Research
Database

1. Effective labour market policies and measures are important tools for Member States to address increasing migration flows and persistent employment gaps between migrant and national populations. According to the ad-hoc module on migration of the Labour Market Survey in 2014, roughly two thirds of third-country nationals who migrated for work to the EU had no job at the time of migrating. While unemployment rates have decreased steadily since 2014, the gap in the unemployment rate between third-country nationals and native- and EU-born remains. 2. Most Member States have dedicated labour market integration policies in place, targeting multiple migrant groups, including newly arrived, first generation third-country nationals who were the focus of this study. These policies are usually integral to Member States’ more general integration policies. 3. The driving forces behind current labour market integration policies tend to be labour shortages and the need to help newcomers into employment quickly so they become self-sufficient. The 2014- 2016 influx of migrants has encouraged many Member States to update existing policies or develop new ones. 4. Member States combine mainstream and tailored labour market integration measures. While mainstream integration measures help to ensure equal access to general (public employment) services, tailored measures can specifically address some of the disadvantages facing newly arrived third-country nationals compared to other groups, including lack of language proficiency and unfamiliarity with the new society. 5. The most common obstacles encountered by Member States in supporting third-country nationals relate to the accreditation of job qualifications/assessment of skills of those arriving from outside the EU, tackling discrimination within recruitment processes and managing varying levels of language skills in integration measures. These difficulties are more pronounced when dealing with migrant women or vulnerable groups. 6. Public sector integration measures focus primarily on the phase prior to accessing employment, including preparing for and finding a job. Based on examples provided by Member States, these relate most often to the development of (soft) skills, vocational training and qualification and career counselling. 7. The best innovative measures connected migrant and host communities or developed inter-generational bonds by bringing together people of different ages or ethnic groups, not only to ease migrants’ integration into society but also to create social cohesion. 8. Employment centres and non-governmental organisations emerge as key partners in the implementation of labour market integration measures. Most of the measures are financed through national and/or EU funds, but examples exist of privately funded measures, including new tools such as social impact bonds and sponsorship. 9. Private sector measures aim more specifically at integrating (migrant) workers into the workplace. Examples reported were mostly implemented by large companies. They focussed predominantly on training and qualification, counselling and enhancing intercultural relations in the workplace, for example through ‘buddy’ programmes, on-boarding programmes or internal company workshops on intercultural relations.

In recent years, the Directorate of Immigration’s (UDI) handling of so-called revocation cases has received increased attention. These are cases where the authorities first grant residence permits and citizenship to migrants but later consider revoking these. Immigrants can have their right to stay in Norway revoked for a range of reasons, including having provided incorrect information when they were granted permits and in the case of refugees, because conditions improve in their home country. This report describes how those affected experience the process of revocation. The report is based on multiple data sources: statistics from the UDI’s data base; interviews with affected individuals from Afghanistan and Somalia, including representatives of their communities in Norway; and interviews with employees of the UDI and the police. After presenting descriptive statistics, we describe how the informants experienced the revocation process, including the effects of the revocation process on integration. Furthermore, we analyze how revocation affects the outlook and life strategies of those interviewed. This report provides a number of recommendations for improving the government’s handling of revocation, including developing a coherent communication strategy and reducing case processing time.

Since 2015, more than 3 million people have sought humanitarian refuge in Germany. Although the country has traditionally been a country of immigration, the integration of refugees has posed a challenge to its society and policy-makers. Given the disadvantageous position of refugees in terms of resources and legal status, the first years after arrival may shape their social and economic participation in the long run. Yet, only scarce empirical evidence exists on the early biographical trajectories of refugees in Germany. Based on the first representative survey of refugees in Germany, the IAB-BAMF-SOEP survey with more than 7,000 respondents, this paper seeks to shed light on the trajectories of refugees in the first years after their arrival. We apply sequence analysis and cluster typical trajectories of different refugee groups in Germany. As main events, we consider posing an asylum application, receiving the asylum result, picking up education, starting a job and having a baby. How many individuals in fact follow the “ideal” path starting with the asylum process, followed by education and, ultimately, labor market participation? Which groups deviate most from this pattern? The obtained groups of typical post-migration biographies will provide the basis for future inferential analyses on the effects of the early trajectories on latter integration. At the same time, the main drivers of recurring structures in the sequences (such as legal security, human capital or the family context) can be explored. Projektmethode - sequence analyses - cluster analyses Projektziel - identification of typical Integration patterns of refugees and their determinants

