DRAFT FINAL REPORT

SURVEY ON POLICY AND PRACTICE RELATED TO REFUGEE
INTEGRATION
[MAIN REPORT]
COMMISSIONED BY
EUROPEAN REFUGEE FUND COMMUNITY ACTIONS 2001/2
AND
CONDUCTED BY
SCHOOL OF PLANNING, OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY
December 2002

STUDY TEAM
Professor Roger Zetter
Dr David Griffiths
Nando Sigona
Margaret Hauser

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

Contents
1

Introduction and overview of policy and practice for refugee integration in Europe ........ 3

2

Case Study: GERMANY ................................................................................................. 12

3

Case Study: UNITED KINGDOM .................................................................................. 41

4

Case Study: ITALY.......................................................................................................... 70

5

Integration Policy and Practice in 12 EU Member States: A Literature Survey.............. 98

6

Comparative issues......................................................................................................... 113

7

Concepts and Typologies of Integration ........................................................................ 123

8.

Indicators of Integration, Harmonisation and Conclusions........................................... 134

APPENDIX 1: Individuals and organisations contacted for the research.............................. 144
Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 148

We wish to record our thanks to the following research assistants:
Germany: Lisa Sturmfels, Faculty of Law, University of Würzberg, Bavaria
Italy: Giusy D'Alconzo, lawyer and legal expert
Marco Carsetti, caseworker and independent researcher

2

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

1 Introduction and overview of policy and practice for
refugee integration in Europe
This report has been written by a research team at Oxford Brookes University under the
European Refugee Fund Community Actions 2002. It builds upon research on EU asylum
policy and practice which the research team has recently completed for the UK Home Office
(Home Office 2003a, Home Office 2003b).
1.1.

Structure of the report

The overall structure of the report is as follows.
Chapter 1 – Introduction and overview of policy and practice for refugee integration in
Europe.
This chapter outlines the structure of the report (section 1.1) and describes the aims,
objectives (section 1.2) and methods (section 1.3) of the study. The main part of this chapter
(section 1.4) sets the context of the study through an overview of the evolving policy and
practice of refugee integration in the European Union. It concludes with a brief résumé of the
main case study countries and the comparative issues (section 1.5) and outlines plans for
dissemination (section 1.6).
Chapters 2-4 – Three Country Profiles: Analysis of Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy
These chapters provide a detailed examination of three selected EU countries: Germany the
United Kingdom and Italy. Together with the findings outlined in chapter 5, it highlights the
common and contrasting factors and experiences in refugee integration. Taken together,
chapters 2-5 enable substantiated conclusions about the effectiveness of integration policies to
be reached. The main methods adopted in these chapters have been intensive fieldwork in the
three countries with representatives from the statutory and voluntary sectors and refugee
community-based organisation (RCOs).
Chapter 5 – Literature Survey of Integration Policy and Practice in 12 EU
This chapter surveys integration policy and practice the remaining 12 EUMS. This is a desk
study of secondary sources. The evidence is drawn from a wide variety of English language
sources – books, journal articles and a web search of government sites, NGO and refugee
group.
Chapter 6 – Comparative Issues
The comparative issues raised by chapters 2-4 and the Annex are addressed in this chapter.
The analysis provides a comprehensive explanation for the divergencies in policy between
Member States and the implications for the development of a common approach to
integration.
Chapter 7 - Concepts and Typologies of Integration
Building on the comparative assessment of the preceding chapters, this chapter assess a
number of conceptual typologies of integration and their relevance to the present study.

3

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. this chapter provides a country-by-country profile of refugee integration in each EU Member State. There is a growing literature specifically on refugee integration in the EU (Valtonen 1999. Aims and objectives of the research The key aims we address concern what is comparable between EU states and what drives the legislative and policy agenda of refugee integration in different EU countries. although we identify the processes which may in certain contexts facilitate integration. Thus in contrast to the substantial research undertaken by ECRE for example (2000b). we are concerned with the impact of different national models of citizenship and nationhood upon refugee integration and the relationship between national policy development in this area and the broader security dimensions of EU asylum and migration policy. Annex – Profile of Refugee Integration Policies in EU Member States Using a systematic template of presentation to ease comparison across the individual states. In this and chapters 2-4 there is a particular sensitivity to issues around the periodisation of policies in each Member State and the political and social context in which they were generated. The main method adopted in this chapter is desk research. the scope of legislation. What. 1.are fundamentally important for our approach to this research and the methodology we have adopted. civil and welfare entitlements according to status. • The effectiveness of policies Evaluation of the effectiveness of policies is provided through an examination of their impacts and outcomes and in particular by analysing integration practice at the 4 . and a short discourse on key issues related to integration. this report is not exclusively focused on the identification of good practice in refugee integration. which includes government publications and policy documents produced on refugee integration within the last few years. We draw on this literature and related electronic sources in order to evaluate the development and scope of refugee integration policy and practice across the EU. is the relationship between the outcomes and legislative and policy change? How best might these conclusions be developed and disseminated between Member States? As indicated below.2. Wahlbeck 2000. The principal legislation concerning refugee integration is documented in the case of each EUMS. Oxford Brookes University Chapter – 8 Indicators of Integration. Harmonization and Conclusions Based on the comparative findings of chapters 2-5 and the concepts elaborated in chapter 6. if any. These aims and the context of this study explained in section 1. ECRE 2000b. the final chapter develops a framework of integration indicators and assesses the challenges in operationalising them. Key variables in the presentation concern: the date and content of legislation. The objectives of the report are to provide an analysis and evaluation of: • Legislation and practice relating to integration policies The development of national policies on integration is outlined through an overview of EU states and in the chapters on case-studies which deal with the themes and issues in more detail.4. The chapter also assesses the prospects for harmonising integration policies in EUMS and makes recommendations to facilitate integration policy and practice at the national and EU levels. Bloch et al 2000).

• The historical factors which inform the legislation of particular states Different immigration histories. The three countries were chosen for a combination of reasons: size of asylum seeker applications. including relationships with former colonies and the use of migrant labour in the post-war period have impacted upon the integration policy framework in EUMS. Oxford Brookes University local level in the case-study sections. predominates in the review of policies on integration • a largely qualitative methodology is deployed as this is more appropriate to comparative policy analysis • recognition that a comparative approach and comparative findings are fundamental to informing policy and legislative change in an EU context • Targetted fieldwork in the UK. Our analysis reviews the essential factors involved and the ways in which these have impacted upon refugee integration policy and practice in particular EUMS. The overall objective is to identity the main contours of national policy formation in the area of refugee integration and to identity the role of EU initiatives in promoting the development of a Common Asylum Policy across Member States.4. Germany and Italy Our comparative methodology addresses both policy and legislative change which derives from common supranational concerns.3. • The different national policies developed in Member States Particular attention is paid to the variations in national models of social inclusion. the UK and Italy are reinforced by an EU wide survey of refugee integration policy and practice. differences in political structure and history of immigration and contrasting legislative and normative frameworks regarding the inclusion of immigrants. based mainly on secondary data. Our methodology is determined by four key factors: • a desk study method. nationality and nationhood.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. 5 . welfare entitlement and incorporation. 1. The broader context of European Union (EU) immigration and asylum history is indispensable to an understanding of this particular policy field. Methodology Our approach is essentially two-tier: three in-depth case studies of Germany. as well as identifying differences in legislation and policy change driven by domestic priorities. Refugee Integration: policy and practice in the European Union This report addresses the development of refugee integration policy and practice in European Union Member States (EUMS). degree of development of asylum policies. These contrasting factors are developed throughout the report and in the concluding comparative analysis and recommendations. An assessment is given of the limits to the communitarisation of integration policies based upon divergences between particular states in welfare regimes and entitlements 1. and the underlying basis for this in differing conceptions which govern the norms of citizenship.

Extremism and Violence International (TREVI) in 1976. Radicalism. Schengen was ‘flawed’ precisely because of the absence of the UK from its provisions and the lateness of its implementation after the peak in asylum applications had been reached in 1992. was established by the Ad Hoc Group of Ministers. 1976-85 from the establishment of TREVI in 1976 to Schengen in 1985. 1998-2004 from the Treaty of Amsterdam to its full implementation Phase 1. The first phase of largely ad hoc multilateral measures begins with the establishment of Terrorism. The Schengen Convention. Amongst the earliest institutional response was the aptly named Ad Hoc Group of Ministers founded by EC Ministers of the Interior in 1986 under British initiative. the Dublin Convention of 1990 was framed as an explicitly EC wide response to asylum. according to Joly (1996:49) Schengen had four main aims: to determine the state responsible for examining an asylum application. 1986-93 from Single European Act to Maastricht Treaty on European Union 1993 (including the Dublin Convention in 1990 and the Convention on the Crossing of External borders in 1991) 3. had immediate implications for immigration and asylum policy. As its name suggests. Both the Ad Hoc Group and the Rhodes Group remained intergovernmental in character. was applied as from March 1995. including common visa regulations and external border control. ad hoc approach 6 . The Schengen Group was founded in 1985 by the core members of the original European Community (EC) Benelux. TREVI lacked a coherent organisational structure although it acted as a prototype for later intergovernmental organisation prior to the introduction of the Third Pillar of the EU in 1993 (Levy 1999:23). which came into force in 1993. Germany and France. According to Levy (1999). Phase 2. to streamline asylum procedures and to facilitate the exchange of information and the circulation of foreigners 1.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. By 2000 (Bloch et al 2000:3) only the UK and Ireland in the EU were outside Schengen. Its main provisions. this was principally concerned with the fight against terrorism and drugs trafficking. 1993-1997 from the Maastricht Treaty to the Treaty of Amsterdam 4. The main provisions concerned the assigning of responsibility for assessing a claim for asylum to 1 On a pragmatic level. It produced the Palma Document in 1989 which proposed a programme of action for the harmonisation of EU asylum policies. It also included a computerised system for data exchange under the Schengen Information System (SIS) and EURODAC (European Automated Fingerprinting Regulation System). services. The Convention applying the Schengen Agreement of June 1985 was signed in June 1990 by the founder members and later incorporated into national law by other Member States. Schengen encouraged cooperation between police and customs authorities and the harmonisation of visa policies. The signing of the Single European Act (SEA) in 1986 ‘kick started’ the EC after years of stagnation (Geddes 2000:67). four broad periods can be identified: 1. 2. By contrast. Conceived as a response to the problem of controlling immigration in a Europe without internal frontiers. although with several delays in implementation. for the creation of a single European market in which there would be free movement of people. Oxford Brookes University Surveying the broader framework of EU asylum policy. goods and capital. The Group of Coordinators or Rhodes Group (formed from the 1988 EC Summit in Rhodes). Free movement for individuals from EC Member States entailed the need to control the movement of Third Country Nationals (TCNs) 2. 2 Although a European Commission White Paper of 1985 proposed a community approach to asylum and immigration (Geddes 2000: 70) this was resisted by Member States who continued to pursue a multilateral.

The Resolution on Host Third Countries. Under this Treaty immigration and asylum was switched to the first pillar. These include the Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications of 1992 which. 4 The full text of theTreaty can be located on www. conducting its work through steering groups and working parties. deemed applications where no evidence of persecution under the Geneva Convention was evident to be inadmissible and subject to accelerated procedures. 12 Member States. laid the foundations for the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. The current phase from 1997-2004. allocated responsibility for determining an asylum claim to a ‘safe third country’ through which an asylum seeker had passed before arriving in the EC. In addition to the Conventions there have been a number of less precise and non-binding instruments developed on an intergovernmental basis. Oxford Brookes University the first Member State by which an individual entered the EC. Article 63 of the Treaty set five-year deadlines for a range of measures. who now operate selective opt-out clauses. Phase 4. K9 or the so-called passerelle made it possible in theory to transfer asylum from the Third to the First Pillar. is demarcated by the Treaty of Amsterdam signed in June 1997 and which came into force in May 1999.pdf 7 . again passed in 1992. amongst other factors. Asylum (along with issues concerning TCNs and illegal immigration) came under Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty. although there was some blurring of responsibility with the First Pillar assuming responsibility for visa policies (Geddes 2000:100).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. This relied upon a conception of ‘safe countries of origin’ which was hotly disputed by Human Rights and Refugee Advocacy groups. Ireland and Denmark. Organisational and constitutional incoherence and the growing sense of ‘democratic deficit’ in relation to the operation of the Third Pillar and K4 in particular. This formalised but did not supranationalise cooperation on immigration and asylum policy by incorporating it into the intergovernmental Third Pillar of the EU dealing with Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). a position which was reinforced at the IGC in March 1996. The third phase from 1993-1997. although stopping far short of a fullsome embrace of communitarianised asylum and immigration policy by Member States. The Dublin Convention was only ratified in 1997 when Ireland signed the Convention. The Draft Convention on the Crossing of External Borders (proposed by the Ad Hoc Group of Ministers) was agreed in 1991.eu.int/eur-lex/entreaties/dat/ec-_cons_treaty_en. bar the UK.europa. including: 4 • Procedures for establishing which state is to process asylum applications (Dublin Convention II) • Minimum standards for a fair and efficient asylum procedure 3 This has not as yet been signed due to a dispute between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar. The Commission in particular argued that asylum and immigration should be transferred to the First Pillar. when all Member States apart from the UK and Denmark voted in favour of the communitarianisation of immigration and asylum policy. commences with the Treaty on European Union (TEU) or Treaty of Maastricht of 1993. The deficiencies of ad hoc multilateralism were one of the reasons for this change in policy perspective. Although Article K was placed under the Third Pillar. The British and Danish consistently opposed the move towards community intervention which was proposed by other Member States and the European Commission (Geddes 2000: 91). In the event. 3 Phase 3. K4 became the coordinating committee of Title VI. set the framework for the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) Reflection Group and European Commission reports of 1995. Given the need for unanimity in decision-making a minimalist role for the Third Pillar was established.

two way process between migrants/refugees and the receiving society. By this time several of the goals of Tampere had been reached: in relation to asylum and temporary protection the Council had agreed on the establishment of the European Refugee Fund. On the insistence of Spain (confronted with the Basque situation) a protocol was also included that EU Members will not grant asylum to EU nationals.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Oxford Brookes University • Minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers • Minimum standards for the grant or withdrawal of refugee status • Minimum standards on temporary protection The Treaty of Amsterdam also provides for the incorporation of Schengen in the Schengen acquis. In conjunction with the Tampere Conclusions. the integration of refugees is now a central component of a coordinated approach to asylum in the EU. In this document. the Commission published two communications in November 2000 6: one on a common asylum policy and the other on a common immigration policy. The Vienna Action Plan began the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty and was drawn up at meeting of the European Council and Commission in 1998. Other proposals are currently under negotiation. the European Commission has tackled head-on the fair treatment and residence rights of TCNs. including recognised refugees. This was followed by the European Council Meeting in Tampere Finland in October 1999 5. The report on asylum reaffirms the goal of a common asylum policy to be enacted through an ‘open coordination procedure’ whereby states would approximate their legislation to common guidelines on policy. The long-term goals of the Tampere Conclusions include the establishment of a common EU asylum and migration policy. From this perspective the integration process should start as soon as possible after arrival. Set against the backdrop of demographic change and 5 By this time the JHA had been upgraded to a fully fledged Directorate General (Boswell 2002) COM (2000) 755 and COM (2000) 757 of 22 November 2000 7 The document follows closely the definition of integration and good practice promoted by ECRE (2000b) 6 8 . including strengthening measures to combat racism and xenophobia • The more efficient management of migration flows. integration is seen as a long-term. including: • A common asylum procedure and uniform status for those granted asylum • The development of a comprehensive approach to migration by addressing human rights and development issues in countries of origin and transit • Provisions for the settlement of TCNs (including refugees) in EUMS. In the communication on a common immigration policy. it should be based upon active partnership between migrants and the host society and there should be the provision of coherent settlement packages at the local level 7. the coordination of EURODAC (the centralised computer system for comparing fingerprints of asylum seekers) and a directive on minimum standards for temporary protection in the case of a mass influx. In sum. with opt-out clauses in place for the UK and Ireland. including ‘external action’ on the root causes of migration flows The European Council meeting in Laeken in December 2001 reinforced many of these earlier points.

The theme of ‘differing traditions of citizenship and nationhood’ and their impact upon the national models of incorporation of outsiders is of central importance to this report. although with varying degrees of success (Valtonen 1999. associations and NGOs are also instrumental to the integration process. including recognised refugees. 2000b). Domestic policy instruments designed to combat discrimination in education. In particular factors such as the degree of centralisation. Roberts 1998). the integration of Third Country Nationals (TCNs). Geddes (2000:107) has amplified on the institutional and political preferences underlying EU migration and asylum policy: The developing European immigration policy framework – and the underpinning problematique – is centred on its control and security dimensions. Korac 2001). Research evidence has clearly shown that refugees are often highly qualified members of their own societies and are potentially able to fill significant skills gaps in EUMS. diverse responses to immigrant ‘integration’ which reflect differing traditions of citizenship and nationhood. This reflects lowest common denominator decision-making where national preferences for control are relatively well established and. is now firmly on the policy agenda as part of the development of a common asylum and immigration policy. What is most striking in relation to policy development at the national level are the variations in terms of the date of implementation of integration policies. Different conceptions of the goal of integration are in operation: from what can be described as the assimilationist stance of Sweden to what is often termed the multiculturalist inflection of the UK. 1999b. it can be seen that the history of EU asylum policy is one of tentative movement from unilateral. Oxford Brookes University intensified competition in the global marketplace. to multilateral and finally communitarian legal instruments and interventions 8. employment and welfare have been implemented by Member States. in distinction to this. and divergencies in their scope and rationale.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. 9 . Discrimination. it has been argued that the emergent refugee regime in Europe is characterised by its restrictionism and problematic relation to the global refugee regime (Uçarer 1997. Concerning the limitations to communitarisation. Equally important here is to demonstrate the ways in which the underlying securitization of migration (Overbeek 1996) impacts upon the development of integration policies at the national level. and the role of voluntary networks. From the broader perspective reviewed above. In contrast to the global refugee regime which is founded on international law and human rights. lack of recognition for overseas qualifications and language difficulties are some of the problems typically faced by refugees. 8 The emergence of a European regional refugee regime 8 has resulted in the partial ‘pooling of sovereignty’ (Uçarer 1997:283) by EUMS. Substantial work on understanding the processes which facilitate the integration of refugees has already been accomplished (ECRE 1998. The principal issues we address concern the scale and scope of these divergencies and in particular their implications for the development of a common approach to refugee integration in the EU. ECRE 1998. Opposing traditions of political organisation and historical development are also at stake as well as the dynamics imparted by earlier experiences of immigration preceding the unprecedented high inflows of asylum seekers in the last decade.1999b. federalism and municipal and local autonomy.

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration 1. levels of welfare entitlement and the perceptions of refugees themselves. relations to third parties. Oxford Brookes University Overview of case study country profiles and comparative issues Chapters 2-4 report a detailed examination of three selected EU countries Germany.5 School of Planning.relation to country of origin. including refugees into the national body. Germany’s strategic location in relation to major refugee originating countries adjacent to its borders. the integration strategy in the UK is in its early stages of development and provides a useful contrast to the situation in comparable EU states. these factors explain how policy and legislation differ and identify the challenges posed to harmonisation. Germany presents: a case of high volumes of asylum. welfare. One of the aims of the integration policy is to retain refugees in the regions once a positive decision has been reached on their claim for asylum. and set within the framework of multiculturalism and stable race relations. The comparative issues raised in the substantive chapters are examined in the last chapter – chapter 6. like Germany. the conditions of settled communities have tended to be of peripheral concern to social policy makers. the constitutional status of asylum provisions. Informal networks and church organisations are the key providers of basic services for vulnerable individuals. the different responsibilities of central and local government. culture and identity. Foreign policy and strategic interest . Italy represents the southern European axis of the EU and is one of the main gates of entry to the continent. more generally. ius sanguinis is clearly identified as the main. of course.economy. All of these factors have impacted upon Germany’s response to the question of integrating TCNs. Historically a country of emigration. 10 . The ethnic basis of German citizenship is a particular stumbling block in this respect and represents a significant difference to the multicultural assumptions underlying the UK’s recent refugee integration strategy The UK provides an example of a recently formulated integration strategy which is closely connected to its adoption of a dispersal programme for asylum seekers under the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. Ethical factors including human rights and international conventions. Rooted in the individual social and economic histories of the individual countries. The feasibility of developing a common set of integration indicators across the EU – an objective of the study – is addressed in terms of the impact of national differences in conceptualisations of social inclusion. assuming that those in need will be assisted primarily through the NGOs network and self-help systems established within refugee and migrant communities. The divergencies in policy between Member States and the implications for the development of a Common approach to integration relate to the following factors which inform the development of national policies on asylum: Domestic policy . Moreover. Currently the predominant focus of the political discourse on immigration and asylum seeking is on the comparatively recent phenomenon of large scale inmigration and especially on undocumented migration. As a consequence. and. Envisaged on the lines of a partnership between the statutory and voluntary sectors and RCOs. the United Kingdom and Italy. The government system abdicates its social responsibilities. and prevailing. Italy continues to image itself as a country of transit and not permanent settlement for new comers. criterion for becoming citizen of the country. the role of immigration in the political discourse of the country.

