has children; a sibling; a parent or parent-in-law; an adult grandchild who is not in school; a grandchild who is a member of a subfamily; a son- or daughter-in-law; another relative; or any non-relative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State of Homelessness: 2020 Edition - National Alliance to End Homelessness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the Alliance publishes this updated version of the State of Homelessness, COVID-19 is creating a health and economic crisis in America and throughout the world. It is too soon to determine its ultimate impacts. Thus, this year's report represents [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Government's Strategy to Tackle Homelessness

# data[].attributes.subject
Government's Strategy to Tackle Homelessness

# data[].attributes.body
There is no doubt that the government plays a huge role in helping the homeless. However, according to Kevin C. Corinth, in order to improve our federal response to homelessness we must work on better allocating resources to those who need them most.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
KEVIN C. CORINTH
American Enterprise Institute
From the book "A Safety Net That Works," edited by Robert Doar

Homeless assistance programs constitute the safety net of last resort for individuals and families who have fallen through all the cracks. As a result of extreme poverty, depleted support from relatives, and ineffective help from other safety-net programs, the homeless are unable to meet their basic housing needs. For many individuals, mental illness and substance abuse are linked to homelessness as well. It is essential that our programs catch the vulnerable populations that may otherwise go without shelter and provide the services necessary to lift them back up.

This chapter first describes who the homeless are, distinguishing between the single adults with high rates of substance abuse and mental illness, who frequently sleep on the streets, and the families, who most often are found in shelters. Then it summarizes our major federal efforts to confront homelessness. Finally, it offers recommendations to better prioritize assistance to the most vulnerable and, at the same time, provide more flexibility to local communities to try innovative ideas and boost program performance.

Who Are the Homeless?

Homelessness, as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), includes people who sleep in (1) places not intended for human habitation, such as parks, abandoned buildings, sidewalks, and vehicles; (2) emergency shelters, which provide nightly or short-term stays; and (3) transitional housing programs, which provide stays for 6 to 24 months. On a single night, just over 170,000 people are found sleeping in unsheltered locations, while close to 400,000 people are found in shelters (emergency shelters and transitional housing). That implies that 1 in 1,849 Americans are found on the streets and 1 in 819 Americans are found in a homeless shelter at a single point in time. Over the course of an entire year, 1 in 214 Americans will sleep in a shelter on at least one night. Homelessness is serious but not common, and for most, it does not last long.

In understanding who experiences homelessness and what that experience is like, it is important to distinguish between single adults and families. While 43 percent of homeless single adults are found on the street, only 10 percent of homeless families are found in unsheltered locations (see Figure 1). Furthermore, shelters for single adults are much more likely to have shared sleeping arrangements without the ability to come and go, while families more often receive private rooms for extended periods of time.

Homeless single adults and families also differ substantially in their personal characteristics. Among single individuals accessing shelter throughout the year, 71 percent are male, 75 percent are over the age of 30, and 47 percent have a disabling condition (e.g., a substance abuse problem or severe mental illness). Among adults in families, 78 percent are female, 53 percent are at or below the age of 30, and 21 percent have a disabling condition. Among children in families, 51 percent are below the age of six. In broad terms then, single adults experiencing homelessness tend to be middle-aged men who often have an addiction or a severe mental illness, while the typical homeless family is a single mother with young children.

Our Federal Homelessness Programs

Programs to assist the homeless are funded by federal, state, and local governments, as well as private sources. The federal government alone funds 15 separate programs across 8 different agencies, with the bulk of funding administered by HUD, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Altogether, the federal government spent $4.2 billion on these programs in 2014 (see Figure 2).

The largest and most influential of the federal programs is HUD's Homeless Assistance Grants program, which allocated $2.1 billion dollars to local communities in 2014. This represents 50 percent of all federal funds spent on homelessness programs overall and 75 percent of all funds not specifically dedicated to veterans. Table 1 summarizes the interventions funded in part by HUD.

Emergency shelter is the safety net of last resort for people who find they have nowhere else to sleep. It is noteworthy then that only 12 percent of HUD's homelessness budget can potentially be used for emergency shelter, with a portion of those funds used for other interventions as well. As a result, emergency shelters are largely funded by local governments and private sources.

The majority of HUD's budget is used for longer-term, service-rich interventions. Transitional housing provides time-limited housing and supportive services intended to help people overcome problems and achieve self-sufficiency. Permanent supportive housing provides indefinite housing paired with supportive services for people with disabling conditions such as severe mental illness or substance abuse problems.

Other less intensive interventions funded by HUD include rapid re-housing and homelessness prevention. Rapid re-housing provides short- or medium-term rental subsidies along with case management to individuals or families soon after they become homeless. The intervention is intended to provide only the housing assistance and services needed to avert costly stays in shelter and prevent the recipient from returning to homelessness. Homelessness prevention is generally short-term financial assistance that helps families remain in their current housing.

These interventions are typically carried out by nonprofit service providers, which for the most part apply for HUD funding through local Continuums of Care (CoCs). Each CoC represents a specific geographic area (a city, county, or collection of counties), and its board includes representatives of local service providers, government officials, and at least one currently or formerly homeless individual. CoCs collect and rank funding applications, conduct annual counts of their homeless populations, maintain data systems that track individuals and families across participating service providers, and monitor the performance of providers. HUD also requires CoCs to allocate interventions to people using coordinated entry systems that prioritize the most intensive interventions to the most vulnerable people and less intensive interventions to those with fewer needs.

While CoCs have significant autonomy to determine how funds are allocated across providers, HUD rewards CoCs that target particular subpopulations and use certain types of interventions. In recent years, HUD has encouraged CoCs (via higher scores on applications and thus more funding) to offer permanent supportive housing to the chronically homeless-individuals or families who have been homeless for the past year or four separate times during the past three years and who have a disabling condition.

As a result, the national inventory of permanent supportive housing has increased by 69 percent since 2007. With these units, service providers are rewarded for employing a Housing First approach-providing housing and services without requirements that people maintain sobriety or engage with treatment. For people who do not require intensive services, HUD encourages CoCs to offer rapid re-housing in lieu of extended stays in emergency shelter or transitional housing.

Agencies besides HUD have smaller homelessness budgets. The VA distributes $1.3 billion across six programs for transitional housing, health care, and supportive services for homeless veterans. HHS distributes $487 million across four programs for health care and youth-specific programming. Other agencies that distribute small amounts of funding include the Department of Homeland Security ($120 million), the Department of Education ($65 million), the Department of Labor ($38 million), and the Department of Justice ($25 million).

Lastly, a special agency called the Interagency Council on Homelessness is charged with coordinating the collective federal response to homelessness. In 2010, the council released a strategic plan known as Opening Doors, which sought to end homelessness in a decade. Specifically, it set out to end homelessness among veterans and the chronically homeless by 2015 and among families by 2020. The word "end" is used loosely, however. The original plan called these goals "aspirational," and an amended plan in 2015 clarifies that ending homelessness means preventing it "whenever possible" and otherwise making it a "rare, brief, and non-recurring experience." Nonetheless, the rhetoric in combination with HUD funding priorities may have been instrumental in driving large increases in permanent supportive housing and investment in housing and services for veterans over the past several years.

While the federal government plays an extremely important role in assisting the homeless, state, local, and private efforts are important as well. There is tremendous variation across the country in the availability and quality of local efforts. For example, New York City is one of the few places in the country to offer immediate shelter to all residents who need it as a legal right, and for families, shelter often means a private apartment unit. Perhaps as a result, 22 percent of all homeless families in the country are found in New York City alone. Other cities often have waiting lists for shelters without legally mandated minimum quality standards and have much lower rates of family homelessness.

Local variation in service quality not only complicates federal efforts but also brings to light a more fundamental problem; better options for the homeless increase the number of people who will take them up, including many who would have otherwise been housed. This means that services must be targeted carefully and must avoid promising benefits that are more generous than is necessary.

How to Improve Our Efforts

Our system of homelessness programs constitutes the final safety net for people who have no place else to go. It is a failure of that system when vulnerable human beings nonetheless sleep on our streets. While counts of the homeless have fallen since beginning in earnest in 2007, recent work suggests that much of that reduction may be due more to changes in methodologies and the quality of street counts than to how many homeless people there actually are. Meanwhile, a number of major cities have reportedly seen recent spikes in the numbers sleeping on the street, leading several to declare a homelessness state of emergency. Rather than double down on plans to end homelessness with old solutions, we should invest in innovative ideas that push progress forward, while ensuring that resources are prioritized to the people who need them most.

Better homelessness policy starts with making a fundamental distinction-homeless families are different than homeless single adults, and they require wholly different policy responses. Homeless families generally live in private rooms in shelters. They most often need temporary housing assistance to get back on their feet. Homeless single adults generally sleep on the street or in congregate shelters, and they often suffer from severe mental illness or substance abuse problems. They are more likely to require longer-term, service-rich interventions.