Das ethnologische Forschungsprojekt betrachtet die Subjektivierung (Butler, Foucault) und Selbst-Bildung geflüchteter Mädchen zwischen 15 und 21 Jahren, die in der (ethnologischen) Forschung unterrepräsentiert sind. In ihrem Alltag begegnen ihnen teils miteinander verknüpfte Vorstellungen sozialer Differenz wie Alter, Klasse, Geschlecht, Ethnizität bzw. Nationalität oder Religion. Damit verbunden begegnen ihnen Erwartungen, wie sie sich entsprechend dieser Zuschreibungen zu verhalten haben. Ihr individuelles Selbstverständnis wird dabei selten erfragt und berücksichtigt. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird dabei der Verknüpfung von Genderstereotypen mit Kulturalisierungen bzw. Ethnisierungen in alltäglichen Praktiken des everyday bordering gewidmet. In der Forschung werden Ansätze aus der Theorie der Subjektivierung zum Zusammenspiel von Anrufung und Selbst-Bildung, Überlegungen zur Produktion von Differenz in Intersektionalitäts- und kritischer Migrationsforschung sowie ethnologische Diskussionen um Handlungsmacht als Ausgangspunkte genutzt, um das Geflecht von Anrufungen, in dem sich die Mädchen bewegen, näher zu beschreiben und um über die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Handlungsmacht im Rahmen diskursiv vorgegebener Subjektpositionen nachzudenken. Die gezielte Untersuchung der Subjektivität und "alltäglichen" Erfahrung junger geflüchteter Frauen soll dazu dienen, im Sinne einer "cultural critique", Alternativen zu verallgemeinernden Erklärungsversuchen und Homogenisierungen von "Flüchtlingen", insbesondere "Flüchtlingsmädchen", in der deutschen Gesellschaft aufzuzeigen. Methodisch stützt ich das Projekt auf ethnografische Methoden wie teilnehmende Beobachtung in Verbindung mit informellen Gesprächen, offenen und semi-strukturierten Interviews sowie Expert*inneninterviews. Als Ergänzung klassischer ethnologischer Feldforschungsmethoden werden biographisch-narrative Interviews sowie partizipative Methoden wie Fokusgruppeninterviews und auto-driven photo elicitation ins Forschungsdesign integriert.

