Huddleston, Thomas

Thomas
Huddleston

http://www.migpolgroup.com

Thomas is Research Director at Migration Policy Group. He chairs the European policy network on migrant education (SIRIUS) and migration meetings of the EU NGO Platform on EU Asylum & Migration. He is the coordinator of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), EU Integration Website and Transatlantic Migrant Democracy Dialogue. Thomas obtained his PhD at Maastricht University on “Naturalisation in Action”. He is a Senior Fellow of Humanity in Action and an alumnus of Georgetown University.

Expertise

Migration processes
Migration consequences (for migrants, sending and receiving countries)
Migration governance
Cross-cutting topics in migration research
Disciplines
Methods
Geographies

Roles

  • Migration Policy Group

    , Brussels, Belgium
    Research Director

Research

Nationality Policies in the Books and in Practice: Comparing Immigrant Naturalisation across Europe

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Swantje Falcke
Year 2019
Journal Name International Migration
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
1 Journal Article

The MIPEX Health strand: a longitudinal, mixed-methods survey of policies on migrant health in 38 countries

Authors David Ingleby, Roumyana Petrova-Benedict, Thomas Huddleston, ...
Year 2019
Journal Name European Journal of Public Health
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
2 Journal Article

The European Benchmark for Refugee Integration: A Comparative Analysis of the National Integration Evaluation Mechanism in 14 EU Countries

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Carmine Conte, Thomas Huddleston, ...
Description
This report presents a comparative, indicator-based assessment of the refugee integration frameworks in place in 14 EU countries. Analysis is focused on legal indicators, policy indicators and indicators which measure mainstreaming, policy coordination, as well as efforts aimed at participation and involvement of the receiving society. Results are being presented in relation to the concrete steps policymakers need to take in order to establish a refugee integration framework that is in line with the standards required by international and EU law, namely the building blocks “Setting the Legal Framework”, “Building the Policy Framework” and “Implementation & Collaboration”. Important conclusions can be drawn from the cross-country comparison in the dimensions of legal integration (residency, family unity and reunification, access to citizenship), socio-economic integration (housing, employment, vocational training, health and social security) and socio-cultural integration (education, language learning/social orientation and building bridges). Countries included in the NIEM baseline research are Czechia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Results have been scored on a scale from 0 to 100, ranging from least favourable to most favourable provisions. Analysed data refer to recognized refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (BSPs), and to the legal and other provisions in place as of April 2017. Future evaluation rounds of NIEM will strive to overcome data gaps, extend analysis to other groups under international protection, monitor changes over recent years, and by including integration outcome, financial and staff input indicators, will move forward towards building a comprehensive index measuring refugee integration.
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
3 Report

Who is reshaping public opinion on the EU’s migration policies?

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Hind Sharif, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
4 Policy Brief

Legal Frameworks for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Jan Niessen
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
5 Book