It makes little sense to lump these groups together. It is important that federal funds are intentionally allocated to each group separately and that they support the package of interventions best suited to each group.

Solutions for each group are discussed next.

Single Adults. The federal government should have a strong, proactive response for homeless single adults. This group includes the most vulnerable individuals within the homeless population-individuals who suffer from severe mental illness or chronic addiction and who live on the streets as a way of life. Acting alone, localities have strong incentives to avoid the most vulnerable, perhaps in hopes that they move somewhere else, rather than bring them in to provide the expensive services they often need. But simply increasing federal funding will not solve the problem. The federal government must insist that funds are prioritized to the most vulnerable and that service providers achieve the best possible results with the resources they receive.

Fortunately, significant progress has been made on prioritization. HUD requires communities to implement coordinated entry systems that assess the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and prioritize them based on vulnerability. But HUD has not fully embraced coordinated entry. Driven by a goal of ending chronic homelessness, HUD rewards CoCs for targeting permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless individuals.

Chronic status is a crude distinction that should be abandoned as long as CoCs are using a vetted coordinated entry process for allocating assistance. An individual with a severe mental illness and a co-occurring addiction problem who has been homeless for 11 months is not considered chronically homeless, but this individual may be much more vulnerable and in greater need of supportive housing than a chronically homeless individual who has been homeless for more than a year but solely has an addiction problem.

Better homelessness policy starts with making a fundamental distinction-homeless families are different than homeless single adults.

Even perfect prioritization is not sufficient, however, if the people who are most vulnerable do not actually use the services they are offered. HUD should take a more proactive role in ensuring that CoCs successfully bring in the most vulnerable. This may in part mean increasing funding for high-quality outreach efforts. But it also means finding ways to hold CoCs accountable for outreach quality.

For example, CoCs could be required to submit a list of all individuals encountered sleeping on the street who suffer from severe mental illness or a chronic addiction problem, ordered by their vulnerability. The CoC would then be required to explain why any individuals are still sleeping on the street if they were deemed more vulnerable than others who were actually brought into supportive housing.

Better prioritization and outreach is only half the battle for single adults, however. More attention must be paid to increasing the quality of services themselves. If service providers can more effectively address underlying problems such as addiction or family disconnection, or if they can help clients receive treatment needed to improve their mental health, clients can more quickly be transitioned out of supportive housing programs and into private living environments with family or on their own, freeing up resources for future people in need. These outcomes are also inherently valuable.

Unfortunately, HUD has stifled innovation by focusing more on encouraging specific service models than on service-provider performance. In particular, HUD encourages service providers to adhere to a Housing First approach, which does not require sobriety or treatment for clients to maintain housing. This approach is not inherently bad, and it may be the best one for some individuals. But it has not been shown to be superior to other models in reducing substance abuse or improving mental health; it may even be less effective than certain models that have yet to undergo rigorous testing with randomized controlled trials.

A better way to unleash innovation is to focus on performance.. Service providers should be offered substantial flexibility in their service models, but they should be held accountable for their performance in helping their clients achieve desired outcomes. Performance measures should take into account the vulnerability of clients served so as not to punish service providers for accepting hard-to-serve individuals. This approach requires a renewed commitment to collecting high-quality data so that individual outcomes can be reliably tracked.

Over the past decade, HUD has taken the important step of requiring CoCs to establish data systems that track individuals through homeless assistance programs. But even better data are needed to monitor broader outcomes of individuals, including records from hospitals, emergency rooms, detox centers, mental health facilities, and jails. These records can indicate the costly use of other public services, as well as problems associated with poor mental health, addiction, and unstable living situations. HUD should offer additional support and flexibility to CoCs to build these broader data systems and evaluate service providers on performance measures.

Larger-scale innovation that altogether rethinks how homeless services are provided should be encouraged as well. For example, I discuss in a recent proposal how homelessness policy could be reoriented around smartphones and big data. Homeless individuals could be given free smartphones and full service plans in return for providing daily information on their sleeping locations, health status, and other outcomes. Research could be revolutionized with access to detailed, longitudinal data on an otherwise hidden population. Innovative interventions could be delivered to individuals via smartphones, and using randomized controlled trials, their effects could more easily be tracked. Statistical algorithms could help homeless individuals make data-based choices about service use and other major decisions. Newly created Homeless Innovation Centers staffed by data scientists and homelessness experts could be charged with dynamically creating unique packages of interventions for each homeless individual, in conjunction with implementing a dynamic research agenda. Flexibility from other federal restrictions could be offered for CoCs wishing to experiment with this or other innovative ideas.

Families. A strong federal response to homelessness among families is less necessary than that needed for single adults. Families rarely sleep on the streets, and they almost never do so as a way of life. Family shelters are not highly desirable places in which to live, but they usually offer families private rooms without forcing them to leave in the morning, as is more often the case with single adults. As a result, the number of homeless families in a community depends largely on whether quality shelter is actually made available. Rather than keep families off the streets, shelters are more likely to keep families out of doubled-up situations that may or may not be problematic. Nonetheless, the federal government has an important role to play in empowering communities to provide an efficient housing safety net for families.

Prioritization of families for the appropriate intervention is just as necessary for families as it is for single adults. Diverting families who have safe places to stay with relatives or who can be better served by mainstream programs is a necessity if resources are to be available for families who otherwise face unsafe housing situations, especially in unsheltered environments. Meanwhile, service-intense interventions should be reserved for families who would actually benefit from them. HUD already requires that CoCs use coordinated entry systems but again impedes efficient prioritization by artificially prioritizing chronically homeless families.

Our homeless assistance programs are supposed to act as the final safety net for people who would otherwise have no other place to go.

The actual interventions offered to homeless families should primarily emphasize helping families to quickly regain housing. Toward this end, HUD has encouraged CoCs to increasingly rely on rapid re-housing, which by providing temporary rental assistance, can be a cost-effective way to help families get back on their feet. But HUD should also encourage CoCs to experiment with modified ways of offering rapid re-housing assistance that could better increase self-sufficiency without major cost increases.

For example, families could be allowed to share housing (or "double up") with others, with cost savings used to provide the family financial incentives for maintaining employment. HUD could also allow CoCs to experiment with providing greater autonomy to caseworkers assigned to families in rapid re-housing. Caseworkers could, for instance, require job-seeking activities or set expectations for other steps that would bolster self-sufficiency.

At the same time that HUD has encouraged CoCs to invest more heavily in rapid re-housing, it has also discouraged investment in transitional housing. Given that transitional housing is expensive and its effectiveness is uncertain, this is a sensible decision. However, if CoCs implement reliable methods of identifying specific transitional housing programs that achieve better outcomes than other forms of assistance, HUD should offer federal resources to such programs as well. Finally, HUD should continue to fund homelessness-prevention assistance, but it should remain cautious given the inherent difficulty in predicting which families would otherwise enter shelters.

Our homeless assistance programs are supposed to act as the final safety net for people who would otherwise have no other place to go. It is a failure then when, despite the billions of dollars spent by the federal government alone on programs for the homeless, tens of thousands of people with severe mental illness and chronic substance abuse problems live on the streets. Meanwhile, homeless families do not typically face life on the streets, but it is important to provide efficient assistance to those who otherwise would be housed in unsafe environments. Federal and local government must do better.

Better federal policy for single adults requires fully embracing coordinated entry systems, holding communities accountable for actually serving the most vulnerable living on the streets, and rewarding service providers for their performance in helping clients achieve a broad set of outcomes. At the same time, the federal government should provide more flexibility to localities to meet these objectives in innovative ways, rather than stifle innovation with blunt political goals. For homeless families, a full commitment to coordinated entry and experimentation with cost-effective variants of rapid re-housing assistance is needed. Ultimately, improving our homelessness policies requires clear thinking about who needs what, accountability for results, and a culture of innovation.

To read the complete collection of essays, please click here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Improving Our Federal Response to Homelessness - AEI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
KEVIN C. CORINTH American Enterprise Institute From the book "A Safety Net That Works," edited by Robert Doar Homeless assistance programs constitute the safety net of last resort for individuals and families who have fallen through all the cracks.

# data[].attributes.body
Paying your mortgage can be hard especially for those who have a low income or a family to take care of. In order to protect people from financial burden, HUD offers counselors that may help guide you on how to attack your next mortgage payments.
(Benefits are circumstantial)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homeowner Help | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

# data[].attributes.headline
Local Organization Helps to Feed & Clothe the Homeless

# data[].attributes.subject
Local Organization Helps to Feed & Clothe the Homeless

# data[].attributes.body
It's one thing to understand that homelessness is a widespread issue, but it is another to actually take action. However, that is exactly what Sacred Heart is up to this season by having students set up a food pantry and clothes closet as part of their corporal works of mercy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12

Food Pantry

We offer two food programs: a three-day supplemental supply of groceries and an assortment of food for homeless customers that requires no prep or cooking. Customers can receive food twice a month (once time between 1st and 14th, and again between 15th and end of month), and may access additional produce once a week. The Pantry is one of only two programs at Sacred Heart that are zipcode-specific. The rest are open to people who live in Santa Clara County. The Pantry serves these zip codes:

95008

95110

95111

95112

95113

95116

95117

95118

95120

95123

95124

95125

95126

95128

95134

Homeless individuals

For more informationemail us.

Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12

Clothes Closet

Families visit the Clothes Closet to browse and shop twice a month for high-quality clothing, shoes, accessories, linens, and books that are donated by local community members. Every family member can take home 5 articles of clothing each - all free of charge. We also provide Survival Sacks, designed for our homeless neighbors, which include a brand new backpack filled with essential hygiene items. These are available once every three months for customers. Survival Sacks are given out on the 10th and 25th of every month from 9am to 11am. For more information, please call 408.916.5040 or email us.

Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12

Home Gardening: La Mesa Verde

You can save more than $400 a year and provide healthy food for your family by growing an organic vegetable garden in your own yard. Participants in this program receive soil, seeds, and raised garden beds, then work with mentors to raise their first bountiful harvest. For more information, please call (408)916-5024 or email us.

Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12

Food Pantry

We offer two food programs: a three-day supplemental supply of groceries and an assortment of food for homeless customers that requires no prep or cooking. Customers can receive food twice a month (once time between 1st and 14th, and again between 15th and end of month), and may access additional produce once a week. The Pantry is one of only two programs at Sacred Heart that are zipcode-specific. The rest are open to people who live in Santa Clara County. The Pantry serves these zip codes:

95008

95110

95111

95112

95113

95116

95117

95118

95120

95123

95124

95125

95126

95128

95134

Homeless individuals

For more informationemail us.

Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12

Clothes Closet

Families visit the Clothes Closet to browse and shop twice a month for high-quality clothing, shoes, accessories, linens, and books that are donated by local community members. Every family member can take home 5 articles of clothing each - all free of charge. We also provide Survival Sacks, designed for our homeless neighbors, which include a brand new backpack filled with essential hygiene items. These are available once every three months for customers. Survival Sacks are given out on the 10th and 25th of every month from 9am to 11am. For more information, please call 408.916.5040 or email us.

Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12

Home Gardening: La Mesa Verde

You can save more than $400 a year and provide healthy food for your family by growing an organic vegetable garden in your own yard. Participants in this program receive soil, seeds, and raised garden beds, then work with mentors to raise their first bountiful harvest. For more information, please call (408)916-5024 or email us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monday: 9-4 Tuesday: 9-6 Wednesday: 9-4 Thursday: 9-4 Friday: 9-12 We offer two food programs: a three-day supplemental supply of groceries and an assortment of food for homeless customers that requires no prep or cooking. Customers can receive food twice a month (once time between 1st and 14th, and again between 15th and end of month), and may access additional produce once a week.

# data[].attributes.body
The youth is our future; it is as simple as that. But, do we want our youth to grow up thinking that they are not cared for because of their upbringing? That's not justice. That's not the American way. Luckily, groups like StandUp For Kids are working to help hundreds of teens discover their potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We work to end the cycle of youth homelessness by identifying and engaging homeless and at-risk youth. We then connect youth an array of our programs and outside community supports to address their whole-person needs. Blueprints for success guide youth toward sustainable and healthy outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
When we were children many of us were told that all men [and women] are born equal. However, when people look at the wage gap and homelessness today it is clear our priorities have changed. Let's work to build a better tomorrow following Finland's example.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Four years ago, Thomas Salmi was drinking to forget. He was homeless and living on the streets of Finland's capital city Helsinki.

He had a rough start in life . He wasn't able to live at home because his father had problems with aggression. He ended up going to nine different children's homes, before falling through the cracks of the system in his late teens. By 21 he was homeless. "I lost the sense of a normal life. I became depressed, aggressive, angry and I abused alcohol a lot." He would drink up to half a gallon a day and then get into trouble. "I thought why would I care if I go to jail? I don't have to be out there in snow and cold."

Salmi was sleeping in Helsinki train station when a social worker found him and told him he could help. He was put in touch with Helsinki Deaconess Institute (HDI), a Finnish nonprofit that provides social services. A year later he moved into Aurora-Tola, a 125-unit house run by HDI.

Now 25 years old, he lives in his own studio apartment, works as a janitor and life is getting back on track. "I know that if I am in my house nobody is coming to get me out or telling me what to do," he said, "If I want to dance in my home, I can."

Salmi is a beneficiary of Finland's much-lauded "housing first" approach, which has been in place for more than a decade.

The idea is simple. To solve homelessness you start by giving someone a home, a permanent one with no strings attached. If they want to drink, they can; if they want to take drugs, that's fine too. Support services are made available to treat addiction, mental health and other problems, and to help people get back on their feet, from assisting with welfare paperwork to securing a job.

The housing in Finland is a mix of designated standard apartments sprinkled through the community, and supported housing: apartment blocks with on-site services, built or renovated specifically for chronically homeless people. A Salvation Army building in Helsinki, for example, was converted from a 250-bed emergency shelter to an 81 apartment supported housing unit.

Formerly homeless residents have a rental contract just like anyone else. They pay rent from their own pockets or through the benefits afforded by Finland's relatively generous welfare state.

The approach is working. As homelessness rises across Europe, Finland's numbers are falling. In 1987, there were around . In 2017, there were 18,000 homeless people 7,112 homeless people, of which only 415 were living on the streets or in emergency shelters. The vast majority (84 percent) were staying temporarily with friends or relatives. Between 2008 and 2015, the number of people experiencing long-term homelessness dropped by 35 percent .

The reason? Finland approaches homelessness "as a housing problem and a violation of fundamental rights, both solvable, and not as an inevitable social problem resulting from personal issues," said an analysis from Feantsa, a European network that focuses on homelessness.

Traditionally, homeless people are told to straighten up and quit drinking or doing drugs as a precondition to housing. But critics point to the grinding difficulty of shaking addiction from the streets or from temporary shelter beds.

"If something happens and you aren't successful, like it always happens, it's the nature of addiction, then you are back on the street," said Heli Alkila, service area director at HDI which housed Thomas Salmi.

Finland's approach ultimately comes down to values, said Juha Kaakinen, an architect of the housing first approach and CEO of the nonprofit Y-Foundation. "The Finnish attitude is that we have to help people who are in the most difficult position, whatever the reason they have become homeless," he said. "We understand very well that the main reasons behind homelessness are structural reasons."

In Espoo, a city 2 miles west of the Finnish capital, a housing unit sits overlooking a lake. This is Väinölä, a small development built in 2014, which is home to 35 formerly homeless people in 33 apartments.

Eight nurses work on shifts to ensure someone is available 24 hours a day, and a work activity coach and coordinator organize work for those who can and want to do it. This could be anything from cooking meals to packing reflectors and it earns residents €2 ($2.30) a day.

Teams of residents also collect trash locally. "The neighborhood loves it because they think this area is now cleaner than ever," said Jarkko Jyräsalo, who runs Väinölä. "Sometimes housing units like this have problems with their neighbors, but we don't."

Despite the different, sometimes severe, needs of residents, Väinölä is mostly peaceful. Jyräsalo credits weekly community meetings between residents and staff. "They are people who are used to solving their problems with fists or fighting. But now we have learnt to discuss things."

Finland's success at cutting homelessness has attracted a huge amount of international attention, and the Y-Foundation's Kaakinen is often asked to explain how the country mobilized such strong political will. For him, it boils down to this: "There has to be some individual politician who has the social consciousness."

In Finland's case it was Jan Vapaavuori, now Helsinki's mayor but then the housing minister, who drove the housing first approach. Vapaavuori's politics - he's in the center-right National Coalition Party - were important, said Kaakinen. When a radical idea is championed by a conservative politician, "it's very difficult for others to oppose it," he said. Since then, politicians of all stripes in Finland have continued to support the approach.

It's not just central government, either. It has been a huge collaborative effort also including cities, businesses, NGOs and state-owned gambling company Veikkaus, formerly Finland's Slot Machine Association, whose profits go to social causes.

While it's expensive to build, buy and rent housing for homeless people, as well as provide the vital support services, the architects of the policy say it pays for itself. Studies have found housing one long-term homeless person saves society around €15,000 ($17,000) a year, said Kaakinen, due to a reduction in their use of services such as hospital emergency rooms, police and the criminal justice system.

The housing first approach has its critics. There are those who balk at the idea of people getting free housing when they are seen as having made bad choices. There are accusations that allowing people to continue using alcohol and drugs normalizes the behavior. "But no we don't," said Alkila of HDI. "Drugs are here, all these things are here, and we are just trying. It's a human dignity question, you have to have a place to stay."