School of Planning. once approved. The full report.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration 1. The website will also be a repository for other relevant documentation including in-depth case studies of European Union member states’ integration frameworks. Oxford Brookes University Dissemination The report will be disseminated by a variety of means. 11 . the website will also be used as a tool to facilitate networking. will be presented on a website. In addition to disseminating the results of the research and the materials produced by the study.6. Moreover a series of publications and workshops based upon this and our earlier research for the UK Home Office will be presented.

The numbers of Aussiedler has been declining since 1992. although family reunion has meant that most Gastarbeiter have settled in Germany. The final discussion provides an analysis of the key agencies involved in integration and the structural and historical factors which determine Germany’s approach to the integration of refugees. Länder and local levels. Despite the ban on further immigration from non-EEC countries in 1973 . This becomes clear if we review the three main sources of migration to Germany in this period: 9 • The Aussiedler or ethnic Germans have a right of return and citizenship in the Basic Law. Specific policy issues are raised which are developed in the concluding comparative chapter and recommendations of this report.the Ausländerstopp . Oxford Brookes University 2 Case Study: GERMANY Introduction This chapter reviews the conditions which have shaped Germany’s integration policies and how these affect recognised refugees. arrivals in the post-cold war period have fared less well (Zimmerman 1999).1. Yugoslavia. particularly of the younger generation. • Asylum in particular has posed a challenge to the German state. Migration and Integration in Germany German migration policy in the post-war period has been consistently contentious and politicised.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. particularly by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).1.the ‘foreigner’ problem has continually resurfaced as a problem in domestic politics. Schönwälder (1999) has argued that the increase resulted in growing public hostility and the construction of the 9 Other sources of migration have been Jews from the CIS (Thranhardt 1999). The issues raised here are examined in the case-study locations where comparative issues are addressed in more detail. quota refugees and intra-EU migration (Rotte 2000). The system was conceived of as a temporary solution to labour shortages (Cohen 1987). 2. 12 . Spain and Italy (Castles and Kosack 1973). with concerns voiced over integration. Whereas the earlier intake of Aussiedler from the 1950s onwards was welcomed to Germany ‘in this unprecedented feat of population assimilation’ (Fulbrook 1996:93). From the Gastarbeiter to the 2002 Immigration Act 2. In the highly politicised context of the cold war. the rights of Aussiedler were typically championed over those of other foreigners and asylum seekers.1. • Under the Gastarbeiter (guestworker) system from 1955-1973 contract workers were invited from Turkey. The number of asylum applications began rising in the late 1970s. After a discussion of the current political debates on immigration and integration the chapter provides an overview of the asylum process in Germany and the integration framework as this is organised at Federal.

in the sense that they are in but not part of German society. including recognised refugees. although it is evident that first generation Gastarbeiter and their children are still heavily disadvantaged in relation to the German population. a factor which has resulted in a highly sectoralised administrative approach to integration in Germany. Refugees. Although the Basic Law guaranteed the right to asylum this was to be the subject of an intense constitutional and political debate as applications peaked in 1992. From this perspective there is a need for cultural integration in addition to the labour market and functional integration of foreigners. In general the assumption is made that refugees are temporary stayers and that the majority of asylum applications are rejected (interview with Steffen Angenendt. do not figure in the political debate on integration and are not treated as a separate category for integration purposes. although it acknowledges the importance of integration as a central plank of immigration policy. the integration of refugees. Oxford Brookes University Asylanten problem by sections of the administration and media. 2002). the first of its type in Germany. The 2002 Immigration Act. notably Turks.02 ‘Stoiber puts issue of immigration on poll agenda’). The debate on parallel worlds has lacked hard corroborating data. To what degree does the policy discourse on integration include or exclude refugees and what are the limitations of the proposed and existing integration framework for refugees in Germany? Later sections of this report examine these questions in more detail.2 The problem of parallel worlds In the run-up to the September 2002 General Election traditional concerns over immigration resurfaced.6. The integration of Ausländer 10 (foreigners). at an extreme disadvantage. According to data cited in Der Spiegel (Die Rückseite der Republik March 2002) 63% of 10 It is important to note the language of Ausländer – foreigner – which has been amended to Ausländische Mitbürger –foreign citizen – arguably a contradition in terms (Marshall 2000: 140). One of the central issues raised in public debate is the emergence of Parallelwelten. 2. there has been a marked process of differential inclusion according to the category of migrant.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Rotte (2000) more generally has reinforced the view that German migration policy is compartmentalised according to the category of migrant. Language. unlike the absorption of Aussiedler (ethnic Germans) has had a particularly low political priority until the 2002 Immigration Act (Zuwanderungsgesetz. falls short of the explicit examination of integration as it affects refugees. with the CDU/CSU coalition objecting to further immigration on the basis of domestic unemployment rates (The Times 19. one of the key challenges facing Germany is the integration of second and third generation workers. 11 Steffen Angenendt was a member of the Süssmuth Commission from January 2001. Berlin February 2002) 11. June 20. 13 . As a result of the systemic neglect of integration for Gastarbeiter.1. The degree to which state sponsored integration of outsiders occurs would appear to be directly related to issues of ethnic affiliation. the parallel worlds occupied by many foreigners. In general. although seldom raised in public debate. Aussiedler in particular have been favoured due to the situation after world war two. on the whole. with ethnic Germans scattered across central and eastern Europe. including. The resulting ‘asylum compromise’ was refelcted in an amendment to the Constitution: the right to asylum although retained in law was effectively curtailed in practice. educational and labour market inequalities continue to put particular groups of foreigners.

of which the emergence of ‘parallel worlds’ and forms of Islamic belief amongst Turks in Germany is a worrying reminder • processes of demographic and economic change which are common to all EU states and which necessitate the fuller incorporation of foreigners into labour markets. Citizenship and integration From the perspective of the Süssmuth Commission (2001:240) ‘naturalisation is a decisive step on the way towards successful integration since it provides immigrants with numerous opportunities for social participation’. According to Brubaker (1992) Germany exemplifies a distinctive national tradition of citizenship based upon ethnocultural exclusionism. Oxford Brookes University foreign children in Kreuzberg (Berlin) and 4 out of 5 Turkish children are unable to speak German. including easier naturalisation measures • domestic political factors in the run-up to the September 2002 General Election and in particular the more conservative Länder’s opposition to integration measures. for which they in part will have to pay • the 2002 Immigration Act and restructuring of integration measures under the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees In addition to these factors.3. contrasted to the civic model in France 14 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In terms of general education. With this in mind it is important to recall that in 2002 Germany has over 7 million foreigners and that many of these – 64% . Die Rückseite der Republik March 2002). several factors have combined to raise the issue of integration to the centre of political debate in Germany: • heightened tensions over international terrorism.1. Castles 2000:114-115). Although the new Immigration Act includes language tuition up to 600 hours. the issue of citizenship and its relation to the integration of foreigners has been a recurrent theme in the public discourse on immigration since at least the 1970s. Of the 319 million DM spent on language courses in Germany each year the majority goes on Aussiedler and Jewish refugees. 2. the new residence period for naturalisation (Süssmuth Commission 2001). Labour market inequalities continue to discriminate against Turks in particular (Seifert 1996. not former Gastarbeiter and their children. Die Rückseite der Republik March 2002). According to the Ausländerbeauftragte des Bundes (Federal Commissioner for Foreigners) Marieluise Beck. the Goethe Institute estimates that 800 hours would be barely adequate (Der Spiegel. the real cost of language courses to meet demand would be in the region of half a billion Euros. Yet Germany’s naturalisation rate is amongst the lowest in Western Europe. excluding Aussiedler at around 1% of the foreign population in 1996. To summarise.have lived in Germany for more than eight years. 42% of foreign children leave school only with qualifications from the Hauptschule (the lowest qualifications) compared to 25% of Germans leaving with qualifications from the Hauptschule (Der Spiegel. Lengthy procedures and bureaucratic complexity are the main reasons for low take-up of naturalisation (Green 2001:35).

The central tenet of the document.the Kulturnation . The aim is to foster the active identification of the foreigner with German society and legal structure. The political parties in Germany are closely ranged around this issue: ius soli from one perspective will encourage integration. Oxford Brookes University and multicultural model in Britain. Soysal’s (1994) conception of post-national citizenship and Kymlicka (1995) on multicultural citizenship. As a ‘belated’ or delayed nation. This simplified naturalisation procedures and supplemented the ‘discretionary naturalisations’ which were granted under the 1913 12 It is also important to note the differing conceptions and models of citizenship: ethnic and civic national models as in Brubaker (1992). With the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1949. with contract workers from communist countries living under segregated housing conditions (Fullbrook 1996:97). The key question raised in public debate is the degree to which citizenship is a means of integration or the culmination of a long-term process of settlement and adoption of German cultural values (Green 2001: 45). Germany’s first nationality law. specifically a cultural conception of the nation as a binding force . 15 The experience of the foreign population in the GDR was distinctive. 14 In the context of the stop on the gastarbeiter system in 1973 and the consequent settlement of foreigners through family reunion. Germany illustrated a pre-national form of citizenship rooted in the individual states prior to unification in 1871. was allowed in the case of Aussiedler 14.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Current debates on citizenship are the heirs to the older ethnic conception of German citizenship which was inherited in the post-war period (Green 2001:29. whether in the new German Democratic Republic (GDR) or outside the borders of either German state. The issue of naturalisation is therefore highly charged due to historical and cultural factors. the 1913 law was added to Article 116 as the basis of German citizenship. language proficiency and renunciation of previous nationality. 15 . predicated upon identification with German values and culture. For the FRG the GDR was not recognised as a separate basis of citizenship: the official ideology of ‘one German nation’ persisted. often repeated in subsequent debates was that ‘the Federal Republic of Germany is not a country of immigration’ . the document also set a ‘standard of cultural integration into German society as the benchmark for naturalisation’ (Green 2001:31). In this respect naturalisation was regarded as an anomaly. Significantly. the 1977 Einbürgerungsrichtlinien (guidelines on naturalisation) stated that the critieria for citizenship included ten years residence. Hence the conception of citizenship promoted by the FRG laid claim to represent the whole of the German nation. This according to Green marked a significant transition from a purely ethnic conception of citizenship to a cultural one. The next major innovation in German citizenship law was the Ausländergesetz or Aliens Act of 1990 which came into force in 1991. only to be granted under exceptional circumstances.kein Einwanderungsland (para 2. 13 Wollenschläger (1999) argues for a combined approach of granting citizenship within the context of regional and constitutional studies which are undertaken by the foreigner. means of support and an ‘irreproachable life’ (Marshall 2000:141) were amongst the conditions of citizenship but naturalisation was solely at the discretion of the Länder authorities. Netherlands and Sweden. Marshall 2000:139). This stands in marked contrast to attitudes towards gastarbeiter who were brought in as temporary labour and settled after 1973 and who were not regarded as an integral part of German society (Castles 2000) 15.and a eluctance to assimilate foreigners in ‘forced Germanisation’.3). Dual nationality. This enforced a ius sanguinis conception of citizenship by descent rather than birth. Fixed place of residence. while from another it will undermine the foundations of German nationality 13. conceptualising integration as a process rather than a finished product. which was generally discouraged as inimical to German citizenship. the Reichs-und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz of 1913 was premised on this cultural conception of German nationality founded on language and cultural beliefs. 12 Peculiar to Germany are its late development as a nation-state.

In 1989. On reaching this age the individual has to make a choice between German citizenship and that of the country of origin. an unlimited residence permit is required (Green 2001:34). introduced ius soli for foreign children born in Germany. 16 In sum. In the context of growing public awareness of the growth of a parallel society of foreigners. In particular. In relation to citizenship there was a significant move towards ius soli and easier naturalisation conditions and dual citizenship. thereby setting minimum requirements for citizenship 16. Para 85 of the Aliens act stipulated amongst other factors that previous citizenship had to be given up. Canada and the US. Green 2001: 37) with Berlin highest amongst the Länder in 1996 for naturalisations with almost half of the total with dual nationality. Permanent dual nationality is still not possible. Language competence and loyalty to the constitution were introduced as citizenship criteria. Similarly. although there is some flexibility according to circumstances. The Gesetz zur Erleichterung des Erwerbs der deutschen Staatsangehörgkeit (Bill to ease the acquisition of German Nationality) of January 1999 which came into force in January 2000. lowered costs and allowed for dual nationality in certain circumstances it is important to note the considerable variation between the Länder in the granting of dual nationality (Marshall 2000:142. a proposed amendment to the Basic Law in 1993 which sought to gain recognition for ‘the identity of ethnic cultural and linguistic minorities’ (ECRE 1998:40) was successfully opposed on the grounds that the idea of a multicultural society goes against the idea of a German state. The political debate on citizenship continued throughout the 1990s although without significant legislative impact until the end of the decade.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In this context. on condition that one parent had to have been resident for eight years and held an unlimited residence permit for three years. In addition. there has been a general easing of the conditions for naturalisation. specifically as this is interpreted under Article 116 (1) of the Basic Law. it is important to re-emphasise the basic resistance to multiculturalism in Germany. Oxford Brookes University legislation by the Länder authorities with easier procedures for naturalisation. Although the new citizenship law gives ‘all foreigners living permanently in Germany the opportunity to integrate more into German society’ (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000:57) there are continuing tensions and debates around the status of Germany as a country of immigration. it is important to note the restrictive application of citizenship to permanent residence categories and Article 16a refugees who are a minority of those allowed to stay in Germany. See Wollenschläger (1999) on the advantages of multiple nationalities as a means of promoting integration. most notably concerning the reception and integration of asylum seekers and refugees. the Federal Constitutional Court in response to the attempted inclusion of foreigners in voting rights in Schleswig-Holstein. Although the Aliens Act simplified naturalisation procedures. 16 . Paragraph 87 of the Aliens Act lists the conditions under which dual nationality is allowed. For the first time in Germany there was an explicit public policy debate around the control of immigration and a move towards a system of managed immigration as in the case of Australia. an abandonment of exclusive ius consanguinis and allowance of dual nationality for foreigners growing up in Germany to the age of 23. in 1998 the new Social Democratic Party (SPD)/Green coalition government made the reform of citizenship one of the central planks of its new immigration policy. affirmed that the ‘German people consists of only those individuals who are either German nationals or are to be treated as such in accordance with Article 116 (1) of the constitution’. and that a residence period of eight years completed for citizenship to be granted.

Germany . a brief overview of the background to the asylum process is followed by a review of the different refugee statuses available in Germany.AA Asylverfahrensegesetz (Asylum Procedures Act.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. 1982 amended 1997) .APA Asylbeweverleistungsgesetz (Act on Benefits for Asylum Seekers amended 1997. These are: Grundgesetz (the Basic Law) .ABAS These are Federal instruments which are binding upon the sixteen Länder which constitute the German Federal State. The social and political context of asylum policy The early 1990s were a period of intense and dramatic reform of the asylum process in Germany. reaching a total of 438.1. The second half of the decade is characterised by gradual decline. As is well documented. 17 . The social and economic costs which unregulated migration posed were central factors in the reaction to the increase in asylum applications in this period. The general trend in asylum applications in Germany has been one of a dramatic 17 There are four principal legal instruments which apply in the case of asylum in Germany.2.2. stabilisation and only marginal increase in asylum applications between 2000-2001. The social unrest and targeting of asylum seekers which occurred in the former East German Länder (Bosswick 2000:48) were amongst the more hostile responses at the time. 2.191 applications in 1992 (IGC 2000). the ‘return’ of Aussiedler from central Europe. The ways in which the ABAS is implemented vary from Land to Land.Asylum Applications 1991-2001 600 in 1000s 500 400 300 200 100 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Table 1 Asylum applications in Germany 1991-2001 The largest increase in applications occurred between 1991 and 1992. Asylum in Germany 17 2.BL Ausländergesetz (The Aliens Act of July 1990) . the collapse of the Berlin wall and the onset of German reunification. The APA stipulates the terms and conditions under which asylum seekers are distributed to the Länder on a quota basis. Oxford Brookes University In the next section. the general opening-up of Central Europe to outward migration and the beginnings of the war in former Yugoslavia. all meant that by 1991 Germany was facing an unprecedented challenge to its national and territorial integrity. The ABAS sets the general conditions for the social and welfare support of asylum seekers. 1998) .

20 In addition to safe third countries the list of safe countries of origin includes: Bulgaria. from 5. This intensive spate of legislative intervention combined pre-entry controls and incountry deterrence in a potent mixture which by the end of the decade had appeared to ‘solve’ the asylum problem. It was in the context of rising applications in 1991 that a series of major reforms in asylum procedures was introduced: • The Aliens Act was passed in 1991 which introduced accelerated procedures for all applications. as indicated in section 2. The most significant was that states which provided protection under the Geneva Convention and the Human Rights Convention (all of Germany’s surrounding states) were declared safe third countries.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. 16a (1) of the Basic Law states that ‘persons persecuted on political grounds shall enjoy the right of asylum’. 565 in 2000. most notably in paragraph 51 which is a lesser status to Article 16a.287 in 2001 (BAFl 18 2002). This concerned asylum seekers arriving by air without a valid passport or coming from a safe country of origin. Subject to restrictions. 1993.86% in 2001. Slovak Republic. Ghana. in terms of a sustained decline in numbers and certainly as far as the official discourse on refugees is concerned (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000). In overall percentage terms therefore there has been an increase in awards of refugee status over this period.73% in 1997 to 15. are a small minority of total decisions made on applications for asylum 19. In safe third country cases. • In November 1993. 20 Those granted Article 16a are permitted to reside permanently. • Following intense political debate Article 16 (2) of the Constitution – ‘persons persecuted on political grounds enjoy the right to asylum’ – was retained but was now hedged around by qualifications.33% in 2001. The list of safe countries of origin has to be 18 .1. Czech Republic and Hungary. 2.94% in 1997 to 5. The reasons for this overall decline have been discussed in our Feasibility Study on the Impact of Asylum Policies in Europe (Home Office 2003a). Poland.2. Statuses available in Germany Article 16a refugees. the Asylbewerberleistungsgestz. The Constitutional amendment was passed on the 26th May and came into operation as from July 1st. Asylum Seeker Benefits Act (ASBA) was introduced separating asylum seekers from the mainstream benefits system and substituting benefits in kind for cash payments. The rate of refusals has declined from around 60% to 50% in this period. the Netherlands and Denmark. unless an individual could give good reasons why they were fleeing individual persecution their claim would be ruled inadmissible (Bosswick 1997: 65). Oxford Brookes University decline from the height reached in 1992 to 78. reducing the time for decisions from the previous six months to six weeks and with immediate expulsion upon a negative decision.3.2. in percentage terms from 4. • In July 1993 a new Asylum Procedures Code came into effect introducing a special accelerated procedure at the airports (Flughafenverfahren) modelled after regulations already in place in France. A dramatic rise has occurred in those receiving paragraph 51. rising to 88. Romania. 18 Bundesamtes für die Anerkennung ausländischer Fluchtlinge or the German Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees 19 In the period 1997-2001 the main trends are a slight increase in the award of Article 16a. Senegal. Art 16a (2)-(5).