Funding support through EU programmes and their objectives is the EU’s main lever to promote the integration of migrants and refugees. Next to the soft law embodied in policy guidelines like the Common Basic Principles of immigrant integration, it is the amounts, binding provisions and concrete spending rules of instruments such as the Asylum-, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) or the structural funds including the European Social Fund (ESF) that define EU policy and a joint European approach in the integration domain. In a number of Member States, EU funds are even the sole or nearly only source of support for integration measures and -policies, rendering them crucially important for the outlook and opportunities of migrants and refugees in many places across Europe. Against this background, the proposals and negotiations on the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), i.e. the 2021 to 2027 EU programme and funding period, have become the focal point of the EU integration debate since 2018. Local level integration actors including cities and civil society organisations are key stakeholders in these policy debates, whose oucomes will be decisive for the availability of means both for early and longer-term integration, and on local level as much as for mainstreaming integration across all relevant policy areas. This report synthesizes previous ReSOMA briefs in the area of integration that have focused on the unfolding MFF debate. Following an overview of the 2018 Commission proposals which set out scope and structure of the future EU instruments (chapter 1.2), it presents twelve policy debates related to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of EU support for integratin and their stickicking points from a local level and civil society perspective (chapter 2). Partly refering to the discourse responding to recent policy trends and how they became incorporated in the Commission proposals, partly referring to long-standing debates between stakeholders and EU institutions, the chapter offers an abridged version of key topics of debate as identified in the previous ReSOMA Discussion Briefs on ‘Cities as providers of services to * By Alexander Wollfhardt, Migration Policy Group 4 migrant populations’, ‘Sustaining mainstreaming of immigrant integration’ and ‘The social inclusion of undocumented migrants’. Against the background of these conversations and controversies, stakeholders came forward with numerous proposals to improve and amend the Commission proposals to better address their concerns. The European Parliament in 2018 has been the key arena of decision-making towards the 2021 to 2027 MFF, with MEPs able to amend the proposed legislation based on the concerns driving the policy controversies and offering stakeholders the opportunity to advocate for their own proposals. Chapter 3 shows how the suggestions for alternative solutions brought forward converge around four mayor policy options for the future of EU spending on integration:  Adequate funding – to ensure sufficient and flexible spending on integration according to changing needs across all Member States  Meaningful needs assessment – to base AM(I)F national programming and Partnership Agreements on structured and standalone assessment of needs and challenges  Mainstreamed, longer-term policies – to promote comprehensive integration policies with a long-term orientation and mainstreaming them on Member State and EU level  Broader participation – to ensure funds can be accessed by civil society and local/ regional authorities, and that these actors are fully involved in the funds’ governance For each of these options main proposals are listed as voiced by stakeholder organisations in the field, including the ReSOMA partners ECRE, EUROCITIES, PICUM and Social Platform. The chapter also shows, in each of the options, how the European Parliament has amended the Commission proposals, thus illustrating the uptake by Parliament of solutions advocated for by stakeholders. References to the previous ReSOMA Policy Options Briefs on ‘High levels of EU support for migrant integration, implemented by civil society and local authorities’ and ‘Comprehensive and mainstreamed, longer-term support for the integration of migrants’ point to more in-depth information on the evidence base supporting these proposals, the details of the various stakeholders positions and a mapping of the EP amendments. Chapter 4.1 sheds light on the state of play as of spring 2019, with the EP positions on the key EU instruments all decided before the EP elections and clarified at time when MFF negotiations are gearing up in the intergovernmental Council arena. Compromises among Member States and with the European Parliament are expected to be reached in late 2019/early 2020. Next to highlighting current debate among governments, the chapter stresses the importance of the preparations taking place already now on Member State level in terms of programming and priority setting. How the national AM(I)F and ESF+ programmes are shaping up even now, in advance of final EU-level decisions on the scope of the instruments, is crucially important for the future availability of EU means for integration support and the possibilities of key actors to benefit from 5 programmes. Across all levels, governments, the Commission, European Parliament and integration stakeholder are called upon to act accordingly, to ensure full exploitation of the new instruments’ potential for integration support, complementarity in programme planning, comprehensive compliance with the partnership principle and a need-based approach to the services funded. Drawing the consequence from the lack of realtime evidence on the actual uptake of EU instruments supporting integration and on the practice of partnershipled implementation, the Synthetic Report culminates in a proposal for a new, independent EU-wide quality monitoring mechanism (chapter 4.2). Led by civil society and local level stakeholders across the EU, the mechanism would provide for ongoing, regular monitoring of how the partnership principle is observed, national programmes are implemented, different funds are used, and of the quality of coordination and coherence among the instruments. Quality assessment of content and effectiveness of projects funded would improve the evidence base for future AM(I)F midterm reviews and allocation decisions for the second tranches of the fund. The new mechanism would thus aim to generate the necessary knowledge for pushing towards  compliance with the partnership principle,  purposeful use of AM(I)F and structural (ESF+) funds to support integration,  coordination and collaboration among the implementing authorities,  robust mid-term review procedures. This recommendation to set up a new, enhanced quality monitoring mechanism not only responds to a core gap identified in activities and analyses of stakeholders, but also builds on ReSOMA’s dialogue with local level and civil society experts, policymakers and researchers. In a very concrete way ReSOMA suggests the contours of a transnational mechanism that brings together implementation monitoring, qualitative evaluation, empowerment and capacity building of stakeholders, as well as EU-wide benchmarking and mutual exchange