There are also criticisms from some of the formerly homeless people who benefit from the policy. Jyri-Pekka Pursiainen is one of them. A divorce and sudden unemployment knocked him off balance, and he found himself on the streets. For the last two years, he has lived in a studio apartment in a supported housing block in Helsinki, carved out of a former retirement home.

But he is unhappy. "The place I am living now, you can't call it home ... The whole building is moldy, it's in really bad shape. People get sick there," he said. He was told the apartment would be short term. But nearly two years down the line, he is still there with no clue when he might move on. He wants somewhere safe where his three children can visit him.

Still, Pursiainen admits his situation is better now than when he was homeless. He has his own place, and he lives in the center of Helsinki paying a monthly rent of €331 ($379), less than a third of what a standard studio apartment would ordinarily cost there.

None of the housing first advocates suggest that the approach is problem-free, but it's a base from which people can start to rebuild. "Maybe it's not perfect, maybe it's not the dream you had when you were young but this is your own place," said Alkila.

Finland is not alone in following a housing first approach. It's already being used in countries such as Denmark, Canada, Australia and also the U.S.

Breaking Ground, a homelessness NGO that operates 4,000 housing units across New York and Connecticut, was one of the pioneers of a housing first approach, said CEO Brenda Rosen.

They hear from critics all the time, she said, who argue people should need to address their issues before they get housing. "We fundamentally feel that that is backwards ... rather than expending all your energy and trying to get through each and every day and figure out how you will eat your meals and survive another night through a cold winter, the most decent, humane and cost-effective way is to bring folks inside."

Housing first is effective in America, said Nan Roman, president and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, but the scale of the U.S. problem is just so much bigger and the political context is different. "The strategy works," said Roman. "That's not the issue. The issue is how much of it are you going to do, and all credit to Finland for having the social safety net and for having the commitment to say they're going to go to scale or for going to scale. We haven't done that."

Finland still has challenges. The demographics of the homeless population are shifting as new groups of people find themselves slipping through the cracks. Alkila points to women as a growing group, now making up around 23 percent of homeless people. Domestic violence and increased use of substances are among the reasons for women becoming homeless, according to a Y Foundation report . Some young people, too, are finding it hard to get a footing when affordable housing is so scarce.

"We didn't solve homelessness, we solved some part of it," said Sanna Tiivola of the nonprofit No Fixed Abode (VVA). But, she added, when she goes to other countries and sees they are still leaning heavily on emergency shelters as a solution, "I always think, ahhh you're still here. Why? Why are doing this shelter thing , no, no, no don't do it! So that's a visible change ... and that's why I think people say that Finland solved homelessness."

For Salmi, Finland's housing first approach has changed his life. He has ambitions, he wants to retrain as a pipefitter. He still drinks but only on the weekends. He still struggles with mental health problems, but far less severely and far less often than he used to, and he said he no longer has suicidal thoughts.

"My apartment is kind of a sanctuary ... Before I lost my home I didn't understand how much it meant, and when I lost it, within those three years, I kind of understand the little things in life make you happy," he said. "I mean if I have dinner, little things, like if I have bread in my fridge later. Normal things."
For more content and to be part of the 'This New World' community, follow our Facebook page.

HuffPost's 'This New World' series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated the location of Espoo as east of Helsinki.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How This Country Has Solved Homelessness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four years ago, Thomas Salmi was drinking to forget. He was homeless and living on the streets of Finland's capital city Helsinki. He had a rough start in life . He wasn't able to live at home because his father had problems with aggression.

# data[].attributes.body
Gogh, Vincent. The Potato Eaters. 1885. Oil on canvas. Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Currently on view

Vincent van Gogh (1853 - 1890), Nuenen, April-May 1885

oil on canvas, 82 cm x 114 cm

Credits (obliged to state): Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

Van Gogh saw the Potato Eaters as a showpiece, for which he deliberately chose a difficult composition to prove he was on his way to becoming a good figure painter. The painting had to depict the harsh reality of country life, so he gave the peasants coarse faces and bony, working hands. He wanted to show in this way that they 'have tilled the earth themselves with these hands they are putting in the dish ... that they have thus honestly earned their food'.

He painted the five figures in earth colours - 'something like the colour of a really dusty potato, unpeeled of course'. The message of the painting was more important to Van Gogh than correct anatomy or technical perfection. He was very pleased with the result: yet his painting drew considerable criticism because its colours were so dark and the figures full of mistakes. Nowadays, the Potato Eaters is one of Van Gogh's most famous works.

Dimensions

82 cm x 114 cm, 100 cm x 133 cm

Provenance

Sent by the artist to his brother Theo van Gogh, Paris, at the beginning of May 1885; after his death on 25 January 1891, inherited by his widow, Jo van Gogh-Bonger, and their son, Vincent Willem van Gogh, Paris; administered until her death on 2 September 1925 by Jo van Gogh-Bonger, Bussum/Amsterdam/Laren; transferred by Vincent Willem van Gogh, Laren, to the Vincent van Gogh Foundation, Amsterdam, 10 July 1962; agreement concluded between the Vincent van Gogh Foundation and the State of the Netherlands, in which the preservation and management of the collection, and its placing in the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, to be realized in Amsterdam, is entrusted to the State, 21 July 1962; given on loan until the opening of the museum on 2 June 1973 to the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; on permanent loan to the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh from 2 June 1973 and at the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, since 1 July 1994.

Credits (obliged to state)

Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, De Aardappeleters: misser of meesterwerk?, 8 October 2021 - 13 February 2022

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, 'Je liefhebbende Vincent'. Van Goghs mooiste brieven, 9 October 2020 - 10 January 2021

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Munch : Van Gogh, 24 September 2015 - 17 January 2016

Oslo, Munch Museum, Van Gogh + Munch, 9 May 2015 - 6 September 2015

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Van Gogh aan het werk, 1 May 2013 - 13 January 2014

Amsterdam, Hermitage Amsterdam, Vincent. Het Van Gogh Museum in de Hermitage Amsterdam, 29 September 2012 - 25 April 2013

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Van Goghs brieven. De kunstenaar aan het woord, 9 October 2009 - 3 January 2010

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Van Gogh en de kleuren van de nacht, 13 February 2009 - 7 June 2009

New York, Museum of Modern Art (New York), Van Gogh and the Colors of the Night, 21 September 2008 - 5 January 2009

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, De keuze van Vincent. Van Goghs Musée imaginaire, 14 February 2003 - 15 June 2003

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Licht! Het industriële tijdperk 1750-1900. Kunst en wetenschap, technologie & samenleving, 20 October 2000 - 11 February 2001, no. zonder nr.

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Van Gogh. Face to Face, 2 July 2000 - 24 September 2000

Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Van Gogh's Van Goghs. Masterpieces from the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, 17 January 1999 - 16 May 1999, no. 6

Washington, National Gallery of Art, Van Gogh's Van Goghs. Masterpieces from the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, 4 October 1998 - 3 January 1999, no. 6

Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh and his time. Van Gogh & Millet from the Vincent van Gogh Museum and the H.W. Mesdag Museum, 15 September 1993 - 14 November 1993, no. 2

Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, De aardappeleters van Vincent van Gogh, 11 June 1993 - 29 August 1993, no. 14

Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Vincent van Gogh. Schilderijen, 30 March 1990 - 29 July 1990, no. 7

Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh & Millet, 9 December 1988 - 26 February 1989, no. 19

Den Bosch, Noordbrabants Museum, Van Gogh in Brabant. Schilderijen en tekeningen uit Etten en Nuenen, 2 November 1987 - 10 January 1988, no. 43

Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Vincent van Gogh in zijn Hollandse jaren. Kijk op stad en land door Van Gogh en zijn tijdgenoten 1870-1890, 13 December 1980 - 22 March 1981, no. 120

Bern, Kunstmuseum Bern, Vincent van Gogh. Collection du Musée National Vincent van Gogh à Amsterdam, 25 January 1973 - 15 April 1973, no. 1

Strasbourg, Musée d'Art Moderne et Contemporain Strasbourg, Vincent van Gogh. Collection du Musée National Vincent van Gogh à Amsterdam, 22 October 1972 - 15 January 1973, no. 1

Bordeaux, Musée des Beaux-Arts (Bordeaux), Vincent van Gogh. Collection du Musée National Vincent van Gogh à Amsterdam, 21 April 1972 - 20 June 1972, no. 1

Paris, Orangerie des Tuileries, Vincent van Gogh. Collection du Musée National Vincent van Gogh à Amsterdam, 21 December 1971 - 10 April 1972, no. 5

New York, Brooklyn Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 14 February 1971 - 4 April 1971, no. 6

San Francisco, M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 11 December 1970 - 31 January 1971, no. 6

Baltimore, Baltimore Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 11 October 1970 - 29 November 1970, no. 6

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 28 February 1970 - 5 April 1970, no. 6

Saint Louis, City Art Museum of Saint Louis, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 20 December 1969 - 1 February 1970, no. 6

Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 14 October 1969 - 1 December 1969, no. 6

London, Hayward Gallery, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings of the Vincent van Gogh Foundation Amsterdam, 23 October 1968 - 12 January 1969, no. 38

Wolfsburg, Stadthalle Wolfsburg, Vincent van Gogh. Gemälde, Aquarelle, Zeichnungen, 18 February 1967 - 2 April 1967, no. 10

Gothenburg, Göteborgs Konstmuseum, Vincent van Gogh. Målningar, akvareller, teckningar, 30 December 1965 - 20 February 1966, no. 6

Stockholm, Moderna Museet, Vincent van Gogh. Målningar, akvareller, teckningar, 23 October 1965 - 19 December 1965, no. 6

Nuenen, Gemeentehuis, Vincent van Gogh. Schilderijen, aquarellen, tekeningen, 8 August 1965 - 31 May 1965, no. zonder nr.