Oxford Brookes University Section 51 (1) of the Aliens Act grants protection against refoulement. 19 . Those individuals granted this status receive temporary residence permits for two years which can be renewed.2.000 50.240. • Kontingentflüchtlinge or Quota refugees. These included the following categories: Persons entitled to asylum and persons recognised as foreign refugees Dependants of persons entitled to asylum Convention refugees under section 51 of the Aliens Act Quota refugees (section 33 of the Aliens Act) Jewish emigrants Displaced foreigners Asylum seekers under the Asylum Procedures Act still awaiting decisions Civil war refugees from Bosnia Herzegovina Those recognised as refugees under Article 16a of the Basic Law Dependents joining principal applicants 185. There are several different types of Duldung depending on the reasons for the stay on removal. In 1993 section 32a of the Aliens Act introduced a special status for civil war refugees. In general these factors include both factual (lack of travel documentation. The differential entitlements of refugees are discussed below.000. The terms of support for civil war refugees was negotiated between the Federal government and the Lander and came into effect in 1999. Numbers of refugees and other statuses in Germany According to official statistics (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000:96-97) at the end of 1999 the number of refugees in Germany was approximately 1. In general.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Kosovo Albanians arriving under the UNHCR Humanitarian Evacuation programme in 1999 were granted three month residency permits in accordance with Section 32a of the Aliens Act.500 13. Those individuals who had two three month extensions were granted Duldung and are expected to leave the country once the situation in the region makes this possible. Permanent status may be granted after eight years residence from the time of the claim for asylum. only Article 16a refugees. the so-called ‘little asylum’. These include: • Duldung.000 44. Under section 33 of the Aliens Act the Federal Minister of the Interior has discretion to receive aliens on humanitarian grounds. Duldung is issued under Section 55 of the Aliens Act. 2.000 approved by Parliament. Duldung is not a status but a stay on expulsion which can be extended in practice for many years.500 264. Convention refugees with permanent residence and quota refugees are entitled to integration measures. In addition to these two refugee statuses there are a variety of other permits.000 9. ill-health for example) and legal reasons why an individual may not be returned.500 120.000 130.3. • Civil War Refugees. • Kosovo Albanians.

30% -16 BY 14. The geographical distribution (Verteilung) of asylum seekers is based upon a quota system relating to head of population criteria and economic factors in each Land.70% -2 TH 3. Niedersachsen. many of whom will remain in Germany without security of status are ineligible for integration assistance. as at 01.20% +7 RP 4.01.40% +10 BE 2.2.40% +2 HB 1. Thüringen. Sachsen. Brandenburg.4. Nürnberg February 2002). Schleswig-Holstein.50% +3 SL 1.02 Baden-Württemberg. Nordrhein-Westfalen.00% -2 NW 22.00% +0 SN 6. 2. Bayern. BAFl (Bundesamtes für die Anerkennung ausländischer Flüchtlinge or the German Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees) are currently (August 2002) the principal federal organisation dealing with first claims for asylum. was envisaged primarily in terms of deterrence and was predicated upon the belief that asylum seekers are not fully a part of German society (interview BAFl. After the initial assessment in the reception centre the asylum seeker goes to an accommodation centre in the locality where he or she must stay until a decision is reached on their claim for asylum. In principle. They have field offices in most of the reception centres where they carry out the initial processing of the asylum claim. Germany exhibits all of these features. which regulates payments to asylum seekers. and in particular discouraging the formation of high-density ethnic populations21 (Bosswell 2001). The APA.the Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung (EAE) – with each Land administering these. Oxford Brookes University Includes individuals rejected in the asylum procedure with a form of Duldung 423. Significantly.60% +233 ST 4. with limited access to health and educational services. Within the entire determination phase the asylum seeker is restricted to the locality in which he or she has been allocated. are eligible for integration measures from the state. By comparison. All of these categories. Sachsen-Anhalt.000 What is notable is the relatively small number of individuals with Article 16a. The reception model in Germany: deterrence versus integration A brief discussion of the reception procedure in Germany is necessary to the analysis of integration measures which follows. Initial decisions are made 21 The Lander and their quota of asylum seekers is as follows: BW 12. Convention refugees and quota refugees. distribution is a mechanism for alleviating costs and social tensions. are explicitly geared to the ‘non-integration’ of asylum seekers.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration De facto refugees School of Planning. 20 . stipulates a maximum three month stay in a initial reception centre . Paragraph 45 of the APA stipulates the quotas which are renegotiated by the Länder periodically.20% +37 NI 9.30% -11 Table The percentage quota and numbers over and above the quota for the Lander. It should be noted that the ASBA. with some exceptions. Hessen. Mecklenburg-Vorpammern. restrictions on work entitlements and geographical restriction on movement.70% -5 BB 3. Payment is strictly in kind in the reception centres. Saarland. Bremen. Hamburg. including the use of reception centres.50% -279 HH 2.80% +6 MV 2. which regulates reception procedures. Berlin.00% -11 HE 7.40% +28 SH 2. Rheinland-Pfalz. the much larger number of de facto refugees. payment in kind and voucher schemes. According to Joly (1999) adverse reception procedures across the EU.

acceptance and mutual respect between different groups of the population. once given status the individual is free to move within Germany. the Länder. social. Länder and Communal/local. and smaller administrative and political units at the communal level. According to the Süssmuth Commission (2001:18) 22: Integration is a permanent political and social undertaking that involves all the people living in the country.3. Bade 2001. May 2002). In some Länder there are also restrictions upon freedom of movement for recognised refugees. an interesting point of contrast to the language-based clustering which is official policy in the UK (see chapter 3). Berlin Refugee Council May 2002). all have high densities of former Gastarbeiter. 2. The integration framework 2. For BAFl. refugees and asylum seekers. with individuals having to remain within the Länder in which their application was processed (interview Berlin Refugee Council. ‘We recognise that an irreversible process of immigration has taken place in the past and set our hopes on the integration of those immigrants who live here on a permanent basis and who accept our constitutional values’ Chapter IX paragraph 7. it is important to emphasise the federal structure of Germany which consists of 16 states. In interviews with representatives from BAFl (Nürnberg February and May 2002) it was argued that the main aim of the reception procedures was not to burden Länder which are a popular destination point for asylum seekers with an excess of numbers. The control of movement of the asylum seeker was explicitly geared to the minimisation of community formation and ethnic concentrations in the major German cities. Prolonged periods in accommodation centres are widely believed to negatively impact upon the later integration chances of refugees.1 Introduction The significance of integration was written into the Green/SPD coalition agreement document of 20th October 1998. Oxford Brookes University within 2 to 3 months. and according to migrant category – 22 ‘The aim is to integrate them into our economic. it was also the case that the distribution/dispersal system aimed to discourage ethnic community formation. The national framework for integration in Germany is designed to meet the requirements of the principal sources of immigration outlined in section 2. it is important to note that for several commentators the relative density of ethnic networks is an important factor in the success of the integration process for refugees (Bosswell 2001.1.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. The integration framework is therefore stratified according to administrative and political level – National/Federal.3. interview with George Classen. political and cultural life and promote tolerance. subject to the usual reporting requirements on movement which all German citizens have to observe. In this respect. social and legal system and to assure them that they will be given the opportunity to participate to the greatest possible extent and as equal partners in the social activities of the Federal Republic of Germany’ (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000:8) 21 . Fostering integration should allow immigrants to Germany to participate on equal terms in economic. Berlin. while decisions on appeals may take several years. Given the central tendency of the reception process in Germany to seek to minimise ethnic community formation. Hamburg and Frankfurt for example. In principle. Despite this it is clear that the larger German cities.

former Gastarbeiter and former contract workers of the GDR. former Gastarbeiter (foreigners) and refugees.3. including training programmes with language support • Employment programmes . professional and social integration. Six months courses for special training for university entrance and university students are paid for by the Bundesministerium für Familien.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. It supports the work of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (BA) (Federal office for employment). 2. Oxford Brookes University Aussiedler. six-month language course financed by the BMA. Senioren.in November 1998 the Federal government launched the ‘Cornerstones for an Emergency Programme for eliminating Youth Unemployment’ • Other programmes . women and youth). There are different language programmes for different needs and levels. In relation to Foreigners the Bundesministerium des Innern (Federal Ministry of the Interior) support language classes for foreign employees and their families and adult education centres. Again. The Guarantee Fund resources are used to finance language courses for young repatriates and ethic Germans. including community and district oriented programmes aimed at foreign youth. In relation to Aussiedler . and programmes for older foreigners • Integration programmes for foreign women – these address the specific needs of this group and 23 Refugees are incorporated into these integration schemes and sets of entitlements as individuals with permanent residence rights. there is some division between the different Federal departments in terms of spending responsibilities. Federal integration measures 23 • Language support is promoted through the association ‘German language for foreign workers’. Other Federal ministries also support the work of integration. although as this report goes on to demonstrate with no specific provision for refugees. 2. the highly sectoralised nature of Germany administration in this area makes it difficult to give an accurate. established in 1974. Those groups supported include foreigners and their families who have a permanent residence status. comprehensive overview of integration provisions. providing advice and support to foreigners • Vocational training .the BMA in collaboration with other Federal Ministries promotes the need for training amongst young foreigners.2. The following is a schematic outline.the BA runs courses for foreign adolescents. Frauen und Jugend (Federal Ministry for Family Affairs. As the Süssmuth Commission report concedes. 24 The tradition of social pedagogy in Germany is analysed in Lorenz (1999) 22 .Federal initiatives have been at the level of language learning for with full time. The authorities are currently working towards a standardised package ensuring uniformity of quality and controlled learning goals • Social counselling – social pedagogy 24. The Federal level Ministerial responsibilities The Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung (BMA) (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) is the key Federal Ministry supporting integration work through language.3. There is no practical distinction between refugees and other types of foreigners for the purposes of integration programmes. Senior citizens. These courses are aimed at former Gastarbeiter.2.

1.according to a 1990 Federal Constitutional Court decision the Basic Law does not allow foreigners the right to vote or stand as candidates at federal. subject to specified exceptions (section 45.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. This general guarantee of equality is not backed up by specific legislation against racism or discrimination in public life at the Federal level. language. 23 . This only applies to Article 16a refugees who have consolidated residence status. Land or local elections (Federal Ministry of the Interior:47). There is also some evidence of antidiscrimination legislation at the Länder level.3. as in the case of Brandenburg. This is part of the EU Racial Discrimination Directive. Asylum seekers may seek work after one year.those with permanent residence status and not under the ASAB. • Political rights . race. The enlarged role of BAFl Prior to the 2002 Immigration Act. The only form of political representation is the Ausländerbeirat or Foreigners Councils. Nürnberg. May 2002).granted to all of those with ‘unappealable recognition as a person entitled to asylum’ (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000:45). BAFl renamed the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (FOMR) – will be responsible for the integration of all foreigners. It is important to emphasise that the new integration measures introduce a coordinated 25 The introduction of anti-disrcimination legislation is in process in Germany according to the Süssmuth Commission Report 2001. his faith or his religious or political opinions’. Any foreigner entitled to attend an integration course is also obliged to do so. BAFl. Oxford Brookes University promote access to the labour market • Dissemination of information .involves improvement of host/foreigner relations • Right to receive permission to work . changed in 1999 – (section 2. can receive benefits under the Federal Act on Social Welfare (Bundessozialhilfegesetz) • Education . his homeland of origin. above) • Also at the Federal level it is important to note the founding at the BMA in 1978 of the Commissioner for the integration of foreign workers and their dependents. Green/SPD coalition are seeking the right to vote at municipal level for foreign residents • Welfare benefits . BAFl was only responsible for the initial determination of asylum claims (interview. Under the new legislation. with no time restrictions on war refugees and civil war refugees but they will receive ‘lower priority access to the labour market’ (Federal Ministry of the Interior: 45). This is to be coordinated at Federal level while implementation of the measures will be the responsibility of the Länder. to which all EUMS will have to conform. Under the new arrangements. paragraph one). There are however clear indications that anti-discrimination legislation will shortly be introduced in line with EU directives 25. assuming responsibility for work formerly undertaken by the Federal Office for Employment.persons entitled to asylum (Article 16a) and quota refugees receive educational benefits ‘under the same circumstances and to the same amount as Germans’ under the Federal Education Assistance Act (Bundesausbildungförderungesetz) • Citizenship and Nationality Law. which is responsible for promoting the integration of foreign workers Article 3 of the Basic Law states that ‘all persons shall be equal before the law… (3) no one may be prejudiced or favoured because of his parentage. part 8. chapter 3 (sections 43-45). an integration package is introduced consisting of basic language instruction and an orientation course in German culture and history.

2. On a practical level there is the issue of how to organise language instruction given the proliferation of organisations providing language classes. how are the measures to be financed? If the Länder bear a responsibility this will meet with some resistance. Are the measures confined to those with permanent refugee status? What measures will be available for the much larger category of those with lesser statuses? Above all. making generalisation in this area difficult (Süssmuth Commission 2001:203). The communal level Local initiatives are vital to the integration process and include advice on social benefits. may devise integration measures which are appropriate to particular local circumstances.3. competition between groups at the local level and between the Länder currently prevents the effective coordination and pooling of information. NGO and communal. There are significant variations between the Länder in political complexion and response to asylum seekers and refugees. several key issues remain. the provision of nursery care. there are developed integration policies and institutional arrangements for refugees. the new legislation provides a general framework within which the different actors. February 2002) are looking to develop a data-base on integration. There are a variety of means of integration support. Oxford Brookes University national integration programme for the first time. According to BAFl. Rather than a detailed plan of action.3. With these issues in mind. Given the Länder organisation of Germany and the division of responsibility for different measures.3. there are no detailed 26 Jopke (1998:123) further notes that the protection of minority rights is strong in Germany: ‘In sharp contrast to the US and Britain. Firstly. In general. notably Hamburg. with the Länder funding about 40% of the personnel costs of the NGOs involved in practical integration work. Germany has quickly and unreservedly incorporated into municipal law all United Nations and European human rights and refugee conventions’.2. with Bavaria and Baden-Württemburg setting the trend in the restrictive treatment of asylum seekers in the 1980s.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In other Länder. Several Länder have appointed Ausländerbeuftragte (Commissioners for Foreigners’ Affairs) who lobby on behalf of migrants and refugees and promote their social and economic integration. the role of the Länder is crucial in context of German asylum policy and the reception and integration of refugees. The total amounts spent on integration vary enormously between the different Länder. Länder level The peculiarity of the German case is its strong tradition of de-centralisation of power and responsibilities 26. Educational support is the responsibility of the Länder although costs are difficult to calculate because measures benefit both domestic and foreign populations. Bavaria and Schleswig-Holstein. BAFl (interview Nürnberg. economic and legal life in German? And what indeed is participation? This is restricted in practice by the legal position of many foreigners and the limitations placed upon the acquisition of citizenship. 24 . schooling and leisure activities. 2. For those currently working in the BAFl. Hesse. the groups involved and integration programmes in particular localities. what are the aims of integration? What measures will make it possible for foreign people to participate in social. Länder. Federal.

Trade Unionists and representatives of migrant organisations are voted onto the Councils which offer a degree of local representation and influence (interview Tamil Verein in Deutschland eV. gender specific services. youth welfare. The latter are on 25 . Nürnberg. February 2002). As powerful institutions in their own right they are also active in lobbying work and in the representation of migrants’. ie permanent residence status. Soysal 1994). DM 309 million was spent on this work in the year 2000 alone (Süssmuth Commission 2001:206-207). a Catholic-church organisation. Oxford Brookes University figures concerning expenditure by local authorities on integration measures. whereas Diakonisches Werk (DW) has dealt with migrants from Protestant backgrounds. and the simplification of statuses involved there. The provision for categories of migrant . the Ausländerbeirat or Foreigners’ Councils provide a means of representation for foreigners without passports or voting rights. The role of NGOs A distinctive feature of the German system is the fundamental role of the predominantly church-based NGOs in the reception and integration process: Caritas. welfare advice. Feb 2002) ERF integration funding only applies to those with full refugee status. psychosocial services. refugees’ and asylum seekers’ interests at the political level. vocational assistance. i. 2. Also at the local or municipal level.e. provision for the elderly and other fields of action. The Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (German Red Cross) is another broadbased organisation. All of these organisations either provide support within reception centres (counselling and advice) or actively run them and provide additional integration support to refugees. this will simplify the administration of the ERF: they will be able to channel funds to other groups than those under Article 16a. Bamberg.guestworker. ArbeiterwohlfartBundesverband (AWO) is another central NGO active in the reception process and has roots in the SDP in Germany. Aussiedler and refugee . These include language provision. Heckman et al (March 2001) provide an overview of the integration measures implemented by welfare associations.4. This raises a problem for NGOs who don’t make a distinction between long term and temporary status individuals in their working practice. healthcare assistance.varies from Land to Land. Länder and local authorities and the charities themselves. The European Dimension According to representatives from BAFl (interview.3. has traditionally provided support to migrants from Catholic countries such as Spain and Portugal. less specifically church-based but institutionally closely tied to the government apparatus in Germany (Heckman et al 2001. Nürnberg. Therefore the individuals which the ERF is geared to help are a very small part of the total number of statuses. Their work is jointly financed by the Federal government. 2. According to one of the authors of the report (interview Bosswick. It is important to emphasise that there is no typical situation across Germany as a whole. refugees with Article 16a status are in a minority. whereas those under para 51 of the Aliens Act may receive permanent status at a later date.4. Most local authorities in Germany with over 200 foreigners now have Foreigners’ Councils.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. February 2002) there was a wide variety of policies which were quite distinct according to location. With the implementation of the new Immigration Act.

Senioren. education. of the Social Code under Book III and take language courses. BAFl currently scrutinises applications with a view as to whether there is a deficiency or need which the proposal will meet. Section 51 claimants are not eligible for language courses but otherwise along with Article 16a and quota refugees enjoy the same rights to benefits. all of those with Article 16a. social and economic life. Section 51 of the Aliens Act (little asylum)) and those under Section 33 of the Aliens Act (Quota Refugees) is therefore small in relation to the overall number of those with ‘refugee-like’ status. 2. But there is no literature to indicate what the needs are of this group are on income support. Oxford Brookes University income support and not ASAB. Women and Youth). 14. section 51 (to some degree) and quota refugees are eligible for the programmes which are provided at the Federal level for foreigners.32% of the total population (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000) 26 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.1% of the population were foreign residents (Marshall 2000) 2. Other categories of de facto refugees. Population in 1999: 490. and institutions of higher education laid down by the Bundesministerium für Familien. The number of these individuals entitled to integration measures. intensive efforts and is associated with considerable costs. health services and housing as German nationals (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000 and DRC 2000:119). such foreigners have the same status as Germans’. 1.952 foreigner population. According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior (2000:81) ‘In wide areas of legal. work. constitute 14. whereas the needs of those on ASAB are calculated precisely. Frauen und Jugend (Federal Ministry for Family Affairs. They may draw on wage substitutes in accordance with section 418 et seq. Senior Citizens. It is important to emphasise that this is the first time that the ERF has been implemented and that progress will be monitored continuously. asylum seekers and Duldung are eligible for the various programmes which are run at the local level by NGOs and voluntary groups at the communal level.5 The integration of refugees: differential integration entitlements ‘Integration requires long-term. Only refugees with permanent residence status under Article 16a. It is important to repeat that there has been limited take up of the ERF programmes because of practical difficulties with NGOs failing to distinguish between temporary and long-term residents in relation to the integration work which they perform.667 residents • 484. including civil war refugees.6. Once an individual has been recognised as a refugee under Article 16a he/she is entitled to an unlimited residence permit and a travel document. They calculate where needs are met under already existing legislation and exclude these from the ERF fund. • • • Case study locations Nürnberg (Bavaria) Nürnberg: Located in Middle Frankonia in Bavaria. those people whose right to permanent residence has not yet been decided upon cannot be included as a rule’… (Süssmuth Commission 2001:199).000 (Heckman et al 2001) In 1991. Berlin • Capital and city state • Population in 1999: 3. Therefore.386. in line with Guarantee Fund guidelines for general and vocational schools. 2.