New Asylum Recast May Undermine the EU's Greatest Impact on Refugee Integration

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Judit Tanczos, Alexander Wolffhardt, ...
Description
The EU has had its greatest effects on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) through the stable legal framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The 2013 Reception Conditions and 2011 Qualification Directives build on the standards set by the 1951 Geneva Convention and aim for its full and effective implementation. As presented in the MPG paper “Lost in transition? The European standards behind refugee integration”, they guarantee a series of standards that shape the integration process, starting from the reception phase until full legal, socio-economic and socio-cultural integration allows refugees to realise their full potential to contribute to society. On 13 July 2016, a set of proposals was presented to reform these standards, including to replace the Qualification Directive with a Regulation and to amend the Reception Conditions Directive.1 The social consequences of these proposals are serious. Since BIPs today are fleeing many protracted conflicts that take on average 25 years to resolve2 , our societies will have to live with the consequences of these proposals for years—if not generations—to come. These proposals largely represent a missed opportunity and a potentially major risk for integration. The minor improvements on reception and qualification standards would only marginally improve the situation on the ground in most Member States. Moreover, several of the recast’s proposals would actually delay and undermine the integration process for asylum-seekers and BIPs by reducing support for potentially large numbers and removing some possibilities for more favourable conditions for integration. Unlike the 1 st and 2nd generation of the CEAS, which consolidated the most common national practices in EU law, several of these proposals are modelled on hasty and politicised recent restrictions in only a few Member States. These restrictions have not yet been demonstrated to be justified, proportionate or effective for improving integration outcomes. Overall, national governments and civil society agreed that better implementation of the current Reception and Qualification Directives would have greater effects on integration, without jeopardising the effectiveness of other proposed reforms to the CEAS. Particularly as the Commission’s 2016 asylum proposals were drafted more hastily than previous EU asylum and immigration proposals, these two proposals would need to be revised or seriously amended by Council and Parliament in order to make integration the top priority of this recast and avoid a de facto race-to-the-bottom where Member States are further demanding integration but not effectively supporting BIPs, Member States and the local, social and civil society actors that make integration a reality.
Year 2017
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
6 Report

Intercultural Cities

Description
Intercultural Cities Index is an important instrument to assess whether the intercultural integration approach leads to a better quality of life in diverse cities. The Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities Network entrusted Migration Policy Group (MPG) to validate its Index because of our unique expertise on indicators and multilevel governance. Migration Policy Group's (MPG) key finding—that intercultural cities are better places to live—was presented to hundreds of local authorities at the Network’s 10th Anniversary. The research identified the links between cities’ intercultural policies, national integration policies and local well-being, establishing that the most intercultural cities are better places to live. The study established that local policies can be more important than national policies for successful integration.
Year 2016
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
7 Project

Full membership or equal rights? : the link between naturalisation and integration policies for immigrants in 29 European states

Authors Thomas HUDDLESTON, Maarten Peter VINK
Year 2015
Journal Name Comparative migration studies, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 1-19
8 Journal Article

Integration Policies: Who Benefits?

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Elena Sánchez-Montijano, Migration Policy Group (MPG), ...
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
9 Policy Brief

Migrant Integration Policy Index

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Ozge Bilgili, Anne-Linde Joki, ...
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
10 Book

Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Özge Bilgili, Anne-Linde Joki, ...
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
11 Book

The Dynamics between Integration Policies and Outcomes: a Synthesis of the Literature

Authors Özge Bilgili, Thomas Huddleston, Anne-Linde Joki, ...
Description
This paper reviews the comparative multi-level quantitative research on the links between integration policies, the integration situation of immigrants and a wide range of individual and contextual factors. Twenty-one reviewed studies and additional supporting articles indicate that a number of individual and contextual variables explain most of the variation between countries in terms of immigrants’ labour market integration, educational attainment, naturalisation and political participation. Thanks to the use of MIPEX and similar indices, some evidence is emerging that certain integration policies can be related to the specific integration outcomes that they aim to address. So far, only certain general and targeted employment policies can be directly associated with better labour market outcomes for immigrants and a lower incidence of employment discrimination. More indirectly, facilitating naturalisation, a secure residence and a secure family life seems to have positive effects on boosting labour market outcomes for certain immigrants. In the area of employment, studies rarely focus on a specific policy or properly match it to its specific intended target group and outcome. In the area of education, the inclusiveness of the school and education system seems to matter most for immigrant and non-immigrant pupils. Although targeted immigrant education policies adopted at national level do not display consistent results across countries in terms of pupils’ tests scores, most studies conclude that inclusive schools and education systems are more successful when they also target the specific needs of immigrant pupils. Several studies on the acquisition of nationality find that naturalisation policies are perhaps the strongest determinant of the naturalisation rates for immigrants from developing countries. Further research can explore which specific elements of naturalisation policies most help or hinder naturalisation. The few studies on political participation find that targeted policies and the acquisition of nationality may boost participation rates for certain immigrant groups. The fact that studies find no link between the general integration policy (i.e. MIPEX overall score) and a specific labour market outcome (i.e. employment rates for foreign-born) does mean that no causal relationship exist between integration policies and outcomes across countries. Considering that this multi-level research is still in infancy, studies have great room for improvement in terms of their use of databases and methodological tools. A more robust methodological approach using new international datasets can better explore the nuanced links between policies and societal outcomes. Future research needs to pay greater attention to linking a specific integration policy with its actual target group and target outcomes. Studies must also take into account time-sensitive contextual factors and general policies. International surveys can improve their measurement of integration policy outcomes in terms of longterm residence, family reunification, anti-discrimination, language learning, and, to some extent, political participation.
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
12 Report