Museum voor Schone Kunsten (Gent), Vincent van Gogh. Schilderijen, aquarellen, tekeningen, 19 February 1965 - 28 March 1965, no. 2

Charleroi, Palais des Beaux-Arts (Charleroi), Vincent van Gogh. Schilderijen, aquarellen, tekeningen, 9 January 1965 - 9 February 1965, no. 2

New York, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 2 April 1964 - 28 June 1964, no. 3

Washington, Washington Gallery of Modern Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 2 February 1964 - 19 March 1964, no. 3

Humlebaek, Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Vincent van Gogh. Malerier og tegninger, 24 October 1963 - 15 December 1963, no. 3

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 150 jaar Nederlandse Kunst. Schilderijen, beelden, tekeningen, grafiek 1813-1963, 6 July 1963 - 29 September 1963, no. 97

Kansas City, William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 7 February 1963 - 26 March 1963, no. 6

Detroit Institute of Arts, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 11 December 1962 - 29 January 1963, no. 6

Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), Carnegie Institute, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 18 October 1962 - 4 November 1962, no. 6

Recklinghausen, Kunsthalle Recklinghausen, Idee und Vollendung, 19 May 1962 - 15 July 1962, no. 22

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 22 March 1962 - 29 April 1962, no. 6

Buffalo (New York), Albright Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 30 January 1962 - 11 March 1962, no. 6

Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 5 December 1961 - 14 January 1962, no. 6

Baltimore, Baltimore Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings, 18 October 1961 - 26 November 1961, no. 6

Toronto, The Art Gallery of Toronto, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings-Drawings / Tableaux-Dessins, 10 February 1961 - 12 March 1961, no. 12

Winnipeg, Winnipeg Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings-Drawings / Tableaux-Dessins, 29 December 1960 - 31 January 1961, no. 12

Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings-Drawings / Tableaux-Dessins, 17 November 1960 - 18 December 1960, no. 12

Montréal, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings-Drawings / Tableaux-Dessins, 6 October 1960 - 6 November 1960, no. 12

Brussels, Palais des Beaux Arts, Le drame social dans l'art. De Goya à Picasso, 21 May 1960 - 30 June 1960, no. 74

Utrecht, Centraal Museum, Vincent van Gogh schilderijen en tekeningen, verzameling Ir. V.W. van Gogh, 18 December 1959 - 1 February 1960, no. 3

Seattle, Seattle Art Museum, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 7 March 1959 - 19 April 1959, no. 7

Portland (Oregon), Portland Art Museum (Oregon), Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 28 January 1959 - 1 March 1959, no. 7

Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 10 December 1958 - 18 January 1959, no. 7

San Francisco, M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings and Drawings, 6 October 1958 - 30 November 1958, no. 7

Mons, Museum voor Schoone Kunsten, Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890). Son art et ses amis, 22 March 1958 - 5 May 1958, no. 4

De Muntentoren, Schilderijen van Vincent van Gogh, 31 January 1958 - 20 February 1958, no. 4

Schiedam, Stedelijk Museum Schiedam, Vincent van Gogh, 21 December 1957 - 27 January 1958, no. 4

Leiden, Museum De Lakenhal, Vincent van Gogh, 9 November 1957 - 16 December 1957, no. 4

Marseille, Musée Cantini, Vincent van Gogh, 12 March 1957 - 28 April 1957, no. 10

Breda, Cultureel Centrum De Beyerd, Vincent van Gogh, 2 February 1957 - 24 February 1957, no. 26

Newcastle upon Tyne, Laing Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings & Drawings, Mainly from the Collection of Ir. V.W. van Gogh, 11 February 1956 - 24 March 1956, no. 4

Manchester (England), Manchester City Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings & Drawings, Mainly from the Collection of Ir. V.W. van Gogh, 17 December 1955 - 4 February 1956, no. 4

Liverpool, Walker Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh. Paintings & Drawings, Mainly from the Collection of Ir. V.W. van Gogh, 29 October 1955 - 10 December 1955, no. 4

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Vincent van Gogh, 24 June 1955 - 1 September 1955, no. 25

Antwerp, Zaal Comité voor Artistieke Werking, Vincent van Gogh, 7 May 1955 - 19 June 1955, no. 52

New Orleans, Isaac Delgado Museum, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890, 27 March 1955 - 20 April 1955, no. 5

Miami, Lowe Gallery of the University of Miami, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890, 24 February 1955 - 20 March 1955, no. 5

Palm Beach (Florida), Society of the Four Arts, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890, 21 January 1955 - 13 February 1955, no. 5

Willemstad, Curaçaosch Museum, Vincent van Gogh, 19 December 1954 - 15 January 1955, no. 5

Zurich, Kunsthaus Zürich, Vincent van Gogh, 9 October 1954 - 21 November 1954, no. 2

Toledo (Ohio), Toledo Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890, 7 March 1954 - 30 April 1954, no. 30

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890, 2 January 1954 - 28 February 1954, no. 30

Saint Louis, City Art Museum of Saint Louis, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890, 17 October 1953 - 13 December 1953, no. 30

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Eeuwfeest Vincent van Gogh, 23 July 1953 - 20 September 1953, no. 22

Otterlo, Kröller-Müller Museum, Eeuwfeest Vincent van Gogh, 24 May 1953 - 19 July 1953, no. 22

The Hague, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Vincent van Gogh, 30 March 1953 - 17 May 1953, no. 34

Eindhoven, Van Abbemuseum, Vincent van Gogh, 22 March 1952 - 4 May 1952, no. 7

Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Vincent van Gogh, 20 February 1952 - 16 March 1952, no. 10

Alkmaar, Stedelijk Museum Alkmaar, Tentoonstelling schilderijen van Vincent van Gogh, 1 December 1951 - 1 January 1952, no. 1

Nijmegen, Waaggebouw, Tentoonstelling schilderijen van Vincent van Gogh, 3 November 1951 - 26 November 1951, no. 1

Arles, Musée Réattu, Vincent van Gogh en Provence, 5 May 1951 - 27 May 1951, no. 9

Grenoble, Musée de Grenoble, Vincent van Gogh, 30 March 1951 - 2 May 1951, no. 9

Lyon, Musée de Lyon, Vincent van Gogh, 5 February 1951 - 27 March 1951, no. 9

Hilversum, Raadhuis Hilversum, Tentoonstelling Vincent van Gogh, 7 October 1950 - 5 November 1950, no. 1

Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, Vincent van Gogh Paintings and Drawings. A Special Loan Exhibition, 1 February 1950 - 16 April 1950, no. 7

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh Paintings and Drawings. A Special Loan Exhibition, 21 October 1949 - 15 January 1950, no. 7

Middelburg, Kunstmuseum Middelburg, Van Gogh-tentoonstelling, 9 April 1949 - 1 May 1949, no. 9

The Hague, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Vincent van Gogh. Collectie ir. V.W. van Gogh, 12 October 1948 - 10 January 1949, no. 12

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Vincent van Gogh en zijn Nederlandse tijdgenoten, 25 June 1948 - 30 September 1948, no. zonder nr.