Familie. which is economically and socially depressed in many areas. economically undeveloped. border with Poland. constitute 2. Geographical location: Berlin is the capital of the Federal state. while Berlin is both city-state and capital of the Federal Republic. Bavaria is seventh in the league table at 9.207 • 52. with several airports and is close (via Brandenburg) to the Polish border. Families. Dec 1999 Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung.15% (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000:17). Support is provided according to the category of migrant: Aussiedler.6. Nürnberg although a smaller city is the second largest in Bavaria. Other Länder with integration programmes include Hesse and Schleswig-Holstein. Brandenburg spans a large geographical large area much of which is semi-rural in character. Familie.601. argues for the importance of the concept of a ‘Leitkultur’.03% of the total population (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000) Comparing the different locations.11% foreign population. or leading culture in the constitution of German national identity (1999:74). There is a strong tradition of multiculturalism in Berlin while this is less pronounced in more conservative Nürnberg (Bavaria) and Brandenburg. Women and Health). Educational provision is solely by the state with no NGO involvement. Oxford Brookes University 3. This essentially conservative understanding of national identity invites the foreigner to integrate into the ‘general values’ of German society as a basis for social inclusion. the relevant factors are: Size of ethnic population: Berlin has a large foreigner population at 14.32%. Frauen und Gesundheit 27 . Political and economic factors: Berlin and Brandenburg are separate Länder. Frauen und Gesundheit (Bavarian State Ministry of Employment. These values include: 27 Auslanderintegration in Bayern: Bericht zur Situation der Auslanderinnen und Auslander in Bayern. By way of contrast Brandenburg has the third lowest foreign population across the Länder (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2000:17). The Bavarian Integration Programme Bavaria is one of the few Länder to have a formal integration policy. placing it second in the league table of foreign populations in 1999 after Hamburg at 19.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Although both Berlin and Brandenburg have high levels of unemployment there are fewer employment opportunities in Brandenburg. Brandenburg • Former GDR. point of entry • Population in 1999: 2. Nürnberg Nürnberg is the second largest city in Bavaria after Munich (Heckman et al 2001) with a sizeable foreign population and developed economic infrastructure. Responsibility for integration in Bavaria is under the Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung.814 foreigner population . The Bavarian policy document on the integration of foreigners 27. the Social Ministry supports advice centres in Bavaria. 2. In addition. Social affairs. The Bavarian state supports the employment of NGO personnel in accommodation centres and reception centres throughout the Land. foreign workers and refugee.1. Discussion of integration practice in the city has to be framed within the broader context of the Bavarian state integration programme which is outlined below.

the elderly and various forms of advisory work. families.580 individuals were ‘entitled to asylum’ in that year and had received permanent residence status (Aufenthaltsberechtigung). the FRY. and the Psychosocial centre in Nürnberg. Caritas and the Red Cross (Heckman et al 2001: 105). either from official sources. Turkey. DW. The running of the nine accommodation centres in the city is divided between the major NGOs. One example is the Psychosoziales Zentrum für Flüchtlinge (Psychosocial Centre for Refugees) in Nürnberg which is open to asylum seekers outside the local reception centre (Zirndorf) and refugees in need of care. Diakonie and the Red Cross.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration • Respect for human rights and freedom of speech • Democracy and state organisation • Respect for the rule of law • Self respect and responsible behaviour • Integration through employment • The ability to speak German School of Planning. In general there is a lack of data on refugees in the locality. The principal nationalities of asylum seekers in Nürnberg follow national trends: Iraq. Refugees and asylum seekers in Nürnberg There are no reliable statistics for the total number of those granted asylum in Nürnberg. political parties and advisory organisations in Bavaria. or the distribution of different statuses. including but not confined to those entitled to formal integration support. Oxford Brookes University Acquisition of citizenship is a more protracted affair. and the Russian Federation were the top nationalities in 2001. the church.were discussed during interviews. the voluntary organisations. Church organisations. Kurdish and Iraqi refugee groups in the city (interviews Tamil Verein in Deutschland eV. Afghanistan. Ethiopian. their work spans both reception and integration and a wide range of statuses. According to NGO and refugee group representatives there are established Tamil. The centre lobbies for integration measures for refugees but most of their clients get Duldung and are therefore held in a state of suspense concerning their future. who run the advice centres. The document also outlines the general institutional arrangements for integration in Bavaria in relation to specific groups of migrants: children and youth. Nurnberg. 28. Caritas. It was founded 15 years ago and is run by DW and Caritas. NGOs or refugee groups. integration occurs through the Communes. Both aspects of their work – integration and reception . women. Dual citizenship is to be avoided as it promotes divided loyalties and weakens the bond to the German state. Ius soli is counterproductive to effective integration and results in German citizenship without identification with the nation (1999:77). The relation between individual and state needs to be rooted and fundamental: citizenship is the end-result of integration rather than one of its preconditions. For the workers 28 The NGOs involved are Caritas. the NGOs. provide support in the accommodation centres. Significantly. 28 . Statistics for 1999 (Bavarian State Ministry for employment 1999) indicate that 2. the Communal level and the NGOs themselves (Heckman et al 2001). DW. AW. NGOs in Nürnberg – the link between reception and integration NGOs are highly active in Nürnberg. Financing for NGOs comes from a variety of sources including the Land. There is no specific provision for refugees as far as integration measures are concerned. According to the document. Äthiopisches Zentrum Deutschland eV. Feb 2002).

with many individuals regularly tuning in to Radio India and Tamil broadcasts. February 2002). In discussion. (Culture and Leisure Office) which is under the direction of the Lord Mayor of Nürnberg. confirming a certain distance from the formal political process which is borne out from other sources (ECRE 1998. Funding for running costs comes from DW. and the general practice of payment in kind (food parcels and standard issue of items of clothing) were seen as particularly damaging factors for asylum seekers. According to representatives of the association. The Council has a history of promoting asylum and refugee issues at the local level (European Conference on Refugee Participation in Local Policy Making and Political Life. In discussion with representatives of the association. According to staff at DW and Caritas. the point emerged that home politics were often a paramount consideration for Tamils. 29 . The local level: the role of the Ausländerbeirat or Foreigners’ Council Nürnberg was the second major city after Wiesbaden to form a Foreigners’ Council. Nürnberg.. a German language class for five Tamil women was attended. As part of the fieldwork. In Nürnberg. where she had developed her own teaching materials. One of these was the Tamil Verein in Deutschland eV. There was a basic lack of appropriate teaching materials. Nürnberg.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. the Volkshochschule. Otherwise the association is supported under the Kultur und Freizeitamt. the first election of which took place in 1973. while accommodation is provided free. the degree of political participation in the Council by refugees themselves appeared to be negligible. It is important to emphasise that this viewpoint concerning the negative role of the determination phase was widespread amongst NGOs in the case-study locations visited for this report. The Tamil Association in Germany. attempting to overcome the encapsulation of the first generation which appears to be a typical process and the emerging 29 Although asylum seekers are entitled to seek employment after one year in practice this is severely restricted by the limitations placed upon them. Oxford Brookes University at the centre reception conditions were particularly damaging to the future integration prospects of refugees. integration has to be a two-way process. In practice this often means that asylum seekers are bypassed by Employment Office staff who in some cases will leave a position vacant rather than offer it to an asylum seeker (interviews. the difficulties in securing employment 29. Korac 2001).800 Tamils across Nürnberg. (interviews. There are an estimated 1. She herself used to teach at the evening classes for adults. the teacher indicated that many Tamil women had been in Germany between eight to ten years without receiving proper language instruction. Nurnberg May 2000). many of which are geared to educated individuals with developed literacy in their own language. There was also a need to develop materials specifically for women. April 2002). Restriction on movement. Only if a German national or EU citizen is unable to take up the relevant position may an asylum seeker be eligible for applying for a particular job. It is important to note that the Foreigners’ Councils are the only avenue for influencing political issues at the local level for refugees. the explicit policy of non-integration in the determination phase is counterproductive and leads to later difficulties for those granted refugee status. accommodation centres. This was run by a German voluntary worker for the Tamil Association. The Nürnberg Foreigners’ Council provides a form of representation to those foreigners without German passports and has been effective in channelling the needs of those groups according to representatives of the Tamil Association in Nürnberg. Refugees and Community groups A number of interviews were undertaken with refugees and community groups in Nürnberg.

A striking contrast is the case of a male Iraqi refugee (aged 34 and single) who had been recently been awarded status. One of the founders of the association expressed the opinion that most Tamil women attending the German classes did so as one of the requirements for obtaining a German passport and not as a means of integrating into German society.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Although it is not a central aim to examine the refugee experience and expectation of integration.prolonged periods in accommodation centres. Contact with Germans was minimal and restricted to meetings at schools and the local church. the majority of the women stating that they were ‘too old’ or lacked relevant qualifications. He wanted to work but given the practical restrictions on employment – indirect discrimination in favour of Germans and lack of recognition of his qualifications – he was finding it difficult to do this. although there was little immediate contact with the accommodation centre apart from the Ethiopian association in Nürnberg. country of origin factors. he wanted to contribute by working and developing his skills. Although the majority had been in Germany for over five years none of them was fluent in German. a Christian sect. Conclusions The principal aim of this research is to examine refugee integration policy and practice in EU Member States. He was qualified in engineering in Iraq and felt that his skills were now going to waste in Germany. Their negative feelings surrounding social and political participation were reinforced in discussion with the women themselves (see below). 30 . gender. Above all. either in the reception centre or now in the accommodation centre. educational level and literacy. social isolation and restrictions on geographical movement in the reception phase. Refugee Experiences in Nürnberg Five Tamil women who were interviewed as part of this research (mainly with Geneva Convention status and varying residence permits and aged between 25-45) reinforced a sense of exclusion from the wider German society. Political participation – voting rights . He was also keenly frustrated at the lack of German classes. He personally had some experience of effective networking in the immediate area with his own community and other Iraqis – with Sunni and Shi’a ‘coming together’ in exile. age. although it was felt that they suffered discrimination in the job market despite being successful at school. there is no sound research 30 Note Korac’s (2001) point on the lack of interest in formal political participation by refugees and the reasons for this. In general there is evidence of a pragmatic approach to citizenship contrasted with the value placed upon interpersonal contacts in the receiving society. Only one of the women expressed a desire to improve her situation in the labour market.which negatively impact upon those recognised as refugees. 30 On the other hand they expressed interest in cultural activities at the Tamil association. He was living in an accommodation centre in Nürnberg as he could not afford the deposit to move into a flat in the city. ECRE 1998).was also a non-issue for these women. Even participation at the local level was regarded as a waste of time. As an indication of his enthusiasm he was currently undertaking computer training and was active in voluntary work with his own community. Importantly. In addition. in Nürnberg as in other locations in Germany there are important structural constraints . Robinson 1998a. Their main hopes were pinned on their children. and relations to home – all impact on the take up of integration possibilities by refugees (Kulhman 1991. where language and dance classes were run. Their main focus was the home and children. lack of integrated language provision. it is clear that differences in background. practical restrictions on work and lack of recognition of overseas qualifications . Oxford Brookes University conflict with the new generation of Tamils who speak German and have partially adapted to German society. There were good local conditions for refugee groups according to this individual.

According to statistics published in 1997 (Berlin Senate 1996/7:44) 20. including asylum and 31 . former Yugoslavia and the Lebanon.4% and Wedding with 29. characteristics and integration outcomes • NGOs have a central role in the integration of refugees. Under Barbara John. In the case of Nürnberg the following features have been highlighted: • The Bavarian state has a formal integration policy for the Land based upon the concept of the Leitkultur • Nürnberg has established refugee groups and a significant ethnic population • There is a lack of data on the situation of refugees.32% of the total population of Berlin in 1999) and an explicit commitment to the goals of multiculturalism (Berlin Senate 2002). The areas of Kreuzberg with 34.2. integration programmes. Oxford Brookes University evidence in Germany on the integration of refugees from which to draw more robust conclusions 31. civil war refugees. the Office has a nationwide reputation for promoting integration issues. The Office has produced a number of publications on the theme of integration and runs a website 32. The Ausländerbeauftragte des Senats for Berlin (Commissioner for Foreigners’ Affairs) has been instrumental in promoting the integration of foreigners in the city.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.3% of the population of Neukölln was foreign.Berlin denkt und diskutiert mit – is a web-based discussion forum organised around a series of themes. the Office finances migrant and refugee groups and assists in cross-departmental work on integration. Berlin also hosts the annual Karnival der Kulturen (Multicultural Carnival) 31 There is no extant research on this area in contrast to the large literature on the performance of former Gastarbeiter 32 Bericht zur Integrations-und Ausländerpolitik. inequalities in schools and labour markets. principally from Turkey. their numbers. contains background details on the number of foreigners. It is also a Land with a large foreign population (14. it is important to emphasise the experiential continuity of the reception and integration phases.9% also contain large foreign populations. ‘living together’. Berlin Berlin is the capital city of Germany. many of these with dual nationality. With its motto of Miteinander leben. with some data on refugees. however these may be demarcated for legal and bureaucratic purposes.6. 1996/1997. The Internet Projekt Forum Einwanderung: Einwanderung geht jeden an. Berlin has the highest rate of naturalisation amongst the Länder. Their work typically bypasses conventional legal categories and emphasises the continuity of the refugee experience from reception to settlement • There is some limited political representation at the local level for refugees although there would appear to be little active participation by refugees themselves • Ethnic and refugee community organisations play a key role in providing services to refugees • Language appears to be central to integration but there is limited statutory provision • The differential experience and expectation of refugees according to background factors is highly significant in the integration process 2. Despite this. The distribution of the foreign population is concentrated in particular areas of Berlin.

largely aimed at young Tamil women who produce a webpage which aims to encourage interaction with German youth. The estimated total number of refugees and asylum seekers in Berlin is between 45. hosting several community-based groups concerned with integration. DW Berlin. The absence of hard data of refugees was noted on several occasions (interview. Berlin Refugee Council. It is not directly linked to the state and has a critical attitude to official policy. The head of the refugee section led a multicultural team of 15 workers including volunteers. May 21st Berlin 2002) has a general background of supporting Gastarbeiter but has now shifted its workload to assisting refugees and Aussiedler. Caritas (interview. including general social advice.851 individuals with Duldung (mainly from the FRY). Berlin also has a diverse multicultural media. in supporting ‘illegals’ for example or individuals resisting deportation. Currently 50% of their work is dedicated to refugees and asylum seekers. The largest refugee groups are Bosnians. 32 . Ingrid Luhr. home-school liaison and intercultural care of the elderly. Refugees and asylum seekers in Berlin Statistics from the Berlin Senate for 2001 indicate 22. Neukölln is a key area for DW with the Haus der Begegnung or Meeting House in Morusstrasse. including Turkish satellite TV channels and radio Multi-Kulti. foreign workers.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Remarking on this gap. The role of NGOs Diakonisches Werk (interview.545 recognised refugees (Berlin Senate 2001). Kosovans. There is the presumption that refugees will not integrate in the long run but will return home.11. There was no specific funding for refugees as such although DW ran several projects for refugees and asylum seekers in Berlin. lobbying work with refugees. Oxford Brookes University in May. home school/liason.000 (interview Georg Classen. assistance for women and families. Berlin Caritas was started 30 years ago. publicising information and organising free-time activities for refugees. Lebanese and Palestinians (interview Berlin Refugee Council. As in other cases these figures are approximate. an advice centre for Aussiedler. This is similar to London’s Nottinghill Carnival with a strong focus on music and dance rather than education or long-term integration and settlement issues. Business week on line.01). Luhr noted that the ‘starting point for refugees is already different’ in comparison with labour migration. May 2002).000 and 50. DW Berlin. May 2000). In general. May 2002) works with foreigners as a whole rather than refugees in particular The head of the integration section argued that it is important to integrate foreigners at whatever stage and whatever category of migrant is involved. Greek language classes. Caritas’ integration. They have four projects spread over Berlin and work with all nationalities. In general.540 quota refugees and 4. Specific work with refugees includes: German language and orientation courses. This is the only way to integrate all foreigners successfully. the position of DW was that it is important to have all foreigners together rather than compartmentalised according to status and nationality. They run a number of advice centres in the Neukölln area. there are no separate statistics for refugees in the labour. Ongoing projects include: • ‘Young stars’. the remainder to other categories of migrant. predominantly in the Neukölln area. 3. education or housing markets in Berlin. May 2002. 19. an internet chat group.

April 2002). May 22nd 2002) is another DW funded organisation which is based in a meeting house for asylum seekers. Neukölln. With protracted civil war many Lebanese have been forced to remain in Germany. BAFl. Caritas made no distinction between refugees and asylum seekers in terms of their need to integrate. there are a large number of civil war refugees from Bosnia and Kosovo. • ‘Getting Old Abroad’ project for elderly refugees. The three year project has only been running for six months. May 2002). Berlin. ‘Integration into the labour market is one of the most difficult areas and most important’. In contrast to the case of the UK there are far fewer organisations run by refugees themselves. refugees and foreigners.e. 33 . 1/2002) encompassing family support groups. The programme is currently being monitored for outcomes. who have established means of community support in Berlin (interview. The initial intention of the organisation was to prepare children for their return to Lebanon. In addition. They have a project for women refugees from Vietnam which has been partially successful in this respect. psychosocial support and advice. Summarising the position of Caritas. Oxford Brookes University focus is on young people as they believe that they have the greatest potential to integrate into German society. is also ongoing. the head of the refugee section observed. with the principal NGOs tending to monopolise activity in this area. youth projects and specific projects for Ausländer and Aussiedler (interview. In general. A 3 year project concerned with training refugees for the labour market. She argued that ‘the state has an interest in not integrating asylum seekers in the way we see’… i. Refugees and Community Groups Berlin is well served by a dense network of NGO and community groups (Nachrichten Parität Für Berlin. including making applications.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. • A ‘buddying’ project or befriending service for refugees is supported by the Robert Bosch Foundation. Some illustrations are provided below: Al Muntada (interview. Berlin. They also run a number of other projects relating to work and employment. the Meeting House. May 7th 2002. The aims of the organisation have therefore changed with the accent now on gaining status for civil war refugees and integrating those who remain in Germany 33. she felt that ‘nobody wants to talk about refugees and the reasons why they are here’… and that the political climate remained unfavourable towards the question of refugee integration in Germany. 33 Under a special ruling in Berlin in the late 1980s certain groups such as Sri Lankans and Ethiopians could receive status if they had arrived before 1st Dec 1989: this dispensation was pushed through by the Greens. women migrants. The organisation was founded in 1982 largely to cater for civil war refugees from the Lebanon with temporary permission to stay. Caritas use their existing contacts with businesses in Berlin to try to get refugees work. Berlin Refugee Council. This project deals with the specific issues faced by elderly refugees. Berlin Red Cross. The main aim of the project is to prevent prejudice and help people to understand the situation of refugees. nationality based groups. The leader of the refugee section argued that it is generally very difficult to integrate refugees into the labour market as their qualifications and experience are not recognised in Germany.

Kurdish Cultural and Self-Help Group. In some cases this can extend to 45. Combined with their poor educational background this makes integration difficult for many individuals. particularly given the prolonged periods in the accommodation centres and the lengthy appeals procedures in the courts. 34 In Berlin for example the average waiting time for decisions once they have reached the courts is 22 months. They actively want to ‘build bridges’ between the old and the new society – Iran and Germany. Recent Iraqi arrivals by contrast tend to have higher educational backgrounds and to be well qualified. 34 . This particularly affects the children of asylum seekers and civil war refugees who lack security of status. Kurdistan Kultur und Hilfsverein (interview. May 2002) was founded in 1985 and set up to provide advice and support for all Iranians living in Berlin. according to one of the organisers. as a group Iranians have integrated relatively well in Berlin. Again. In general. Civil war refugees in particular often only have temporary residence permits. integration needs to be looked at in terms of wider social participation in terms of leisure and social contacts rather than simply ‘getting refugees into jobs’. being well-qualified and motivated individuals on the whole. Iraqis.V. in gauging the success of integration projects it was important to distinguish between the different statuses and groups involved.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Although they have had to downgrade their occupations they still manage to secure employment. The association currently receives financial aid on behalf of the Berlin Senat section for Social affairs.02). For refugees on benefits the cycle of dependency and low expectations tends to be reproduced. An individual’s resources ‘get lost’ if they have to wait for prolonged periods without status or security 34.02. awareness of rights • Advice and support for asylum seekers in the Motardstrasse reception centre in Berlin According to the director of the association. German and Integration courses for women and young people • participation in international meetings concerning the role and rights of refugees • lobbying work • Special advice classes for women only: legal advice. Oxford Brookes University According to the leader of the organisation. Areas for improvement included more effective ways of building bridges between the two societies and regular funding. It was also his opinion that integration should begin as early as possible. The association’s projects include: • special computer. (interview Iranian Refugee Association. Verein iranischer Flüchtlinge in Berlin e.8 months (Der Tagesspiegel 28. This is a key issue in relation to the role of women where issues of divorce and womens’ rights have assumed importance in Germany. it was the organisation’s position that integration should begin as early as possible. The difficulty in obtaining employment is a major problem for both groups. There was a need to educate Iranians in their new rights and entitlements and for general public education on refugees. It was also widely believed that if integration occurs this tends to be within the refugees’ own communities and not within the wider social setting. although highly qualified and often in employment do not get work which is equivalent to their former occupational status. Berlin. From the late 1980s the Lebanese had effectively ‘given up trying to achieve anything in Germany’. As an organisation they are very concerned with avoiding the ghettoisation of Iranians in Germany.