Labour market integration of immigrants and their children: Developing, activating and using skills

Authors Thomas Liebig, Thomas Huddleston
Year 2014
Book Title International Migration Outlook
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
13 Book Chapter

Political Participation and Naturalisation: A Common Agenda

Authors Thomas Huddleston
Year 2014
Journal Name Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
14 Journal Article

European Indicators of Migrant Integration

Description
In the European Union context, indicators have become increasingly important due to growing political commitment on integration policies at all levels of governance. In June 2010, EU Member States approved a number of European indicators of migrant integration, based on the EU2020 indicators and the EU’s Common Basic Principles, focusing on the core areas of employment, social inclusion, education, and active citizenship. The Commission’s July 2011 European Agenda for Integration views these indicators as a way to systematically monitor the integration situation and the EU2020 targets, enhance policy coordination, and make recommendations in dialogue with Member States. ICMPD together with the Migration Policy Group will produce an assessment report to confirm the relevance of current indicators for integration and whether current data sources are robust enough to calculate them. Objectives of the project • Analyse to what extent and whether the different integration realities in various EU Member States are the result of integration and migration policies, immigrant populations, and general contexts and policies. • Strengthen how European indicators of migrant integration capture and monitor the specific outcomes of integration policies. • Improve the way in which policy actors evaluate the effectiveness of integration policies, appreciate the other factors that shape the integration process, engage in the data and policy implications of indicators and mainstream integration into European cooperation and targets, including the EU2020 Strategy. Outcomes • Analysis reports (to explain the data behind the European indicators, test the effectiveness of certain migration and integration policies, and measure the impact of other policies). • Assessment report (to confirm the relevance of current indicators for integration and whether current data sources are robust enough to calculate them. ICMPD and the Migration Policy Group will propose additional indicators and data sources based on the chosen European indicators, the EU2020 strategy, and active citizenship). • Monitoring proposal (to outline how the European Commission can use the current and proposed indicators to monitor the results of integration policies). • Three expert seminars during the course of 2012 on the subjects of Employment, Education, and Social Inclusion and Active Citizenship.
Year 2013
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
15 Project

Sirius Network - Migrant Education

Description
SIRIUS 2.0 is the Migration Policy Group (MPG)-led network that brings together educational stakeholders (researchers, policymakers and practitioners as well as migrants and refugees themselves) to support inclusive policy development and facilitate the integration of children and young people with migration background in education.
Year 2012
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
16 Project

Setting up a System of Benchmarking to Measure the Success of Integration Policies in Europe

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Jan Niessen
Year 2007
Journal Name Socialinė teorija, empirija, politika ir praktika
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
17 Journal Article

EC Readmission Agreements: A Re-evaluation of the Political Impasse

Authors Annabelle Roig, Thomas Huddleston
Year 2007
Journal Name European Journal of Migration and Law
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
18 Journal Article

The European Web Site on Integration

Description
Migration Policy Group (MPG) has created and run the European Commission’s One-Stop-Shop website to inform integration stakeholders thanks to our team and network’s ability to collect and communicate reliable information and analysis.
Year 2007
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
19 Project
Ask us