Oslo, Kunstnernes Hus, Vincent van Gogh, 24 April 1948 - 15 May 1948, no. 2

Bergen (Norway), Kunstforening, Vincent van Gogh, 23 March 1948 - 18 April 1948, no. 2

Glasgow, City Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890. An Exhibition of Paintings and Drawings, 21 February 1948 - 14 March 1948, no. 6

City Art Gallery, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890. An Exhibition of Paintings and Drawings, 24 January 1948 - 14 February 1948, no. 6

London, Tate Gallery, Vincent van Gogh 1853-1890. An Exhibition of Paintings and Drawings, 10 December 1947 - 14 January 1948, no. 6

Groningen, Museum van Oudheden, Vincent van Gogh, 18 October 1947 - 16 November 1947, no. 8

Geneva, Musée Rath, 172 oeuvres de Vincent van Gogh (1852-1890), 22 March 1947 - 20 April 1947, no. 25

Paris, Musée de l'Orangerie, Vincent van Gogh, 24 January 1947 - 15 March 1947, no. 25

Mons, Museum voor Schoone Kunsten, Vincent van Gogh, 27 December 1946 - 1 January 1947, no. 25

Brussels, Paleis voor Schoone Kunsten, Vincent van Gogh, 9 November 1946 - 19 December 1946, no. 25

Liege, Museum voor Schoone Kunsten, Vincent van Gogh, 12 October 1946 - 3 November 1946, no. 25

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Vincent van Gogh, 14 August 1946 - 30 September 1946

Copenhagen, Charlottenborg, Vincent van Gogh. Udstilling af malerier og tegninger, 22 June 1946 - 14 July 1946, no. 11

Malmö, Malmö Museum, Vincent van Gogh. Utställning anordnad till förmån för svenska hollandshjälpen, 29 May 1946 - 16 June 1946, no. 12

Gothenburg, Göteborgs Konstmuseum, Vincent van Gogh. Utställning anordnad till förmån för svenska hollandshjälpen, 3 May 1946 - 26 May 1946, no. 12

Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (Stockholm), Vincent van Gogh. Utställning anordnad till förmån för svenska hollandshjälpen, 8 March 1946 - 28 April 1946, no. 12

Heerlen, Raadhuis Heerlen, Vincent van Gogh, 8 February 1946 - 24 February 1946, no. 20

Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum, Vincent van Gogh, 12 January 1946 - 28 January 1946, no. 20

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Vincent van Gogh, 14 September 1945 - 1 December 1945, no. zonder nr.

Amsterdam, E.J. van Wisselingh & Co, Nederlandsche schilderkunst. Meesterwerken uit de 19e eeuw, 10 August 1938 - 10 September 1938, no. 16

Eindhoven, Van Abbemuseum, Schilders van de Haagsche School, 11 June 1938 - 1 July 1938, no. 44

Copenhagen, Charlottenborg, Vincent van Gogh. Malerier, tegninger, akvareller, 1 January 1938 - 1 January 1938, no. 3

Oslo, Kunstnernes Hus, Vincent van Gogh. Malerier, tegninger, akvareller, 3 December 1937 - 24 December 1937, no. 1

Paris, Les nouveaux musées, Quai de Tokio, La vie et l'oeuvre de Van Gogh, 1 June 1937 - 1 October 1937, no. 24

San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, Vincent van Gogh, 28 April 1936 - 24 May 1936, no. 9

Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh, 25 March 1936 - 19 April 1936, no. 9

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Vincent van Gogh, 19 February 1936 - 15 March 1936, no. 9

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia Museum of Art, Vincent van Gogh, 11 January 1936 - 10 February 1936, no. 9

New York, Museum of Modern Art (New York), Vincent van Gogh, 5 November 1935 - 5 January 1936, no. 9

Den Bosch, Centraal Noordbrabantsch Museum, Tentoonstelling Noord-Brabant, 6 July 1935 - 31 July 1935, no. 35

Hilversum, Makkermacht, [titel onbekend], 29 November 1930 - 30 November 1930

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Vincent van Gogh en zijn tijdgenooten, 6 September 1930 - 2 November 1930, no. 1

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Vincent van Gogh tentoonstelling ter gelegenheid van het internationale jeugdfeest der S.J.I., 15 May 1926 - 15 June 1926, no. 1

Amsterdam, Gebouw voor Beeldende Kunst, Vincent van Gogh tentoonstelling, 29 March 1924 - 11 May 1924, no. 2

Amsterdam, Genootschap van kunstenaren Moderne Kunst Kring, Vincent van Gogh. Werken van genooten, 27 September 1915 - 30 November 1915, no. 1

Hamburg, Galerie Commeter, V. van Gogh, 1 September 1914 - 1 September 1914

Cologne, Kölner Kunstverein, V. van Gogh, 1 July 1914 - 1 August 1914

Berlin, Kunstsalon Paul Cassirer, Vincent van Gogh 30. März 1853 - 29. Juli 1890. Zehnte Ausstellung, 1 June 1914 - 5 July 1914, no. 9

Antwerp, Zaal Comité voor Artistieke Werking, L'art contemporain. Salon 1914 / Kunst van Heden. Tentoonstelling 1914, 7 March 1914 - 5 April 1914, no. 5

Utrecht, Vereeniging Voor de Kunst, Tentoonstelling van schilderijen door Vincent van Gogh, 9 September 1905 - 2 October 1905, no. 12

Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Tentoonstelling Vincent van Gogh, 15 July 1905 - 1 September 1905, no. 26

Paris, Galerie Vollard, [Vincent van Gogh], 1 December 1896 - 1 February 1897

Amsterdam, Firma Buffa en Zonen, Vincent van Gogh, 1 February 1892 - 1 February 1892, no. 1

Peter van Overbruggen, De 'Aardappeleters' geïnspireerd door een schilderij uit Eindhoven?, p. 59-62

Par Louis Anfray, 'Les mangeurs de pommes de terre' dans l'oeuvre de Vincent van Gogh : réponse à l'article de M.L. Gans, p. 1, 7

presentatie Henk van Os ; red. Ineke Middag, Lilian Bóza, [Mythe van gewone mensen] [video], 2000

Jaap W. Brouwer, De aardappeleters en de literaire bronnen, p. 4-8

De aardappeleters van Van Gogh onderzocht, p. 2

J.G. van Gelder, De aardappeleters van Vincent van Gogh, 1949, p. 5-14

Laurie Schneider Adams, Art across time, 2007, p. 809

Johan Jansen, Otto Lührs, Art in light : lighting effects in painting and sculpture : art and technologie, 1985

Robert Rosenblum, H.W. Janson, Art of the nineteenth century : painting and sculpture, cop. 1984, p. 352

Wouter van der Veen ; pref. by Dominique-Charles Janssens, Attacked at the very root : an investigation into Van Gogh's last days, 2020, p. 33-34

Hrsg. von Ingried Brugger, Heike Eipeldauer ; Kenneth Bendiner ... [et al.], Augenschmaus : vom essen im stilleben, 2010

Ed. by Timothy J. Standring, Louis van Tilborgh ; with essays by Simon Kelly, Richard Kendall, Teio Meedendorp ... [et al.] ; with a contribution by Alisia Robin Coon, Becoming van Gogh, 2012, p. 16-17, 29, 33, 57, 68, 74

onder red. van H.P. Bremmer, Beeldende Kunst

Klaus Türk, Bilder der Arbeit : eine ikonografische Anthologie, 2000, p. 118

Gerard Sonnemans, Jurgen Pigmans en Theo Cuijpers, Blikken op Brabant : de canon van Nederland in Noord-Brabants perspectief, 2012, p. 169

By David Stark, Charles de Groux's le Bénédicité : a source for Van Gogh's Les mangeurs de pommes de terre, p. 205-208

Kathleen Powers Erickson, The christian century : from preaching to painting : Van Gogh's religious zeal, p. 300-302

The complete works of Vincent van Gogh, 1978, vol. 1, pl. 50.

Hervé Fischer, Les couleurs de l'Occident : de la Préhistoire au XXIe siècle, 2019, p. 19-191

Beate Welkerling, Die Kartoffelesser Vincent van Goghs : konzeptionierung eines Bildes kulturhistorischen Bezüge und sein Stellenwert in Hinsicht auf das Gesamtwerk des Künstlers, 1991

Lin Arison, Neil Folberg, Discovering the connections : travels with Van Gogh and the Impressionists, 2007, p. 29, 31

John M. Haggarty, Edward King 1862-1951 : the Portsmouth painter who influenced Van Gogh, 2012, p. 2-6

by Hope Benedict Werness, Essays on Van Goghs symbolism, 1972, p. 76

Vasiliki Rouska, The example of Vincent van Gogh : denying forms, systems and academicism in art and religion, p. 236-238

Ella Hendriks, C. Richard Johnson jr., Luuk van der Loeff ... [et al.], First international workshop on image processing for artist identification, 2007, p. 31, 38

Hrsg. von Angela Schneider, Anke Daemgen und Gary Tinterow, Französische Meisterwerke des 19. Jahrhunderts aus dem Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2007

J.G. van Gelder, De Genesis van de aardappeleters (1885) van Vincent van Gogh, p. 6-8

Ruth Livesey, George Eliot and Van Gogh: radiant realism, z.p.