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

May Berlin 2002). This organisation was founded in 1975 and is co-financed by the Berlin
Senat for Employment, Social Affairs and Women and the ERF. Since 1990 it has run
employment orientation courses for women. It also runs a ten months course where women
from different countries learn German for five hours per day. They also receive an
introduction to employment skills, health issues, education and office communication. During
this period the women receive legal social advice. In discussion with the organisation a
similar range of issues was raised concerning the need for continuous funding streams and the
active engagement of both refugees and the wider German society in promoting integration.
2.6.3. Brandenburg
The Land of Brandenburg which surrounds Berlin provides a number of striking contrasts. In
terms of spatial distribution alone, the extensive (largely rural) area covered by Brandenburg
differs markedly from the relatively compact, urban city-state of Berlin. As part of the former
GDR Brandenburg has also experienced a drastic worsening in economic performance since
reunification (Fulbrook 1996:99). Competition with the former ‘West’ has undercut business
in Brandenburg resulting in unemployment rates of over 20% in some areas. Inflows of
asylum seekers to areas in Brandenburg following reunification added to social tensions. It is
important to note that although the GDR had encouraged the use of contract labour from
friendly states foreigners were effectively segregated from the general population. The
Ausländerbeauftragte for Brandenburg, located in Potsdam is active in promoting the goals of
integration for foreigners. There is for example, an Antidiskriminierungsstelle
(antidiscrimination unit) in the bureau of the Ausländerbeauftragte which monitors
discrimination against foreigners. Despite this, the legacy of the GDR persists in the lack of
employment opportunities and the air of social decline which is characteristic of many areas
in Brandenburg.
Refugees and Asylum seekers in Brandenburg

Brandenburg had a total foreign population of 52,814 in 1999, or a mere 2% of the total
population. The principal nationalities were Poles, Vietnamese (largely Aussiedler and former
contract workers in the GDR) and Romanians. The nationalities of refugees and asylum
seekers vary according to their location in Brandenburg. According to data published by the
Office of the Ausländerbeauftragte, 2,159 individuals had Aufenthaltsberechtigung residence
permits in 2000 (Migration in Brandenburg, 28.2.2000). Brandenburg, in clear contrast to
Berlin had not experienced large scale migrant flows until reunification and the dispersal of
asylum seekers which then occurred. The small foreign population has meant that
Brandenburg is relatively inexperienced in the integration of foreigners, especially in
comparison with neighbouring Berlin.
The role of NGOs

NGOs from different locations in Brandenburg were interviewed to gain a sense of the variety
across the Land. Integration projects run by DW in Brandenburg are located in three principal
areas: Elbe-Elster Finsterwalde, Potsdam and Uckermark-Angermünde. Potsdam and Cottbus
were chosen for examination. Potsdam is the capital city of Brandenburg while Cottbus lies
on the fringes of the Land, near to the Polish border.
In Potsdam (interview, DW, Potsdam, May 2002) DW are running a series of cofunded projects with the ERF. Existing programmes include language courses and advice for

35

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

the high proportion of refugees and asylum seekers living in flats. DW have built up networks
over the five years they have been in operation in Potsdam and have received some
recognition from the local social office. This situation may be peculiar to Potsdam as other
areas in Brandenburg are openly hostile to refugees, according to the workers in the DW.
Potsdam City Council is also very supportive of the work they are doing and assists their
work in various ways. Concrete integration measures include: buying goods for refugees,
organising family reunion, providing legal advice, organising Doctors visits, helping with
documentation for marriage and liasing with schools. Short-term funding is a constant
problem and a constraint on what the organisation can do. Their EU project is language and
employment focused. The development of a multicultural centre is being actively supported
by the Ausländerbeauftragte and special courses on integration are also being developed.
Unlike other areas of Brandenburg there is a high percentage of recognised refugees in
Potsdam. DW’s client base is around 750 individuals and consists of a mix of nationalities
including Turks, Iranians, Afghans, Bosnian and Kosovans. According to the workers there
the integration aspect of their work is the most important: helping refugees to find flats, work
and language training, accessing schools, kindergarten, social benefits and understanding
social networks. The following issues were raised:

Housing: there were problems with large families as most flats are for single people.
High rents are a problem as social benefits only pay 8.25 marks per sq mt. Rents in
Potsdam are amongst the highest in Germany, as the city is a fashionable commuter
area for Berlin. Location of housing on ‘sink-estates’ and the suspicion of landlords
were also recurrent problems for refugees.

Employment: in general there is a very low rate of employment for refugees and
asylum seekers in Potsdam. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many married men
migrate to other areas of Germany to find work while their wives stay in Potsdam.
Low paid work in service sector and tourist related employment appeared to be typical
of Potsdam.

Language provision: under the new Act all foreigners (article 16a only) will get
language classes for 4 months, although this is at present levels of expenditure. There
were the recurrent issues around the lack of language courses and the small number of
qualified teachers.

Social contacts: these are limited and determined by the location of accommodation
and the characteristics of the groups and individuals concerned. There is the possibility
of social isolation for those individuals living in flats rather than Heime
(accommodation centres) but this again depends on the degree of community
formation amongst refugee groups themselves. Apart from Bosnians and Afghans the
degree of community formation is weak and many refugees depend upon networks in
Berlin for assistance, regularly commuting there to make and maintain contacts.

In Cottbus (interview DW Cottbus, May 2002) DW had established a regional advice
centre for that part of Brandenburg in 1997. They provide basic orientation courses and
advice on refugee status. The chief problem they face is the wide geographical spread of the
area they are responsible for. Most asylum seekers are in Fürstenwalde one hours travel away
from the office in Cottbus, which is near to the Polish border. They cover several Landkreis in
the region, which is semi-rural and sparsely populated. They have a range of tasks: giving
advice, finding work for refugees and providing language courses (with one worker
36

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

specifically working on German language tuition). In terms of the background of the asylum
seekers and refugees they work with, Eissenhüttendstadt has a high proportion of Columbian
asylum seekers who are well qualified, many of whom live in Fürstenwalde. Kurdish women
from Turkey on the other hand are not so well qualified and often illiterate in their own
language and are therefore harder to integrate. Overall, there is a pronounced differential
capacity of the different groups to learn the language and integrate successfully.
Upon a positive decision there may not be much to keep refugees in Cottbus and as a
result many of them will move to Berlin. On the other hand reception conditions in Cottbus,
with many asylum seekers living in flats and receiving cash payments appeared to be better
for their future integration prospects, according to the workers at DW. Cottbus as a whole
offered little in the way of employment opportunities for refugees, apart from a few local
firms and was socially and geographically marginalised compared to Potsdam and
neighbouring Berlin in particular.
Refugees and Community Groups

Given the geographical spread of Brandenburg the possibilities for refugees to organise
effectively were small. One multinational association in Potsdam, the ‘Refugee Initiative’ is
based at the Refugee Council there. It is active in lobbying local government (The petition
from asylum seekers in Rathenow 2001) and works on integration issues in conjunction with
the Ausländerbeuftragte in Potsdam and the Brandenburg Refugee Council (interview Berlin
Refugee Council, May 2002). There was no evidence of independent refugee organisation in
Cottbus.
2.6.4. Brandenburg and Berlin compared
It is important to note the degree of internal differentiation in Brandenburg, between for
example Potsdam and Cottbus: the former a wealthy commuter belt and the latter a relatively
run-down part of the Land. Despite this, there are several general contrasts between
Brandenburg and Berlin which can be drawn:

The geographical and economic characteristics of Brandenburg - semi-rural and
economically depressed in many areas, this contrasts with the wider employment
opportunities in Berlin, particularly in the informal economy

The small foreign population in Brandenburg - this contrasts to the large foreign
population and well developed multicultural traditions of Berlin

The relative absence of refugee community organisation in Brandenburg – there is a
contrast here with the high proportion of voluntary groups and local organisations
providing support for asylum seekers and refugees in Berlin

In general, the social and economic conditions in Berlin, as a large multiethnic city
with high population density, appear to be more favourable to refugee settlement than
is the case in Brandenburg. This is well recognised by the principal NGOs (DW,
Caritas, Berlin Refugee Council, interviews, May Berlin 2002) and explains the
refugee integration initiatives which are currently being implemented in Brandenburg,
particularly by the Diakonisches Werk (interviews, Berlin and Brandenburg, May
2002). As many of the projects are new or have been running only for a matter of
years there is no clear evidence as yet of their effectiveness. As in the case of

37

Grass roots organisation of asylum seekers and refugees may therefore be hard to mobilise in Germany. Inclusion of outsiders has been shown to be related to issues of ethnic affiliation. Another central feature of the policy framework in Germany is the relationship between reception conditions and the integration of refugees. particularly in the area of refugee integration. The dominance of the NGOs has clear historical roots and is linked to the corporate character of institutional arrangements in Germany (Soysal 1994) whereby the Church. for example in providing avenues to effective lobbying and influencing decisionmakers.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Local factors are clearly one determinant in the overall mix of variables affecting the integration process of refugees. may tend to stave off smaller local initiatives. Formal integration programmes will. NGOs and refugee groups 38 . Clearly. The role of NGOs in Germany may have its advantages. with the integration of foreigners and refugees assuming a low priority in this area. Even on the Süssmuth Commission on Immigration there was only one foreigner on the panel of expert advisers! There are clearly huge financial and organisational difficulties involved in setting up refugee organisations in Germany. 2. rather than organising for themselves. From the fieldwork evidence. It is important to note that integration projects funded by the NGOs are run by Germans for foreigners with very little participation by these groups themselves. At the Federal level. Refugees are subsumed under general integration programmes and there will continue to be no specific provision for this group. In practice the degree to which integration policies and multicultural programmes have been introduced varies across the Länder. Germany. In conjunction with the Länder authorities and Federal government they perform the vast majority of integration work with refugees. in some cases assuming quasi-governmental functions. The German integration model: prospects and problems This chapter has outlined the contours of German integration policy. On the other hand the dominance of the NGOs. Germany has only recently introduced a coordinated national integration programme for all foreigners including refugees under the 2002 Immigration Act. the small number of RCOs in Germany compared to the case of the UK (chapter 3). be directed at the small minority of individuals receiving Article 16a and to some degree paragraph 51. Oxford Brookes University Nürnberg there is no evidence on the integration outcomes for refugees from which to draw more wide reaching conclusions. despite easing conditions for the acquisition of citizenship is not (in constitutional terms at least) a multicultural society and continues to resist recognising itself as a country of immigration. is striking and illustrates differences in institutional arrangements for refugees which have important implications for the comparative analysis of refugee integration policy across EU Member States.7. The capacity to set up such organisations presupposes a degree of integration which is very hard to achieve for the majority of individuals with insecure status. A striking feature in Germany is the prominent role of the large NGOs. Overall. the large NGOs dominate the area of refugee integration in Germany and have legitimacy in the eyes of the public authorities. as in the past. given the corporate approach in Germany it appears that refugees tend to be absorbed into larger ethnic or social units and to be administered to. trade unions and NGOs wield substantial power.

On the whole however there is a clear resistance to the introduction of positive integration measures in the asylum determination phase. Nürnberg February 2002) and that most refugees will eventually return home. A significant contrast here is the language-based approach to refugee community formation in the UK. Given the role of the Länder. Walhbeck 1998). In the political process the Länder have an instrumental role in the formation of national policy.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. On closer examination the official response to the question of integration reflects a striking policy dualism. The dominant assumption remains that asylum seekers are not ‘fully part of German society’ (interview BAFl. Gold 1992. Thomas Schwarz. It is important to bear in mind the peculiar historical development of the German state in the post-war period. Projects will aim to improve the situation of asylum seekers in reception centres and will supplement what is provided through the existing legislation. Again. where it is explicitly assumed that community ‘clustering’ will promote the integration of refugees (chapter 3). There is some evidence that refugee networks function as integrative mechanisms. which developed from the Länder level to the national. 39 . Contrary to official policy. as for example in the case of the amendment to the Basic Law in 1993 which were instigated by the Länder and not at the national level. concerning the viability of the national integration programme. interview Berlin Refugee Council May 2002) the key issue for integration is the question of freedom of movement. February 2002). Given this type of institutional bias it may not be surprising that BAFls new responsibility for the integration of refugees has been greeted with marked scepticism in some circles (interview Angenendt. BAFl April 2002). Berlin Feb 2002). Both historically and politically the Länder organisation of Germany precedes the centralised administrative state. as under the quota system. From interviews conducted with officials in Berlin and Nürnberg it was clear that Ministry of Interior/BAFl policy is one of the non-integration of asylum seekers in the determination phase. ERF funding for reception is therefore being used to provide German classes for asylum seekers in reception centres. particularly in the Anglo-American refugee literature (Dorais 1991. Oxford Brookes University involved in reception and integration assistance repeatedly noted the negative impact of restrictions upon asylum seekers in the determination phase 35. it would appear from the fieldwork that there is ‘nothing like an integration programme from a national to local level. Berlin. It has also been cogently argued that the costs associated with large numbers of asylum seekers in specific localities could be reimbursed through financial equalisation between the Länder (Bosswell 2001). spontaneous settlement of asylum seekers in Germany (which occurs to some degree despite the quota system) may be better for the long-term integration of refugees. there are several key issues which are likely to influence 35 Research conducted in Nürnberg in the late 80s (Wong 1991) indicated that prolonged periods in camps and the effects of social isolation were disruptive of the biographical continuity of asylum seekers with damaging results for later integration. but rather the other way round’ (interview. It is interesting to note for example that the ERF programme run by BAFl recognises some of the tensions affecting asylum seekers in reception and accommodation centres (interview. According to several commentators (Bade 2001. allowing for the settlement requirements of asylum seekers may result in ethnic community formation which actively promotes the long term settlement of refugees. If refugees are prohibited from moving this will affect their potential in the job market and capacity to integrate. Rather than disallowing movement.

Against German ethno-cultural exclusivism. Two points can be made here. Local solutions and initiatives are required which address the needs of refugees on the ground • The current situation is that all measures are directed towards recognised refugees. May 2002. under differing statuses and for extended periods of time. that many individuals in fact remain in Germany. The national framework will be enabling but not constraining. that casting refugees in the role of permanent outsiders may simply impede their integration into German society. Spending money on immigrants in a country which denies that it is a country of immigration is obviously problematic As one of the members of the integration working group of the Süssmuth Commission observed.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Firstly. Berlin). February 2002). There are relatively few measures in operation. the case of the UK which is examined in the next chapter illustrates an explicitly multicultural approach to integration. and these depend upon local conditions in labour markets and social infrastructure. Berlin. with the Länder taking a dominant role in setting goals and norms. Secondly. NGOs will continue to work with all categories of migrant rather than those prescribed by the state • The costs of integration are a central consideration. the general presumption is that refugees should not be considered as permanent members of German society given the strong likelihood that they will return home (interview Angendendt. For many of the Länder authorities this is politically unacceptable. The contrast between the two cases is addressed in this chapter and further developed in the conclusions to this report. 40 . Integration is an issue which is too politically sensitive to be firmly addressed at the national level. The key issue. as Fijakwoski notes (1997) is the selfunderstanding of the host nation and the degree to which it tolerates heterogeneity. It has been estimated that 300 million Euro would be needed for the first year of an integration programme (interview Angenendt. Despite this. Oxford Brookes University the implementation of integration measures for refugees: • What may be expected in relation to integration is the formation of minimum standards only.

In policy terms immigration was interpreted as a problem of numbers and in relation to potential cultural and racial dilution. The post-war experience of immigration.1. The policy issues raised by this evidence are discussed in the conclusion and developed in later sections of the report. multiculturalism and integration 3. the Irish Republic and Europe. It introduces immigration control for British citizens who were not born in the UK. to refer to individuals born in Britain or with parents/grandparents born in Britain. Accordingly. Under the 1948 British Nationality Act all New Commonwealth entrants were assigned the status of British citizens (see section 3. Oxford Brookes University 3 Case Study: UNITED KINGDOM Introduction This chapter outlines the background to integration policy in the post-war period in Britain. immigration policy in the post-war period continues a well-established line of external and internal control. In this respect. particularly from New Commonwealth countries • The 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act was a response to arrival of East African Asians (Robinson 1985). Miles and Cleary 1993) and in the reception and settlement of immigrants and refugees.1 Race relations. introduces first restrictions on primary migration (Solomos 1998) with the introduction of a voucher system to regulate labour and reduce numbers of arrivals. particularly from within the ranks of the political elite (James and Harris 1993. or had parents or grandparents who were not born in the UK (Mason 2000:27) • The 1971 Immigration Act brings the UK into line with the European ‘migrant labour’ model (Castles et al 1984) and introduces the concept of patrial. was already being played in relation to Jewish immigration at the turn of the 20th century and in relation to the settlement of seamen from Somalia and Yemen in port areas of the UK in the 1920s (Solomos 1998). Patrials are not subject to 41 .3). The dominant assumptions of a multicultural approach to race relations are being replayed in the refugee integration policy which is currently being developed by the Home Office. The ‘race card’ which was to become a hallmark of post-war electoral politics. Cohen 1994.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. is primarily one of admissions from the New Commonwealth (the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent) with continuing intakes from the Old Commonwealth. Miles 1993). After outlining the national policy framework for refugee integration the chapter provides illustrations from fieldwork in London and Birmingham on refugee integration practice. 3. Increasing social tensions in the 1950s led to calls for curbs on immigration.1 Migration and Integration in the United Kingdom Britain has a long-standing history as a country of immigration (Fryer 1984. it was believed that the new ‘coloured’ entrants could be readily assimilated into British society. The state response is well documented: • The 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. itself a response to labour shortages.1.

The public policy framework of multiculturalism has proven remarkably resilient and is clearly evident by the reaffirmation of the main principles of the 2002 White Paper. As a result. Home Office 2001) 36. Under the act those qualifying as patrials under the 1968 and 1971 legislation became British citizens. Spencer 1994). 42 . non-patrial commonwealth citizens on the other hand are now subject to immigration control. public discourse on immigration in the UK continues to focus on the question of race and race relations. only British citizens and EU nationals are now free of immigration control (Mason 2000:28). Miles and Cleary 1993. which forms the basis for the 2002 Nationality. or a pronounced duality of approach (Solomos 1998. particularly in the last twenty years… 37 Transcript of a speech to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants. 1966 38 Still in passage through Parliament. Immigration and Asylum Act 38. The British tradition of fairness. Oxford Brookes University immigration control. Schuster and Solomos 1999. in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance’37. These have important implications for the long-term development of a coherent immigration policy and specifically the approach adopted for the integration of refugees. Although immigration was effectively racialised in the post-war period. tolerance and respect for diversity is firmly predicated upon a policy framework of restriction of admissions and the control of numbers entering the country. accompanied by cultural diversity. many of whom were from non-white ‘third world’ countries (Miles and Cleary 1993. In effect. Solomos and Back 1996). Safe Haven: Diversity in Modern Britain.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Despite this. Immigration has become synonymous with race relations. a factor which helps explain the generally restrictive government response to increasing numbers of asylum seekers entering the UK from the middle of the 1980s onwards. Race 36 The Home Office report ‘Migration: a social and economic analysis’ illustrates the complexity of migration flows and the positive benefits to the British economy of increased migration. The contradictions between integration policy and restrictive admissions based upon the racialisation of immigration are well documented in the literature (Solomos 1998. Morris 1997. 23 May. In parallel with the introduction of restrictive immigration legislation has been the development of an anti-discrimination policy which attempts to secure equal treatment in public life for ethnic minorities in Britain: • The 1965 and 1968 Race Relations Acts created monitoring bodies which challenged direct discrimination in employment. The classic expression of British multiculturalism was made in 1966 by Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Griffiths 2002). Cohen 1994. who saw integration not as a ‘flattening process of assimilation but rather as equal opportunity. Restriction on admissions has been combined with a ‘race relations’ and multicultural approach to those allowed to settle in the UK. London. The British response to immigration (whether by labour migration or the specific case of refugees) is above all characterised by policy ambivalence. Two other categories of citizenship were introduced. Secure Borders. it is important to emphasise the diversity of migrant flows and countries of origin which has characterised the period to the present day (Miles and Cleary 1993. housing and other areas of public life. individuals from the then EEC and Old Commonwealth had rights to entry not enjoyed by ‘coloured British subjects’ (Miles and Cleary 1993:68) • The 1981 Nationality Act.

Retention of ethnic cultures has a number of positive functions in this respect. developed over the last 50 years in response to labour immigration in the 1950s and 1960s and incrementally enshrined in statute and policy. In the British case multiculturalism involves the incorporation of minorities. According to several commentators. Favell (1999:4) carries the argument further by arguing that in Britain ‘integration (is) a question of managing public order and relations between majority and minority populations. Tolerance of diversity under the benign authority of the state is the key motif of British race relations and multiculturalism. social and political spheres) while encouraging them to retain distinctive cultural values in the private sphere. Castles 1995) Whereas assimilation involves the economic and cultural absorption of immigrants.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. introduced additional sentencing for crimes involving racial harassment or which are racially motivated. Oxford Brookes University Relations were to be managed in the context of a Community Relations Commission which was to coordinate the work of local voluntary community relations organisations (Saggar 1992: 85). The legislation introduces codes of practice for the elimination of discrimination in housing. as it acts as a symbolic safety valve for forms of recognition while allowing for the mediation of relations between minority and majority populations. The British case retains the assumptions of a dominant national culture without requiring that immigrants are absorbed into it. allegiance to the Crown and Parliament and representation of ethnic minority interests through designated ‘community’ organisations (Favell 1999:139). the Public Order Act 1986 introduced specific offences which incite to racial hatred. Britain illustrates a half-way house between assimilationist and liberal integrationist models (Parekh 1994. The underlying principles of the multicultural legislative framework are acknowledgement of state sovereignty. the Crime and Disorder Bill 1997. managing public order through devolving responsibility to local community groups and forms of representation (Favell 1998:339). are highly instrumental in the approach adopted by successive 39 Section 11 funding was altered in 1998 to two budget areas: the Ethnic Minorities and Travellers Achievement Grant (EMTAG) under the DfE and another budget directly administered by the Home Office. Specific provisions under the legislation allow local authorities to tackle discrimination in certain areas and to promote racial equality. in terms of its approach to the incorporation of immigrants. Thus the twin tracks of restrictionism and liberal integration. liberal integrationism involves the functional adaptation of immigrants (in economic. • The 1976 Race Relations Act (RRA) included indirect discrimination in its remit and introduced the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). the 2000 amendment to the Race Relations Act which extended discrimination to areas previously not covered by the Act. for Parekh (1994: ) ‘the current situation for minorities is one of partial absorption into a shared political culture while remaining outside a properly national culture’ (see also Parekh 2000). and allowing ethnic cultures and practices to mediate the process’. • Other relevant legislation includes: section 11 of the 1966 Local Government Act which allowed additional funds for local authorities with high concentrations of ethnic minorities 39. 43 . Consequently. employment and other areas of public life. British race relations are founded on the representation of ‘racial’ group interests but without the guarantee of specific minority rights as such. preservation of territorial boundaries.

Oxford Brookes University UK governments to meet the new migration trend of the last decade – refugees and asylum seekers. housing.5% of the population.b). education. there are also specific features which are linked to contemporary political vocabularies and ideologies. asylum has come to dominate the policy agenda as a result of the rising numbers of asylum seekers entering the UK from the late 1980s onwards. Diversity continues through into the outcomes of the different groups. caste and religion. Evidence from the 1991 Census indicated a 3 million ethnic minority population (based upon ethnic self-ascription) representing 5. the preferred policy has been to promote equality of opportunity in the public sphere through the mediating role of ethnic community groups. 44 . 2002) noted that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than the white population and three times more likely to be on low pay. 3.1. primarily in the different spheres. ‘ethnic minorities’ are the key focus of policy interventions. The approach to refugee integration. is being developed incrementally rather than strategically. There are highly differentiated outcomes for the different groups (Modood et al 1997) with Bangladeshis and Pakistanis typically fairing worse than other groups in housing. as indeed to the integration of immigrants from earlier periods. including refugees and asylum seekers with ethnicities not typically represented in the UK to date. Britain does not have a national level integration policy for particular categories of migrants – as is the case in Germany for example . While this means that there is a strong continuity and recapitulation of earlier debates on integration and its meaning at the policy level. gender. education and employment fields. Labour Force Survey documentation and recent Home Office surveys on migration reflect the diversity and complexity of migration flows and patterns of settlement (Home Office 2001a. with significant inequalities in a wide range of key social spheres: employment. employment. housing and welfare which affect the life chances of immigrants and their descendants (Soysal 1994: 54-58). Cumulative evidence from the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) reports. although set within the broader framework and history of migration policy. A particular feature of government policy for the integration of refugees have been the 40 As indicated above.but a set of legal instruments and norms outlined above which promote racial equality and equality of opportunity.2 Diversity of outcomes and problems of integration Given the race relations and multicultural approach. with concentrations of ethnic minorities in Greater London. add to the picture of overall diversity both in terms of group characteristics and outcomes 41. health and education (Modood et al 1997) and in terms of region of origin.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. as the most recent research indicates (Home Office 2001b). the incorporation of ‘stakeholder groups’ and other features associated with the specific political discourse of New Labour (Maile and Hoggett 2001). There is a characteristic geographical residential distribution. class. More generally. for example ‘partnership’ models of implementation. the West Midlands and the North-West. but it is set firmly within the multicultural and race relations approach which has dominated the post-war period. These factors pose significant challenges to the notion of a homogenous black community and to ‘across the board’ integration policies 40. 41 The Guardian (June 17. The peculiarity of the current formulation of integration policy is that it is exclusively focused on refugees. Newer migration flows.

it may not be incidental that the official policy document outlining the refugee integration programme is entitled ‘Full and Equal Citizens: a strategy for the integration of refugees into the United Kingdom.1. Ugandan Asian and more recently Bosnian and Kosovar refugees – in ways that were impossible with economic migrants or spontaneously arriving refugees. 3. The arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers over the last decade and the high degree of social exclusion and marginality they have experienced has exacerbated the sense of inequality which ethnic minorities already confronted within British society. Ius soli was 45 . and Robinson and Coleman 2000) confirms that these dispersal policies failed. citizenship came to be slowly but ultimately linked with birth and residence in the UK’. 2000. where processes of secondary migration and regrouping in a few locations quickly undermined government strategies for integration based upon widespread distribution. have deterred the government from sustaining dispersal as the cornerstone of refugee integration in circumstances far more complex than in the past. In this respect. and sporadic rioting in the major areas of Asian settlement. particularly amongst the Asian community. As Hansen (2001:69) remarks. lacking a sense of common values or shared civic identity to unite around’.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.) The 2002 White Paper (Home Office 2002:10) echoes these concerns. encapsulated in the notion of the ‘British subject’. nor the very large numbers of spontaneously arriving asylum seeker. Oxford Brookes University consistent attempts at the spatial dispersal of this category of immigrant.3 Citizenship and integration Immigration from the New Commonwealth is the principal factor behind the gradual shrinking of Citizenship rights which occurred in the post-war period. was replaced by the legal concept of citizenship which was anchored in the tradition of ius soli. induced governments to ‘manage’ the distribution of quota refugees in small groups to a large number of cities – such as Vietnamese. Thus the evidence on post-war settlement suggests both the limitations of legal equality and of the general race relations framework. The emergence of forms of separatism. Research evidence (Robinson 1992. There are continuing tensions between formal legal equality and the evidence of discrimination and inequality which pervades most aspects of public life in Britain for ethnic minorities. The integration of refugees appears to occupy a significant role in the process of reconfiguring citizenship. 17. It is in this context that the need to ‘rebuild a sense of common citizenship’ has become a key policy issue. noting that ‘last summer’s disturbances in Bradford. have led to concerns about a growing ‘parallel society’ and the failure to successfully integrate Muslim youth (Guardian. 6 2002: Muslims reject image of separate society. notably in the case of the Vietnamese and Ugandan Asian refugees. Robinson and Hale 1989. The key developments in citizenship law are: • The British Nationality Act 1948 – status of Citizen of the UK and Colonies’ introduced to distinguish between older British subject and British subject without citizenry which referred largely to Indian sub continent therefore subject to immigration control. Oldham and Burnley painted a vivid picture of fractured and divided communities. The problematique of immigration conceived primarily in terms of race relations accentuating the impact on locations already experiencing social exclusion and deprivation. Britons and colonial subjects on the whole therefore had the same rights and possessed an identical formal status (Hansen 2001:75). In the process the traditional allegiance to the crown. Neither the failure of earlier dispersal policies. ‘as Britain divested itself of its empire and increasingly treated Commonwealth citizens as aliens.

3. while arguing for the need for language training and education for citizenship. Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 – at the time of writing still in passage through Parliament. subject to a five-year residency period and ‘good character’ and language requirements.2. Oxford Brookes University respected. The overall effect of the 1971 Act was to ‘place Commonwealth citizens on the same legal footing as aliens for the purposes of immigration’ (Hansen 2001:78). Dispersal of 42 British overseas citizens with a formal citizenship status but no right of entry to the UK and British Dependent Territories citizenship. The social and political context of asylum policy In contrast to most of its neighbouring states. Changes in citizenship are at the forefront of the themes addressed in the 2002 White Paper. According to Cohen (1994:19) the changes introduced in the 1981 Act. Two other categories of citizenship were introduced.introduces the concept of ‘patrial’ to refer to the right of abode which is now linked to birth in the UK of the parent/grandparent of the applicant. largely to cater for Hong Kong and which gave a more secure status. it should be noted that the UK is broadly comparable with other EU states. 43 The principal national legislation are the immigration acts: Immigration Act 1971. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. A citizenship ‘test’ (in English language and citizenship) will be reinforced by a ceremony celebrating the acquisition of citizenship. 42 The Act also departed from the principle of ius soli: citizenship for those born in Britain was now only conferred on those born of a British citizen or a permanent resident.1. Non-patrials were on the same footing as aliens in terms of the acquisition of citizenship. These include the cultivation of a sense of ‘active citizenship’ in both ‘working class communities’ and those entering the country. Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The 1962 Act did not fundamentally change this situation but introduced immigration control according to the authority issuing the passport: all of those issued by colonial governments were subject to immigration control. At the same time the term ‘patriality’ was replaced by citizenship. in its residency requirements (5 years) and language and ‘good character’ stipulations.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. 46 . • The 1981 British Nationality Act –introduced three categories of citizenship. were ‘designed to buttress a racially-based British identity’. including the departure from ius soli. British citizenship was defined as excluding the colonies: all persons with right of abode were granted British citizenship. The aim is to promote ‘individuals’ economic and social integration’ (Home Office 2002:11). Immigration Act 1988. Refugees may apply for citizenship five years after receiving Convention status and Indefinite Leave to Remain. The White Paper reinforces the recognition of multiculturalism and diversity. Immigration (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1987. as well as its mix of ius soli and ius consanguinis principles. Given this move to a more restrictive application of citizenship. • The 1971 Immigration Act .2 Asylum in the United Kingdom43 3. Nationality. the UK has only recently introduced organised reception and dispersal procedures for asylum seekers (as opposed to refugees).

Four major pieces of legislation will have been introduced between 1993 to 2002. Oxford Brookes University quota refugees has taken place since the 1970s: with the Ugandan Asian. making the UK the largest recipient Member State in term of absolute numbers and 10th proportional to host population.excluding dependants. 92. Recently.840 primary applicants. 47 . responding to increases in asylum applications as they occurred. a decline in applications has occurred. combined with a steady increase in applications after 1995.315 in 2000 to 71.965. Vietnamese and Chilean programmes in the 1970s and 1980s (Robinson 1985. The first peak in asylum applications occurred in 1991 with 44. British asylum policy could be said to have been essentially reactive in character. as is the case in most other EUMS. Joly 1996) and more latterly in the case of the Bosnian and Kosovan programmes in the 1990s (Bloch 2000). Legislation was introduced after each of these high points in the trough of applications rather than at their height. During the 1980s and well into the 1990s. Taking dependents into account. (Source: Home Office) The pattern for asylum applications throughout the 1990s is one of two peaks and succeeding troughs. The pressure of rising numbers of asylum seekers during the 1990s and increasing demands upon housing and welfare facilities in the major areas of settlement has necessitated the introduction of a coordinated approach to asylum and the development of an organised reception and integration framework (Home Office 1998.700 in 2001.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. the second in 1995 with 43. from 80. • The 1993 UK Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act strengthened pre-entry controls and reduced housing rights for asylum seekers • The 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act introduced a range of deterrent measures including removal of benefits for asylum seekers claiming asylum in-country or for those on appeal. The 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act marked a radical point of departure in British asylum policy. United Kingdom -Asylum Applications 1991-2001 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Table 2 Applications for asylum in the UK 1991-2001 . Curtailment of access to public social housing in the 1996 Housing Act compounded the destitution of asylum seekers and these changes resulted in a housing crisis in London and the south east as social services departments were legally obliged to house asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act 1948 (NA48).000 claims (including dependents) claims for asylum were lodged in 2001. 1999. 2000).

ELR is granted outside the Immigration rules.290 asylum seekers and their dependants were granted ELR in the same period. the two categories are broadly similar in terms of welfare and work entitlements. Numbers of refugees and other statuses in the United Kingdom According to the Home Office (HO 2001b: 254): • Between 1990–1999 39. 3. usually for a period of four years after which the applicant can apply for ILR. Oxford Brookes University • The Immigration and Asylum Act which came into force at the end of 1999 attempted to address the housing and welfare strain on the south-east by introducing a centralised system of support through a voucher system and the dispersal of asylum seekers to designated ‘cluster areas’ of surplus housing under the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). In general. 12. For example. Those ineligible for Convention status or ELR may claim the right not to be returned to their country of origin under Article 3 of the ECHR which prohibits torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (JCWI 2002). advice on contacting the Refugee Council.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.2.2.3.2. • The 2002 Nationality.265 asylum seekers and their dependants were granted refugee status. Statuses available in the United Kingdom 45 There are two principal categories in the UK: Convention status: a standard letter is issued explaining that the person has full rights to live and work and to claim benefits in the UK. 3. Dispersal of asylum seekers and the settlement of refugees in the dispersal areas are retained as key policy objectives. providing facilities in situ rather than leaving asylum seekers to access mainstream services.645 were granted ELR. • In 2000. Convention refugees are entitled to grants and to home fees as students. 44 Approved by Parliament on 6th November 2002 after a number of key concessions to the many opponents of the legislation. There are some significant differences between the categories. 48 . Persons with Convention status are granted a travel document – the Convention Travel Document and a residence permit of Indefinite leave to remain (ILR) Exceptional Leave to Remain: is granted at the discretion of the Home Office in those cases where return is ruled out on humanitarian grounds. Reception centres will co-exist. The White Paper also addresses the issue of integration for refugees and summarises the conclusions of the earlier policy document Full and Equal Citizens of November 2000. 45 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was incorporated into UK law in the Human Rights Act of 1998 which became effective in 2000. Those issued with ELR are expected to continue using their national passport or will be issued with a travel document. Convention refugees have the right to family reunion while individuals with ELR do not. 79. Immigration and Asylum Act 44 will begin the pilot phasing in of accommodation centres for asylum seekers. at least for the immediate future with the dispersal programme under the 1999 Act.

Carey-Wood et al 1995). Of these. 85% of are likely to have remained in London and the south-east (Carey-Wood et al 1995). although ad hoc dispersal from London and organised dispersal from April 2000 have changed the geographical distribution of asylum seekers and refugees to some degree. The high concentration of refugees in London and the south-east still generally applies. As stated above. Oxford Brookes University In 2001. The Refugee Health in London Report (ELCHA 1999) estimated the total refugee population from 19831997 as between 280-330. Ockenden Venture. 3.3 The integration framework 3. without due attention to the broader social and economic infrastructure of the regions to which refugees were dispersed. The Bosnian Programme of 1993 was hailed as an 46 On a terminological note.1.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration • School of Planning. their numbers. In this respect. characteristics and labour market skills. all of which are open to challenge (MORI 2001:51). This has resulted in the formation of new groupings of asylum seekers in the regions and new processes of settlement outside London (see the section on Birmingham below). depending upon the category of refugee and the date of arrival: Quota or programme refugees from the 1970s to the 1990s: the evidence on the reception and settlement 46 of quota refugees had suggested systemic policy failure related to accommodation-led integration. 1997. There are no reliable estimates of the total refugee population. The programmes were ‘frontloaded’ in the sense of prioritising accommodation and neglecting later settlement requirements (Robinson 1986. None of these estimates is totally reliable and are based upon a number of key assumptions. 1987. 49 . 138. Home Office 1985. the policy response to the settlement of refugees has been distinctive. In general. The National level In UK. Joly 1996). the Medical Foundation) are amongst the key NGOs in the field.3.000 (higher estimate) and 240-280. These factors have important implications for the integration of refugees outside London and the south-east. The lack of national intervention in refugee settlement and integration has led to significant local variations in coordination and provision for refugees throughout the UK (Robinson 1998).000 refugees and individuals with ELR were legally entitled to work The Home Office acknowledges that these statistics are limited given that no record is made of how many of the individuals concerned return to their country of origin. there is a striking lack of data on refugees in the UK. a term which has only reluctantly been adopted by NGOs due to its suggestion of assimilation as the goal of refugee settlement. Reception and settlement provision had tended to be uncoordinated and ad hoc in character with no systematic national policy framework prior to 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. the Refugee Arrivals Project. to date there has been no formal integration programme for specific categories of migrants but rather a race relations framework within which equality of opportunity is the core policy goal. the voluntary sector has taken a lead role in reception and settlement for quota and non-programme refugees (the Refugee Council. Only since the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act and the policy documents outlining a refugee integration strategy has there been a move to the term ‘integration’ in official policy discourse.000 (lower estimate). Refugee Action. throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s ‘settlement’ was the preferred label to refer to general integration processes (Refugee Council.

with access to social facilities and economic infrastructure in the regions outside London. organised programme of actions. 1999. Oxford Brookes University example of effective settlement based upon language clustering and the principle of ethnic community formation (Refugee Council 1997). While settlement appears to be taking place in some of the dispersal regions. The local authority consortia which are charged with administering dispersal are also responsible for developing regional integration strategies in order to encourage recognised refugees to remain in the regions. Home Office (Carey-Wood et al 1995) and local studies (Haringey Council 1997. aims and objectives 48 Research teams concerned with integration have been established in the Immigration research and statistics service of the HO (IRSS). ‘spontaneous’ refugees: there was a substantial growth in arrivals from the mid-1980s onwards. In the event. 2000) suggest blocked opportunities and barriers to employment. UK Home Office. Home Office 2003 forthcoming). Non programme. The current ‘sectoralisation’ of refugees across government departments is seen as a major challenge to a coordinated approach to refugee integration (Bridging the Gaps National Conference. Bloch 2000). development and statistics directorate (RDSD). Full and Equal Citizens: a policy and implementation model for the integration of refugees into UK society (Refugee section of Race Equality Unit. What underlies the current formulation of a national refugee integration policy 47. demography and labour market stability. Refugee Integration Policy The UK refugee integration policy. In other studies. Nevertheless. Home Office 2001a Migration: an economic and social analysis). although it is notable that the failure to integrate in dispersed areas led in many cases to secondary migration to areas of already existing community settlement. Of the small literature on the settlement of refugees (Robinson 1985. 1994. The focus of research is on the impacts of refugees on local economies and communities… 50 . notably in Birmingham and the West Midlands. The initial premise of the NASS dispersal programme for asylum seekers of April 2000 was language-based clustering in areas of ethnic community support. according to Home Office sources (interview INPD. Economic and resource analysis unit (ERA) and the research. agency co-ordination. education and training. 1993) there is evidence of upward mobility for some groups. Integration is officially viewed as applying to all migrants with leave to settle in the UK.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. in other cases there is strong anecdotal evidence of secondary migration to London and the south-east where refugee communities and infrastructure are better developed – the legacy of earlier unregulated settlement by refugees. NASS Foundation Reports. May 2002) are issues of social cohesion. Bloch 1996. insecurity of status and attachments to the country of origin have been shown to obstruct integration and participation in British society (Al-Rasheed 1991. accommodation-led policy has appeared to prevail over language-based clustering and appropriate social and economic support with consequences for the settlement of refugees in the regions which are beginning to become apparent (Audit Commission 2000. which has developed in close conjunction with the dispersal system for asylum seekers since April 2000. refugee integration is in the process of emerging as a distinctive policy area with its own rationale and administrative structure 48. Feb 1999) was set in context of the 47 The term policy is preferred to the word strategy since the approach to integration in the UK lacks the defining characteristics of a strategy . is based upon three policy documents: 1.intersectoral cohesion.