Vittorio Sgarbi, Gli immortali, 1999, p. 187

Grisebach : Van Gogh bis Twombly : Ausgewählte Werke = selected works, 2015, [unpaged]

Gera Judit, A hétköznapi világ büvölete, 2000, p. 66

Walther Vanbeselaere ; met een woord vooraf door Aug. Vermeylen, De hollandsche periode (1880-1885) in het werk van Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890), 1937, p. 296-297, 353-372, 414

Door G.H. Marius, De Hollandsche schilderkunst in de negentiende eeuw, 1920, pl. 129

Roselyne de Ayala, Jean-Pierre Guéno ; forew. by Francine Prose, Illustrated letters : artists and writers correspond, 1999, p. 107

Mariella Guzzoni, In viaggio con Vincent, 2010

Karl Schütz, Das Interieur in der Malerei, 2009, p. 310-311

Simon Kelly en Maite van Dijk (eds.) ; Nienke Bakker, Abigail Yoder, Jean-François Millet : sowing the seeds of Modern Art, 2019, p. 123

Simon Kelly en Maite van Dijk (red.) ; Nienke Bakker, Abigail Yoder, Jean-François Millet : zaaier van de moderne kunst, 2019, p. 123

Lisette Pelsers, Toos van Kooten, Jaap Bremer ... [et al.], Kröller-Müller Museum, 2015, p. 72-73

Bart Moens, De kunstenaarsopleiding van Vincent van Gogh in Brussel, 2012, p. 24

Hrsg. von Bernhard Echte, Walter Feilchenfeldt ; Mitarbeit Petra Cordioli, Kunstsalon Paul Cassirer : die Ausstellungen 1912 - 1914, 2016, p. 698, 762

Hrsg. für die Max-Liebermann-Gesellschaft Berlin von Martin Faass; Julia Klarmann, Margreet Nouwen, Laura Prins ... [et al.], Liebermann und Van Gogh : eine Ausstellung der Liebermann-Villa am Wannsee, Berlin, 2015, p. 39, 90-102, 108

Martin Bailey, Living with Vincent van Gogh : the homes & landscapes that shaped the artist, 2019, p. 89-90

Ed. by Alexander Eiling and Felix Krämer ; with the ass. of Elena Schroll, Making Van Gogh : a German love story, 2019, p. 333

Louis Anfray, Les Mangeurs de Pommes de terre dans l'oeuvre de Van Gogh : lithographies et tableaux, documents inédits, p. 11-21

Guy Cogeval ; Sylvie Patry ; Stéphane Guégan ; ... [et al.], Masterpieces from Paris : Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and beyond : post-impressionism form the Musée d'Orsay, 2009, p. 63-64

Text: Esther Darley, Renske Suijver, Masterpieces in the Van Gogh Museum, 2019, p. 46-47

Tekst: Esther Darley, Renske Suijver, Meesterwerken in het Van Gogh Museum, 2019, p. 46-47

Texte de Denis Coutagne, Le midi de Van Gogh, [s.a.], p. 11

Simon Kelly en Maite van Dijk (eds.) ; Nienke Bakker, Abigail Yoder, Millet and Modern Art : from Van Gogh to Dalí, 2019, p. 123

Jenny Reynaerts, Mirror of reality : 19th-century painting in the Netherlands, 2019, p. 301-302

Onder red. van Maite van Dijk, Magne Bruteig en Leo Jansen ; met bijdragen van Reinhold Heller, Jill Lloyd, Uwe M. Schneede ... [et al.], Munch : Van Gogh, 2015, p. 13, 96-98

Jan Hulsker, The new complete Van Gogh : paintings, drawings, sketches, 1996, p. 162, 168-169, 172

Edited by Paul Williamson ; Ton de Brouwer, Laura Prins, Stephen Hackney ... [et al.], The new potato eaters : Van Gogh in Nuenen 1883-1885, 2015, p. 8, 12, 28, 48, 50, 56-57, 64, 81,123

Richard R. Brettell and Stephen F. Eisenman, Nineteenth-century art in the Norton Simon Museum, volume 1, 2006

Richard Raskin, On the "Vincent" Signature and the Values Embodied in 'The Potato Eaters', p. 391-396

Jack van Hoek, Een onbekend object op De aardappeleters geïdentificeerd, p. 12-13

John E. Gedo ; introd. by Peter Gay, Portraits of the artist : psychoanalysis of creativity and its vicissitudes, 1989, p. 134

with an introduction by J.G. van Gelder, The potato eaters : in the collection V.W. van Gogh, Amsterdam, [s.a.], p. 3-12

Louis van Tilborgh ; with contrib. by Dieuwertje Dekkers...[et al.], The potato eaters by Vincent van Gogh = de aardappeleters van Vincent van Gogh, 1993, p. 1-111

Redcliffe N. Salaman, The potato in the realm of art, p. 592-593

by Hermine Feinstein, Reading images : meaning and metaphor, 1996, p. 83-84

Nienke Bakker, Leo Jansen, Hans Luijten ... [et al.], The real van Gogh : the artist and his letters, 2010, p. 14, 23, 25-26, 33, 65, 78, 80, 82, 239

Matthias Krüger, Das relief der farbe : Pastose Malerei in der französischen Kunstkritik 1850-1890, 2007, p. 111-112, 177, 210, 212-214, 220-221

Ed. by E. van Uitert and M. Hoyle; with contrib. from H. van Crimpen ... [et al.], The Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, 1987, p. 142-143

Translation Ivonne Paternotte-Limburg, Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh Amsterdam : guide to the collection of paintings, 1979, [unpaged]

J.F. Heijbroek ; met medew. van Herbert Henkels, Het Rijksmuseum voor moderne kunst van Willem Steenhoff : werkelijkheid of utopie?, p. 202, 206

Ron Dirven, Hanna Klarenbeek; met een inl. door Saskia de Bodt, Schilders van Dongen, 2008, p. 64-68

Albert Boime, A source for Van Gogh's potato-eaters, p. 249-253

Albert Soesman, Een speurtocht naar het geniale : genezende krachten in schilder- en tekenkunst, 2001

Jenny Reynaerts, Spiegel van de werkelijkheid : 19de-eeuwse schilderkunst in Nederland, 2019, p. 301-302

Laura Ann Coyle, The Still-life paintings of Vincent van Gogh and their context, 2007

Louis van Tilborgh, Summer presentation of The potato eaters by Vincent van Gogh, p. 2-7

Martin Bailey, The sunflowers are mine : the story of Van Gogh's masterpiece, 2013, p. 28

Catherine Defeyt, Dominique Marechal, Francisca Vandepitte ... [et al.], Survey on Van Gogh's early painting technique through the non‑invasive and multi analytical study of 'Head of peasant', [unpaged]

Carlo Derkert, Theory and practice in Van Gogh's Dutch painting, p. 109-117

door Jack van Hoek, De totstandkoming van De aardappeleters, p. 36-40

Ed. by Gloria Groom; Louis van Tilborgh, Ella Hendriks, Teio Meedendorp ... [et al.], Van Gogh's bedrooms, 2016, p. 53

Eliza E. Rathbone, William H. Robinson, Elizabeth Steele ... [et al.] ; with contributions by Sylvia Albro, H. Travers Newton and Galina K. Olmsted, Van Gogh's repetitions, 2013, p. 11-12, 22, 29-30

Ed. by Marije Vellekoop, Ella Hendriks, Leo Jansen ... [et al.] ; Teio Meedendorp, Nienke Bakker, Maite van Dijk ... [et al.], Van Gogh's studio practice, 2013, p. 28, 220-221, 235, 300, 302

William J. Havlicek, Van Gogh's untold journey : revelations of faith, family, and artistic inspiration, 2010, p. 130, 141-142

Actes du symposium conçu par Bice Curiger, Van Gogh - Duchamp : Huile et feu ?, 2017, p. 67-68

Sjraar van Heugten, Eva Rovers, Van Gogh & co, 2015, p. 16-17

Juliet Heslewood, Van Gogh : a life in places, 2019, p. 78

Edited by Susan Alyson Stein, Van Gogh : a retrospective, 1986, p. 61

Sjraar van Heugten, Bice Curiger, Yolande Clergue ... [et al.], Van Gogh : colours of the north, colours of the south, 2014, p. 56-57, 60

Sjraar van Heugten, Bice Curiger, Yolande Clergue ... [et al.], Van Gogh : coulours du nord, coulours du sud, 2014, p. 56-57, 60

Cornelia Homburg, Simon Kelly, Laura Prins ... [et al.], Van Gogh : into the undergrowth, 2016, p. 27

Florence de Mèredieu, Van Gogh : l'argent, l'or, la couleur, 2011, p. 81-83, 87, 94, 116-117, 164

Ed. by Ortrud Westheider and Michael Philipp ; Exh. and catalog by: Michael Philipp ; With contrib. by: Sjraar van Heugten, Valerie Hortolani, Stefan Koldehoff... [et al.], Van Gogh : still lifes, 2019, p. 14, 117, 120, 124, 127, 194, 206, 227

Edited by Chris Stolwijk ; With the assistance of Renske Suijver ; Texts by Helewise Berger, Esther Dieltjes, Ella Hendriks ... [et al.], Van Gogh : the adventure of becoming an artist, 2010, p. 18, 245, 260

Kathleen Adler, Sjraar van Heugten, Cornelia Homburg ... [et al.], Van Gogh : the man and the earth, 2014, p. 21, 29, 79

Marije Vellekoop ; met bijdragen van Nienke Bakker, Maite van Dijk, Ella Hendriks ... [et al.], Van Gogh aan het werk, 2013, p. 86 -89, 236, 269