health. According to the document. there is a need for a distinct policy framework: ‘Refugee integration policy must. November 2000).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. 2. the voluntary sector. October 1999). The partnership model mentioned above is developed to include the role of NGOs in the regions in providing a One Stop Service (OSS) of advice and support to asylum seekers and refugees settling in the regions. This document restates the earlier aims of integration but within the framework of the NASS and the NRIF. For most practical purposes. In this respect. the importance of language provision and the range of welfare benefits and entitlements open to refugees in education. The aim of integration is ‘to provide the opportunity for all refugees to be fully included in society and the opportunity to develop their full potential in their new host communities’ (Home Office 1999b: 6). The aim is multiculturalism not assimilation. It also proposes a division of labour between the national level. the document states that integration actually starts after the first few days in the country. According to this document. involving the Refugee Council 49 and the regional level including regional refugee councils and local service providers. housing. with the development of a National Refugee Integration Forum (NRIF) and related sub-groups in education. be treated as a distinct policy and be distinguished from policies whose goal is to meet needs shared by refugees and other disadvantaged groups’. therefore.for successful integration. community and race relations (Home Office 1999b: 5). welfare. 3. The document deploys the idea of spheres of development . The OSS were also to be a key element in drawing up integration programmes for individual refugees. Full and equal citizens: a strategy for the integration of refugees into the United Kingdom (Refugee Integration Section. housing.social. The principle of community clustering derived from the Bosnian programme and re-enacted in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act is regarded as most effective in fostering a sense of social inclusion. Integration policy is set firmly within the framework of social inclusion. a concession which is conspicuously absent from the later policy literature and in any case is little evident in practice. The need for an inter-departmental approach is restated. Oxford Brookes University 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act and the implications of dispersal for ‘community and race relations’. the aim of integration policy is ‘To include recognised refugees as equal citizens and members of society who are empowered to exercise maximum freedom of choice with respect to their futures’(1999a:4). health and employment. economic. This document repeats the central arguments of the earlier policy implementation model. community safety and individual . NASS. community safety. A consultation paper on the integration of recognised refugees in the UK – (IND Asylum Support Project Team.later NASS – was to promote dispersal and support for asylum seekers while providing a framework for the settlement of refugees. support for asylum seekers was not to be seen as distinct from that of the goals of integration for recognised refugees (Home Office 1999a:11). This latter body is 49 The refugee Council is the main national level NGO representing the needs of refugees and asylum seekers and is an umbrella organisation co-ordinating national and local level NGOs and RCOs. community. 51 . the role of RCOs in promoting inclusion and stability of contacts. It is also based upon a partnership model between NGOs. The text also stresses community support and language clustering to foster refugee community formation. community development and employment. The role of then Asylum Support Directorate (ASD) . local authority consortia and RCOs.

June 2001). The main focus is on functional integration rather than political. August 2002) as working against the RIU’s stated aim of promoting integration within a multicultural framework. At present. June 2002). Overall. domestic funding is geared to local developments and needs. The move of the RIU from the Race Equality Unit to the AAPD has also been interpreted by NGOs active in the field (interview Refugee Council. June 2002).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. It currently has six key personnel in contrast to over 650 individuals within NASS as a whole. There is also a reportedly small take-up of funds due to the stringent eligibility guidelines requested by the Home Office (interview Midland Refugee Council. units of analysis. The directing role of the NRIF under the Minister for Immigration and the function of the sub-groups in developing research and action plans in particular areas is also underlined. cultural or social integration – i. based upon the partnership model with the voluntary sector.000 to £1million in 2002. August 2002). characteristics and locations of refugees. NGOs and RCOs is reinforced. it is important to emphasise the limited resources of the Refugee Integration Unit (RIU) within the AAPD. filling in research gaps relating to the numbers. the Home Office may be described as research active in the area of refugee integration and is currently engaged in a range of projects including the development of a set of refugee integration indicators (see conclusion) 50. Manchester. another sub-group of the national refugee integration forum. local authorities. Consequently. The regionalisation of integration policy. This demonstrates its close connection with the work of NASS in distributing and supporting asylum seekers in the regions. Responsiveness at this level is linked to cross-departmental collaboration and monitoring of 50 An integration research working group has been established. Integration measures Funding Integration projects currently take place through three centrally administered channels: • The Purposeful Activities fund was established in 2001 for social activities for asylum seekers and refugees • The Refugee Community Development fund supports the work of organisations for start-up costs. In principle. 30 projects have been funded for the financial year 2002-2003 (Newsletter of the Refugee Integration Unit. incorporating self-evaluation by the projects themselves (National Integration Conference. Oxford Brookes University now located within the Asylum Appeals Policy Directorate (AAPD) rather than the Race Equality Unit. Action research is also being encouraged to build a common approach between the host community and refugees. A recent research document (Home Office 2001a) has restated the government’s concerns over social exclusion. On a national basis this remains severely limited in scope.e measurable outputs in terms of employment. new activities and capacity building • The Home Office Challenge fund addresses the specific social needs of refugees and supports innovative projects Challenge Fund evaluation is ongoing. staffing and resources are overwhelmingly concentrated in the reception end of the settlement process. London. They are currently looking at problems of definition. pinpointing the need to ensure that asylum seekers are enabled to move quickly into mainstream provision once a decision has been reached. Work on integration indicators is also being undertaken. education and training and service provision. Initial research by NASS indicated that Challenge Fund resources would not be adequate to meet demand (Vine Management Consulting. 52 . Despite this. funding was raised from £500.

Oxford Brookes University outcomes at the national level (interview. A rent deposit guarantee scheme for rented accommodation upon a positive decision has been piloted since April 2001. • Accommodation • Community Development • Community Safety and Racial Harassment • Education (schools) • Employment and Training (Adult education) • Health and social care • Positive images • Research • Unaccompanied asylum seeking children Full and Equal Citizens (Home Office 2000a) documents some of the crossdepartmental initiatives which complement existing programmes in education. A web-based resource. organisations assisting refugees will be able. information on health conditions and services and information on translating and interpreting services. The Health and social care subgroup A project entitled the Health needs of refugees and newly arrived communities has been funded by the Department of Health which aims to provide guidance concerning the health issues affecting refugees. community development and accommodation. the European Social Fund and local authority grants. Effective move-on of recognised refugees from NASS accommodation is currently one of the key issues affecting settlement in the regions (section…). employment. Health for Asylum Seekers and Refugees Portal (HARP) is also supported by the subgroup and consists of information for health professionals. The subgroup is currently working around three key areas: prevention of homelessness (for those under NASS arrangements. These aim to improve access for refugees to services and improved information to service providers on the needs of refugees. consultative body (although with no formal policy making powers) and operates through a number of designated sub-groups which are chaired by Regional Consortia Managers (see below). access to housing (provision of move-on accommodation) and sustaining a home (the broader social issues of settlement in an area). It is chaired by a representative of the Refugee Council with expertise in community development in London and the regions. The Accommodation sub group This subgroup aims to advise NRIF on the housing needs of refugees and to identify good practice in housing provision. Refugee Integration Unit. The Community Development subgroup This sub-group is concerned with the link between community development and integration and aims to identify the processes by which communities are enabled to promote integration. the Single Regeneration Budget. health. Following a conference on refugee community development held in March 2002. June 2002). Home Office. to access a number of conventional funding sources including charitable trusts. In addition to these new centrally administered funding routes. Organisation The NRIF was established in January 2001 and is chaired by the Minister of State for Immigration. as before. It is a cross-departmental. the 53 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.

including refugees. the National Organisation for Adult Learning (NIACE). Employers organisations. August 2002). Refugee Council. this is voluntary and tends to be outside of regular working commitments rather than a part of designated roles. The NRIF is the model for the regional integration strategies which should occur in conjunction with NASS regional managers and the consortia. Refugee Council.3. Refugee Action and other NGOs have a strong tradition of 51 The National ESOL Training and Development Project is a consortium of organisations including the Basic Skills Agency. the National Association for Teachers of English and other Community Languages to Adults (NATECLA) and the Learning and Skills Development Agency. identifying effective models of refugee community development and strengthening the role of refugee communities in mainstream service provision. This was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions which was established in June 2001. Cross-departmental governmental support for the NRIF also appeared to be lacking according to several regional managers and NGO representatives attending the meetings (interviews.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. The role of NGOs and the voluntary sector Although the Refugee Council. It provides careers advice and guidance and plays a strategic role in shaping the provision in colleges to meet the needs of their clients. It would appear that the development of regional integration strategies has been delayed in practice.2 The regional level According to ‘Full and Equal Citizens’ (Home Office 2000a:12) every ‘dispersal region in the country should have an integration policy in place by August 2001’. According to several individuals attending the subgroups it was felt that although they provided a potential framework for developing a strategic integration framework there was a lack of consistent and coherent policy formulation from the centre. 54 .3. Refugees Into Jobs 52. particularly in terms of accountability and the absence of a clear programme of action (interview. The London Language and Literacy Unit. London. Training and Employment sub group This subgroup deals with a range of issues including English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Basic Skills and the coordination of the National ESOL Training and Development Project which is developing training programmes for teachers of ESOL in the regions 51.3. August 2002). 3. with a special remit to promote employment possibilities for disadvantaged groups and individuals. 52 Refugees into Jobs was formed in 1997 by the London boroughs of Brent and Harrow in partnership with the local Training and Enterprise Council and five local colleges. promoting awareness of the role of RCOs in integration. Members of the subgroup were contributing throughout 2001 to research on refugee employment which is analysing the labour market position of refugees and the barriers to employment. Nomination of chairs for the meetings occurred informally and in general there was a lack of clear terms of reference for the subgroups. Without direct funding or policy-making capacity the subgroups and the NRIF as a whole occupy an ambiguous position. with the logistical demands of dispersal outweighing settlement issues. Oxford Brookes University subgroup identified the following areas for future development: improved two-way communication between the subgroup and RCOs. the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) are included in the subgroup. There remain key issues around the remit of the subgroups. the World University Service. 3. Representatives from the Employability Forum. The Adult Education. Although representatives from the different government departments are invited to attend the meetings of the various subgroups.

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

supporting refugees in London and the regions, they have assumed new roles under the NASS
arrangements. The OSS, in collaboration with NASS and the regional consortia - as indicated
in Home Office policy documents - aimed to provide a framework for integration through
drawing up individual integration programmes for refugees. Again, the practical outcomes
have been different from those anticipated, with many of the OSS in the regions unable to
cope with the demands posed by dispersal.
Despite the important resources which RCOs offer, they are the least developed
‘partner’ in the integration arrangements (Zetter and Pearl 2000), but are clearly specified as
an active agent in the integration process in various government publications, (Home Office
1999a, 2000a; Audit Commission 2000). Organisations such as the Coordinators Training and
Support Scheme (COTASS) and the RCO Development Project (a working party of
COTASS) are active in the field developing RCO capacity. There are currently an estimated
300 RCOs in London alone, with considerable growth in other regions including Birmingham
and the West Midlands. Research suggests that RCOs are typically under-resourced and overutiltised (Zetter and Pearl 1999, 2000; Audit Commission 2000).
3.3.4. The European Dimension
The UK government is actively engaged in administering ERF programmes and is currently
monitoring their progress. The EQUAL programme under the European Social Fund consists
of four themes, linked to the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy:
employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. Refugees can be
assisted under several of these headings, although there is also a specific theme for asylum
seekers. Initial resistance by the Home Office to the incorporation of asylum seekers was
effectively challenged by NGOs at the outset of the EQUAL programme. The government’s
perspective is to ‘add value’ to existing domestic programmes aimed at reducing social
exclusion. At the launch of EQUAL the Minister for Employment emphasised the need to
target the concentration of low skills and unemployment in the most deprived areas, and noted
the overlap of EQUAL with government initiatives including the Neighbourhood Renewal
Fund, the Community Empowerment Fund and the Community Chest (Update from the
EQUAL Launch Conference, 2001).
The Refugee Council is setting up a Development Partnership which aims to target
monies set aside for asylum seekers nationally and refugees in London under the pillar of
employability. In total there will be 100 Development Partnerships, 60 at local levels, 20 at
regional levels and 20 at national levels. Refugees will be included in several of the funding
programme’s separate strands. Of the £233 million over a 6 year period, 5% is set aside for
asylum seekers, although achieving matched funding will cause difficulties for many refugee
based organisations (interview COTASS, London, August 2002).
3.3.5 The integration of refugees: differential integration entitlements
It is important to restate that there is no formal programme of integration for migrants as a
whole, with refugees to date typically incorporated into mainstream service provision. With
the National Refugee Integration Strategy a series of distinct funding routes has emerged.
Refugees with Convention status and those with ELR are eligible for funding under the
Challenge Fund, Refugee Community Development fund and the Purposeful Activities
Programme (which includes asylum seekers). In terms of formal entitlements there are a few

55

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

differences between individuals with Convention status and individuals with ELR:
Entitled to

Refugee status

ELR

Welfare benefits

Yes

Yes

Public Housing

Yes

Yes

Early years nurseries

Yes

Yes

Schools

Yes

Yes

Further Education fees

As Home Student

As Home Student

Higher Education fees

As Home Student

As Home Student

Higher Education grants/loans

Yes

After three years’ residency

National Health Service

Yes

Yes

Family Reunion

Yes

After four years if able to support
themselves

Travel Overseas

Yes, but not always to the home
country

Yes, but not always to the home
country

Permission to work

Yes

Yes

Right to vote or stand for election

Only if Commonwealth citizen, or if
naturalised as a British/Irish citizen

Only if a Commonwealth citizen, or
if naturalised as a British/Irish citizen

Source Refugee Council 2001

ELR53:

In key areas existing domestic legislation is applied to refugees and individuals with

Social Services – under the Children Act 1989 there is a duty to provide for all
children under the age of 18

Accommodation – under the Housing Act 1985 there is a duty to provide public
housing, subject to usual waiting lists and eligibility criteria, i.e. single people are not
prioritised

Education – according to Annexe B of the Department of Education and Employment
(skills) Code of Practice on school admissions, refugee children are entitled to
schooling. Under the 1996 Education Act Local Education Authorities (LEAs) are
obliged to school children between 5-16 years of age

Employment and Training – refugees are eligible for government training schemes
after six months unemployment, including Work-based learning and New Deal
schemes

Given the broad convergence of rights between Convention refugees and individuals
with ELR, the refugee integration strategy includes individuals with ELR within its scope as
‘full and equal citizens’. The real dividing line therefore is between these two categories and
asylum seekers, although the latter are eligible for certain funding streams including the
Purposeful Activities Programme and EQUAL. It is important to note that the right to apply
for permission to work after six months has been withdrawn for asylum seekers as from
August 2002, a factor which may further marginalise asylum seekers from mainstream
economic and social relationships.
53

There are no restrictions on movement for either category.

56

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

3.3.6 Conclusions to section 3

The legacy of Empire conditioned post-war immigration policy with gradual restrictions
introduced on primary immigration from the New Commonwealth

Since the 1960s there has been a multicultural framework and race relations approach to
integration

Citizenship is accessible to refugees with indefinite leave to remain, subject to a
residency period and eligibility criteria.

Individuals with Convention status and ELR have full access to a range of services with
minor differences in entitlements

There has been a formal integration strategy for refugees since November 2000

The refugee integration strategy is based upon a partnership model and decentralised
implementation through regional consortia

There is a new role for regional consortia in the development of regional refugee
integration strategies

There is an enlarged role for NGOs, RCOs and the voluntary sector under the new
reception and integration arrangements

3.4

Case study locations

3.4.1 Introduction
Two principal locations were chosen for fieldwork, London and Birmingham. London is the
main area for the settlement of refugees in the UK while Birmingham represents a more
recent area of settlement.
London
Total population in 1997 of 7,122 million (HO 2001:42)
Estimated 85% of refugees settled in London and the south-east (Carey-Wood et al 1995)
London Boroughs
Haringay
Total population 216,100 (1996)
43% of the population is from black and ethnic minority backgrounds
Estimated 15,000-17,000 refugees and asylum seekers (ELCHA 1999)
Newham
Total population 235,700 in 1999
50% ethnic minority population in 2000 (London Borough of Newham 2002)
Estimated 16,700 – 19,500 asylum seekers and refugees (ELCHA 1999)
Birmingham
Total population- 1,079 million in 1997 (HO 2001b)
40% ethnic minority population
Estimated 10,000-15,000 refugees and asylum seekers

The contrasting factors are:

57

4. infrastructure and services relating to refugees is an important contrast between London and the regions. Birmingham is less developed in these respects.000 (higher estimate) and 240-280. the concentration of refugees in London and the south-east would appear to be undergoing a process of change due to the asylum seeker dispersal policy introduced in April 2000. 1999. • Existing community settlement and size of ethnic communities.overview There is a long-standing history of settlement in particular areas of London. NGO and voluntary groups as well as the bulk of RCOs in the country. all of which are open to challenge (MORI 2001: 51). None of these estimates is totally reliable and are based upon a number of key assumptions. their estimates tend to be conservative and are used here largely for illustrative purposes. London . These include a dense network of statutory. specialist NGOs which support asylum seekers and refugees 55. The concentration of refugees in London reflects the more general population characteristics for the UK as a whole (HO 2001a: 39). It is important to recall that London is the UK’s largest labour market (HO 2001a) and hosts a high concentration of migrants in key inner city boroughs. Haringey Council 1997). Most of the support services needed for effective refugee settlement are located in London and the south-east. The methodological problems involved in estimating exact numbers cannot be discussed in detail here. Although dispersal and settlement is effected through the regional consortia these remain restricted in terms of their decision-making capacity. 85% are likely to remain in London and the southeast (Carey-Wood et al 1995). Haringey and Newham in particular have established refugee communities going back to the 1980s. 58 . Overall. As the authors of the report acknowledge. The role of NGOs There is an overwhelming concentration of NGO resources and personnel in the capital which reflects both the role of London as the main reception city for refugees. 3. notably the East End and Docklands areas (Bloch 1996.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In these respects the UK contrasts with both Italy and Germany.000 (lower estimate). Oxford Brookes University • Infrastructure and services. The report estimated the total refugee population between 1983-1997 as approximately 280-330. 2000). The centralisation of policy formation. reflecting the recent character of refugee settlement in the area. 55 This is aside from the Refugee Council which operates across London and has two regional offices and Refugee Action and the regional refugee councils which operate across the regions. Of these. The regional consortia have no independent policy-making function but operate through a system of decentralised control.2. At the same time the picture is characterised by the proliferation of small. 54 The ELCHA report estimates are based upon averaging results from five different sources (ELCHA 1999:26). • Central /Regional relations. Although Birmingham has a high ethnic concentration it has fewer developed refugee communities than many areas in London. although there is considerable variation across London boroughs (ELCHA 1999. the East London and City Health Authority (ELCHA 1999) provides one of the more up-to-date and comprehensive estimates of the distribution of refugees and asylum seekers in London 54. consultation and ‘partnership’ with Home Office institutions. Refugees and asylum seekers in London In terms of the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers.