Nienke Bakker, Van Gogh aan het werk : hoogtepunten, 2013, p. 8-9

Debora Silverman, Van Gogh and Gauguin : the search for sacred art, 2000, p. 18

John House, Van Gogh and impressionism, 2012, p. 7-8, 61

Natascha Veldhorst, Van Gogh and music : a symphony in blue and yellow, 2018, p. 90-91

Richard Kendall, Sjraar van Heugten, Chris Stolwijk, Van Gogh and nature, 2015, p. 42, 55

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; with contributions by Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Van Gogh and the colours of the night, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 81, 102, 104-110, 135

Griselda Pollock, Van Gogh and the poor slaves : images of rural labour as modern art, p. 406-432

Marije Vellekoop ; with contrib. by Nienke Bakker, Maite van Dijk, Muriel Geldof... [et al.], Van Gogh at work, 2019, p. 86, 89, 236

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; con la collaborazione di Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Van Gogh e i colori della notte, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 81, 102, 104-108, 110, 135

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; met medewerking van Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Van Gogh en de kleuren van de nacht, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 81, 102, 104-108, 110, 135

onder red. van Michiel van der Mast en Charles Dumas, Van Gogh en Den Haag, cop. 1990, p. 154

John House, Van Gogh en het impressionisme, 2012, p. 7-8, 58

Louis van Tilborgh (samenstelling), Sjraar van Heugten, Philip Conisbee, Van Gogh en Millet, 1988, p. 64-65

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; avec la collaboration de Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Van Gogh et les couleurs de la nuit, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 78, 84, 102, 104-108, 110, 135

Roland Dorn, George S. Keyes, Joseph J. Rishel with Katherine Sachs ... [et al.] ; with a chronology by Katherine Sachs, Van Gogh face to face : the portraits, 2000, p. 41-44, 58, 90, 144-145, 165-166, 168, 171

Evert van Uitert ... [et al.], Van Gogh in Brabant : schilderijen en tekeningen uit Etten en Nuenen, cop. 1987, p. 175-77

Sjraar van Heugten ; Marije Vellekoop, Leo Jansen, Bart Moens ... [et al.], Van Gogh in de Borinage : de geboorte van een kunstenaar, 2015, p. 26-27

Essays by Ann Dumas and Marina Ferretti Bocquillon, Van Gogh in Paris, 2013, p. 10

Sjraar van Heugten, Van Gogh in Provence : modernizing tradition, 2016, p. 25, 44-45, 61-62, 67

Ronald de Leeuw, Van Gogh Museum : schilderijen en pastels, 1993, p. 64-67

Belinda Thomson, Van Gogh paintings : the masterpieces, 2018, p. 26-27

Proceedings of the symposium conceived by Bice Curiger; Mark Alizart, Jean-Pierre Crique, Adrian Ghenie ... [et al.], Van Gogh pre-Pop, 2018, p. 30

Belinda Thomson, Van Gogh schilder : de meesterwerken, 2016, p. 26-28, 188

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; mit Beiträgen von Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Van Gogh und die Farben der Nacht, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 84, 102, 104-109, 134

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; con la colaboración de Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Van Gogh y los colores de la noche, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 81, 102, 104-108, 110, 135

Mark Roskill, Van Gogh, Gauguin and French painting of the 1880s : a catalogue raisonné of key works, 1970, p. 6-7

Anne-Birgittte Fonsmark, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Bernard : friction of ideas, 2014, p. 30

Sjraar van Heugten en Helewise Berger ; met bijdr. van Laura Prins, Van Goghs intimi : vrienden, familie, modellen, 2019, p. 53

Leo Jansen, Renske Suijver ; met een bijdrage van Ann Blokland, Vincent, 2012, p. 84-85

Mark Delrue, Vincent : kunstschilder, briefschrijver, godzoeker, 2015, p. 40-44

By J.B. de la Faille ; foreword by Charles Terrasse ; translated from the French by Prudence Montagu-Pollock, Vincent van Gogh, 1939, p. 96

Vorwort von J.B. de la Faille, Vincent van Gogh : Gemälde, 1928, vol. 1, p. 33, vol. 2, pl. XXI

Cristina Sirigatti, Vincent van Gogh : het complete geschilderde werk, 2018, p. 30-33

Ed. by David Bomford ; with essays by Nienke Bakker, Renske Suijver, Renske Cohen Tervaert ; contr. by Helga K. Aurisch, Laura Minton, Dena M. Woodall, Vincent van Gogh : his life in art, 2019, p. 14, 15, 33, 70, 74, 76, 80, 161

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; avec la collaboration de Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Vincent van Gogh : les couleurs de la nuit, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 78, 84, 102, 104-108, 110, 135

Alan Turnbull, Vincent van Gogh : one week of paintings : April 9th - 15th 1888, 1978], p. 10

Molly Dorkin, Vincent van Gogh : paysanne devant une chaumière, 2020, p. 6, 20

Evert van Uitert, Louis van Tilborgh, Sjraar van Heugten, Vincent van Gogh : schilderijen, 1990, p. 47-49

Ed. by Cornelia Homburg ; Jenny Reynaerts, Joan Greer, Judy Sund ... [et al.], Vincent van Gogh : timeless country - modern city, 2010, p. 75, 77-78, 81

Laura Prins, Vincent van Gogh als graficus : de kunst van het black and white, 2015, p. 4, 10-11, 25-27

[Texts by Ronald de Leeuw ... [et al], Vincent van Gogh and his time : Van Gogh & Millet from the Vincent van Gogh Museum and the H.W. Mesdag Museum, 1993, p. 34-35

Walter Feilchenfeldt ; cat. of the drawings compiled by Han Veenenbos, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Cassirer, Berlin : the reception of Van Gogh in Germany from 1901 tot 1914, 1988, p. 83

Carel Blotkamp ... [et al.], Vincent van Gogh between earth and heaven : the landscapes, 2009, p. 62, 77, 101-102, 296

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; con la collaborazione di Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Vincent van Gogh e i colori della notte, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 81, 102-109, 135

The Vincent van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam : an art gallery par excellence, p. 52

Louis van Tilborgh, Marije Vellekoop, Vincent van Gogh paintings : Volume I : Dutch period 1881-1885 : Van Gogh Museum, 1999, p. 136-145

Louis van Tilborgh, Marije Vellekoop, Vincent van Gogh schilderijen : Nederlandse periode, 1881-1885 : Van Gogh Museum : 1, 1999, p. 136-145

Sjraar van Heugten ; Joachim Pissarro ; Chris Stolwijk ; mit Beiträgen von Geeta Bruin ; Maite van Dijk ; Jennifer Field, Vincent van Gogh und die Farben der Nacht, 2008, p. 7, 9, 11, 30, 63-66, 68-70, 77-78, 84, 102, 104-109, 134

Hans L.C. Jaffé, Vincent van Goghs "Aardappeleters" : het ontstaan van een schilderij

J.M. de Jong, Vincents 'Aardappeleters' als gedachtenismaaltijd, p. 10-12

Geoffrey Batchen ; Sarah Caylor ... [et al.], What of Shoes? : Van Gogh and art history, 2009, p. 6-7

J.B. de la Faille ; bijdragen van Abraham M. Hammacher en Jan G. van Gelder ; vert. van het artikel van A.M. Hammacher James Brockway, The works of Vincent van Gogh : his paintings and drawings, 1970, p. 70-71, 614-615

The world of Van Gogh, 1989, p. 4-5

Louis van Tilborgh, Zomerpresentatie : De aardappeleters van Vincent van Gogh, p. 2-7

Bregje Gerritse, De aardappeleters : Van Goghs eerste meesterwerk, 2021, p. 12, 14, 16-18, 43-49, 54-55, 89

Bregje Gerritse, The potato eaters : Van Gogh's first masterpiece, 2021, p. 12, 14, 16-18, 43-49, 54-55, 89

Gloria Fossi ; original photography by Danilo De Marco, Mario Dondero, In search of Van Gogh : capturing the life of the artist through photographs and paintings, 2021, p. 70

Pieter Boersema, De analyse van De Aardappeleters : Vincent van Gogh, 1885, p. 149-151

Feikje Wimmie Hofstra, De Haagse streken van Vincent van Gogh 30-03-1953 - 29-07-1890, 2019, p. 22-24, 184

Feikje Wimmie Hofstra, Experience Vincent van Gogh in The Hague 30-03-1853 - 29-07-1890, 2019, p. 22-24, 184

Ed. by Eik Kahng ; Todd Cronan, David Mistelli, Rebecca Rainhof ...[et al.], Through Vincent's eyes : Van Gogh and his sources, 2021, p. 70-71, 106-108

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Van Gogh saw the _Potato Eaters_ as a showpiece, for which he deliberately chose a difficult composition to prove he was on his way to becoming a good figure painter. The painting had to depict the harsh reality of country life, so he gave the peasants coarse faces and bony, working hands.