and the Refugee Assessment and Guidance Unit (RAGU) of the University of North London. In terms of practical integration work. 3. Specific illustrations are given of practical integration work which is undertaken by statutory agencies. it is important to note that no single region in the UK outside London has equivalent resources. the Refugee Legal Centre. 59 . campaigning groups and web-based groups (Refugee Council 2001). the Refugee Council. it was estimated that over half the population was from Black and Asian communities.700 – 19. over 300 RCOs provide essential support to their communities (Home Office 2001a). employment. The total population of Newham was 235.700 in 1999. The increase in Roma from Poland and Kosova. housing and education. ESOL. An overview of two London boroughs is provided below. Somali and Zairean refugees (Bloch 1996. In 2000.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. with the proportion higher among younger residents. there is a wide ranging network of refugee-related NGOs and voluntary bodies. Each has a high density of ethnic minorities and refugees and a substantial history of refugee settlement.4. including the World University Service (WUS). Asylum Aid. Refugee Council 1997) from the late 1980s onwards. making Newham the single largest borough in London for asylum seekers and refugees. Newham Educational Services is run by two EMTAG teachers with expertise in providing assistance to refugee children from a wide range of nationalities. Refugees and asylum seekers in Newham According to ELCHA estimates (1999:27) there are between 16. the Refugee Education and Training Advisory Service (RETAS of the WUS). Since 1999 the number of refugee and asylum seeking children speaking European languages in Newham has increased by 34. Newham has been an area of settlement particularly for Tamil. there is a broad spectrum of advisory bodies.500 asylum seekers and refugees in Newham. organisational back-up or expertise in the area of refugee integration.3 Newham Newham is a long-standing area of settlement for ethnic minorities and refugees. Local authority provision: health. In-school support is supplemented by home-school liaison and the support of recently arrived refugee communities. at the statutory level Newham Homeless Family Forum is run by the social services and the housing department in Newham borough council and is cross-departmental in nature. This is approximately 7% of London’s total asylum seeker and refugee population. Longstanding integration work has been undertaken in the key areas of education. It is important to note that there are significant variations across the borough with concentrations of ethnic minorities in particular areas. many of which are focused on employment initiatives (Phillimore and Goodson 2002). NGOs and refugee groups in the areas. Autumn 2000). there are more than 30 ethnic minority communities in the borough. In addition. The forum is active in a wide range of areas concerning the welfare of refugees and provides a range of support services including advice and assistance with finding accommodation and accessing health services. health. In all. and housing.3%. Last but not least. in addition to Latin American and Iraqi refugee children reflects the diversity of the newer arrivals. Oxford Brookes University In London. (Refugee and asylum seeking pupils in Newham. typically the more economically disadvantaged (Bloch 1996). making Newham a multicultural settlement area. the Medical Foundation for victims of Torture. Although this situation is now changing.

well-established organisations in Newham which cater for specific nationalities or groups. for Roma and Latin American refugees are similarly geared to provide for specific language groupings.500 asylum seekers and refugees or 6. ELCHA (1999:27) estimates are between 15.appear to be facing a range of integration problems around lack of literacy in their own language.3% of the London total. It should be noted that many Somali projects are targeted at women. The newer refugee arrivals – specifically Roma and Kosovar refugees . Irish and Chinese. providing a range of skills based learning. Kurdish. African and Caribbean. Like many other Somali organisations in Newham it has a largely female client base. Refugees and community groups Tamils and Somalis both have a strong organisational presence in Newham.CoNEL . Somali and Kosovan nationals have settled in Haringay. NTN works in partnership with range of organisations including the Further Education colleges.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.700 people come from ethnic minority backgrounds. London East Learning and Skills Council and the Employment Services. making Haringay the borough with the second largest number of asylum seekers and refugees after Newham. 3. The people of Haringay speak a total of 193 different languages (London borough of Hackney 2002). Almost half of its 223. including Greek and Turkish Cypriot.provides a wide variety of ESOL courses with a 60 . Other organisations. others organised under the Refugee Rainbow Alliance. as there is a significant number of single mothers amongst the Somali population in East London (Somali Conference Report 1998). In sum. The Somali Education and Employment Project is currently running a new pilot scheme for Basic Skills. too. Its mission statement includes a commitment to maintain Quality Standards as part of the London Borough of Newham’s Access to Jobs Strategy. Statutory providers: ESOL The College of North East London . London Tamil Sangam appears to be one of the more developed organisations.4. some until recently coordinated under the Newham Refugee Centre.4 Haringay Refugees and asylum seekers in Haringay In terms of the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in Haringay. in Newham. Pakistani and Bangladeshi. The Renewal Refugee and Migrant Project is run specifically for Kosovar refugees and provides practical assistance in language training. A wide variety of vocational and academic courses is run by this organisation including ESOL for refugees. There are also a number of independent. Haringey is notable for its concentration of Kurdish (Turkish) and Somali refugees (Haringay Council 1997). such as the London Oriental Academy which is almost exclusively Tamil and has a large refugee and asylum seeker client base. there are a variety of refugee organisations in Newham. Bilingual support may therefore be an important factor for these groups. including refugees. particularly in aiding them to access mainstream services. Newham Tamil Housing Association was founded in 1986 and provides accommodation to Tamils at different stages of the settlement process.000-17. Recently. Indian. Oxford Brookes University NGOs and voluntary organisations: vocational training and ESOL Newham Training Network (NTN) is an umbrella organisation for local voluntary sector training providers offering training to unemployed people. Of the Tamil organisations.

3. they argue. with substantial degrees of refugee community organisation. The above has merely illustrated some of the wealth of activities which are currently being run by and for refugees which aim to promote integration in key areas of social life. funding. NGO. Both organisations provide a combination of vocational subjects. Integration practice does not appear to be closely related to policy formulation but occurs independently through formal and informal networks of statutory agencies. Importantly. and 61 . voluntary and RCOs .on a borough basis and across London • A failure to record and disseminate good practice across London boroughs • The need for improvements in the networking capacity. there are a number of key issues which are raised by the fieldwork and substantiated by a review of the literature: • The lack of strategic coordination of the different agencies – statutory.500 ESOL students and a waiting list of over 1000. Chinese or Turkish residents. Other organisations are directly contracted to Employment Services for Work Based Learning for Adults (WBLA) or cater for specific nationalities – e.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Equally important is the attention which is given to mother-tongue instruction in these organisations. voluntary and RCO levels. training.4. In many of these cases refugees and asylum seekers have become a significantly larger proportion of the total workload. outreach work occurs in over 30 centres throughout Haringey. NGOs and refugee groups In this respect. Lack of specialist workers and interpretors have been particular issues in this respect. with a range of courses on offer including ESOL and hairdressing and English for the Service Industry. including ESOL. Refugees and community groups As in the case of Newham. Training providers A spectrum of training organisations exists which provide for the unemployed and specific nationalities or groups. is one such charitable organisation which provides for parents living in temporary accommodation in Haringey.5 Barriers and potentialities Newham and Haringey exhibit high levels of activity at statutory. with implications for organisational working.g. the Kurdish Advice Centre and the Kurdish Community Centre represent political divisions from the home context and are affiliated to political organisations in Turkey. In the last two years its workload has shifted almost exclusively towards providing for refugees and asylum seekers. Many of the courses are specifically geared to the needs of refugees. similarly neglected as a distinct minority within the settlement context in London. The principal Kurdish organisations in the area. In addition. for the practitioners themselves the application of a coherent ‘integration framework’ to inform their practice is lacking. Own language maintenance has a particular significance for Kurdish groups who have been assimilated into the Turkish speaking majority at home and now. Caris. There is a strong emphasis on linking ESOL with vocational training at CoNEL. Oxford Brookes University current number of 2. NGO. there is considerable diversity in the number and types of refugee groups in the borough. The Haringey Refugee Consortium is exceptional in cutting across national and political groupings and provides a range of training and vocational subjects for refugees and asylum seekers.

Bloch 1996. In general. 3.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. The most common factors include: • Language barriers • Waiting lists for ESOL classes which are accessed via further and adult education courses • Lack of recognition for overseas qualifications • Lack of familiarity with labour markets • Absence of specialised training routes for professionally qualified refugees • Lack of interpreters for accessing services • Specific health needs including mental health needs and gender issues • Racism and discrimination Although the regional consortia.6 Birmingham Birmingham stands out in marked contrast to London as an area of only recent settlement for refugees and asylum seekers. MORI 2000. 56 Duke 1997. Robinson 1998) but warrant repetition in the light of current policy interventions. including the London Asylum Seekers’ Consortium (LASC) provide a framework for potential action in relation to integration. In particular. Haringay Council 1997. Refugees and asylum seekers in Birmingham The history of refugee settlement in the city is complex but may be divided into pre-dispersal and dispersal periods.079. voluntary. NGO and RCO provision is therefore less developed than is the case in London. 1999. 2000. lack of data on refugees prevents long-term planning in the provision of services which is vital to an effective integration strategy. Currently some 40% of Birmingham’s residents are from ethnic minority backgrounds. The ‘take-off’ in the number of refugees and asylum seekers in the city has occurred in the last four years as a result of ad hoc dispersal from London boroughs. Birmingham is responding to the increasing numbers of asylum seekers arriving in the city by developing new institutional arrangements and solutions to the issues posed by long-term refugee settlement. Africa Educational Trust 1998. education. to date the focus has been on the logistical problems of dispersal and the immediate needs of asylum seekers rather than the long-term issues posed by refugee settlement. Statutory. Salinas 1998. precise information on the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in particular boroughs to allow advance planning and the provision of services These issues have been pinpointed in a number of other contexts (Zetter and Pearl 1999. health services and housing 56.000 in 1997 (HO 2001b).4. In general. Oxford Brookes University coordination of RCOs and their ‘interface’ with statutory authorities • The need for adequate. Birmingham had a total population of 1. research evidence has consistently suggested that refugees in London face problems in accessing employment. Audit Commission 2000 62 .

Iraqis and Somalis have been joined by later additions. Birmingham is the lead authority and manages the contract with NASS. 80 asylum seekers were ‘self-presenting’ per week in Birmingham. August 2002). Solihull. such as Afghans and Ethnic Albanians. there is no regional integration strategy in place (August 2002). 2001-2002). its proximity to London and relative development of economic and social facilities. as positive decisions result in more refugees seeking to settle in the region. Refugee Action. The role of the West Midlands Consortium for Asylum seekers and Refugees (WMCARS) 57.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. January 2002). although these are believed to be in excess of 10.000 individuals. The role of Consortia is clearly designated under the NASS arrangements as entailing the management of accommodation and support services for dispersed asylum seekers as well as the integration and settlement of refugees remaining in the region (WMCARS Business Plan. Settled groups such as the Sudanese. There are a number of factors involved in Birmingham’s attractiveness as an area of destination: the existence of settled ethnic and refugee groups. WMCARS has secured funding under the Purposeful Activities Programme for 31 projects aimed at offering outlets for social activities for asylum seekers and refugees (WMCARS Purposeful Activities Grant 2001-2002. The increase in arrivals has raised pressing issues around exit from the NASS system. Coventry. Walsall and Wolverhampton. Statutory authorities Birmingham City Council Asylum Team manages the contract with NASS for the West 57 The Consortium consists of Birmingham. many of which now have well established community groups. There are no reliable statistics on the number of refugees in Birmingham. Oxford Brookes University organised dispersal under the NASS and ‘spontaneous’ in-region arrivals of asylum seekers. Sandwell. June 2002). Phillimore and Goodson 2001 63 . Lack of independent decision-making under the NASS arrangements was consistently cited as one of the principal reasons for the late development of a regional integration strategy (interviews. while firmer regional control of reception and settlement were seen more generally as key issues by many of those active in the WMCARS (interview. Progress Report). Manager of the WMCARS. In terms of the general coordinating role of the consortium. 58 ‘Exploring mechanisms for the integration of asylum seekers and refugees into the labour market in Wolverhamption’. Stoke-on-Trent. Other groups such as the Iranians who have also been arriving in large numbers in recent years are less well organised. strategic direction for the integration of refugees in the city. The overall aim is to encourage interaction between asylum seekers. Currently. the opinion expressed by NGOs and voluntary groups in Birmingham was that more work needed to be done to provide a clear. By the middle of 2002. Midlands Refugee Council. refugees and local communities. WMCARS has also been granted funding under the Challenge Fund (2002-2003) for Mental health (social and cultural support) and for Roselodge Housing for a project designed to assist refugees to begin commercial enterprises (Full and Equal Citizens: the newsletter of the Home Office Refugee Integration Unit. Dudley. although the Manager of the Consortium is working in collaboration with the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) at Birmingham University to develop a regional integration strategy 58.

In this respect. there was a deficiency in current service provision for refugees which was apparent across a range of statutory bodies. neighbourhood advice. January 2001). the Refugee Council. Oxford Brookes University Midlands. as a series of interrelated needs and corresponding services which are best catered for ‘under one roof’. It will provide housing advice. 59 Up to middle of 2000 the MRC had 299 people on their books through skills matching. 12-13% of refugee doctors have jobs as locums while others are securing employment through the Primary Care Trust 64 . European conference on integration Policy. particularly in the shortage areas of teaching and the medical profession59. One of the principal aims for Birmingham City Council is to develop the integration component of the Consortia’s role in providing assistance and advice to individuals who have been awarded status. particularly in the areas of self-employment and training (Dispersal or Disposal? Retrieving Refugees’ Skills for our Society.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In terms of employment. including Refugee Council information and data collection. Home Office 2003 forthcoming). The role of NGOs The Midland Refugee Council (MRC) is a community-based charity founded in 1987 as a voluntary association of refugee groups. January 2002. The MRC is likely to play an increasingly important role in longer-term plans for the integration of asylum-seekers and refugees in the region. This can be used for training purposes for RCOs in relation to capacity development and project management. through skills-matching and other work in the fields of employment and education. Birmingham. It is to be opened on a 7 day a week basis and located in Duddleston which is immediately outside the city centre. a resource centre for refugees and asylum seekers is in the process of being set up under the supervision of Birmingham City Council. offering advice. As a result. voluntary organisations and RCOs in the city (interview. It provides a free service to refugees and asylumseekers. welfare support. Refugee community involvement in the centre will be encouraged through the provision of office space. advocacy and support in the fields of: • Immigration • Welfare rights • Education • Access to health care • Housing support • Women’s support • Employment and training • Community development The MRC is principally concerned with refugees but works with asylum seekers as volunteers at the Council. The resource centre is to be led by the leader of the asylum team and will include NHS Health outreach. the MRC has a good track record of getting refugees into employment. NHS surgery and signposting to other agencies. Birmingham City Council Housing department. According to the chief executive of the MRC (interview August 2002) the integration of refugees should be conceived in holistic terms. counselling. RA and the Neighbourhood advice team. the Careers service. In response to this deficiency in coordinated service provision. MRC.

In addition. advice and guidance. ‘We came because you are civilised’. scheme There is also some evidence of improvement over the last few years in staffing in careers advice and refugee advisory staff in FE colleges.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. RCOs are often the first port of call for newly arrived asylum seekers. There an estimated 2000 Afghans in the WM. 65 . it was believed that initial reception experiences of asylum seekers will impact negatively upon their later integration and settlement prospects.01). Refugees and Community Groups It is important here to emphasise the key role of RCOs in providing additional support under the dispersal programme. Again. according to community estimates (Afghans in Britain. much as it had done under earlier reception arrangements (Robinson 1998). this reinforces the Audit Commission recommendations on recognising the significance of RCOs in service provision for asylum seekers and refugees in dispersal areas (Audit Commission 2000: para 63 onwards). The emphasis of their workload has shifted from long term settlement issues to day-to-day advice work for asylum seekers. Birmingham Feb 2002. Oxford Brookes University Refugee Action has also been based in the region since the early 1980s. The Job centre is also working on fast tracking skilled refugees with information. In the West Midlands as a whole but particularly in Birmingham. In this respect. As an organisation it prioritises the principle of self-activity amongst refugee groups and their own capacity for integration (interview Refugee Action. although demand typically outstrips supply. • The Society of Afghan Residents in the Midlands is a well-established community organisation with charitable status and provides services to a combination of asylum seekers. refugees and Afghan residents in the West Midlands. it was observed that under-resourcing and increasing numbers of asylum seekers has resulted in the neglect of community development and settlement work. Independent 23. In common with the position of the RA. August 2002). In the last four years dispersal from London and the south-east and the increase in refugees settling in the region has impacted directly on their work. renewing and building communities under new settings.9. the key issue concerns the growth and consolidation of RCOs which has occurred over the last few years. than it is with economic and functional integration in the receiving society. Concerning the NASS arrangements there were fundamental issues over the lack of information. coordination and planning which made long-term needs assessment problematic. there is an extensive network of ESOL providers in Birmingham . the second largest Afghan community after London and the fastest growing nationally. The focus of the Refugee Council is on processing applications of those arriving in region and the provision of emergency accommodation (interview Refugee Council. Indeed the emphasis is more upon maintaining home links and ties with the culture of origin. The Refugee Council runs the One Stop Service in the region. The issue of adequate information in service delivery remains a key issue under dispersal. August 2002). With the growth in the number of asylum seekers and the settled refugee population there has been an equivalent strain on RCO capacity and resources. working initially in Vietnamese settlement and later Bosnian and Kosovan programmes. Late or non-arrival of NASS 35s (the issue of notification of a positive decision on the claim for asylum) has caused problems for recognised refugees attempting to access the mainstream benefits and welfare system. Refugee Council London.

A high reported drop-out rate for Kurdish children was one consequence of this according to the workers at the KDF. housing and other key services. NGOs. They appear to have arrived in the last three years. 66 . Consultation and strategic coordination across statutory agencies. with the hierarchical model of the NRIF and subgroups failing to effectively filter down to the regional level. One representative of the MRC in Birmingham argued that the Home Office ‘played the business card for internal purposes’. largely concentrated in Birmingham. Refugee Action 2002). with several schools in the area failing to provide bi-lingual teachers. where a hard-line stance on immigration and asylum was seen as the only electorally viable solution 60. 3. The main role of the association is to link Albanians to service providers and to provide information on education. in order to gain legitimacy for the economic goals of its integration strategy within government circles but not in relation to the treatment of public opinion. The two workers at the organisation both work part-time on a voluntary basis.Conclusions From the fieldwork in Birmingham there are several issues around the impact of dispersal on the settlement of refugees which can be raised.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. June 2002). which in theory aims to deter ‘unwanted economic migration’ but which in practice affects all asylum seekers and the promotion of the long term integration of recognised refugees. the voluntary sector and RCOs remained in need of improvement according to many sources in Birmingham. According to the two workers there are about 7000 Iraqi Kurds in the WM. i. The main integration issues concerned provision for Kurdish children at school.4. the issues surrounding move-on and integration were amongst the most pressing for individuals who had recently received status.the full-time project worker indicated that the MEBA is a cross-religious organisation. • The centralised character of decision-making was also perceived as a problem in Birmingham.6. The intake of ethnic Albanian asylum seekers took accelerated in 1999 although had begun earlier in 1995. It was also felt that RCOs were not recognised for their work. 60 It has been noted by the Home Secretary David Blunkett that a hard line stance on immigration issues is the only way of forstalling the extreme Right which has made significant electoral gains in other EU states. Oxford Brookes University • The Midlands Ethnic Albanian Association . Refugee Action. Birmingam . As in the case of the Afghan community. • Although the Consortium provides a potential framework for integration work there are continuing tensions with NASS concerning the aims of the dispersal programme. that they were inadequately consulted by other agencies and suffered from isolation in relation to wider policy networks (Focus group results. • The Kurdish Development Foundation (Iraq) The KDF is a registered charity with a small amount of funding from the National Lottery start up scheme.e. due to the deterioration in the situation in northern Iraq. Evidence from discussions with refugee groups in Birmingham indicated that increased numbers of asylum seekers had negatively impacted upon the workloads of RCOs and their potential to deal with long-term community development and capacity building (Analysis of Community Development Needs Research.

3. has enjoyed a close relation with NGOs and the voluntary sector. If integration occurs (and there is no local research to show how and in what way and over what period of time this happens) it would appear that this takes place through the work of local agencies and individuals and through networking practices which depend very much upon the will and energy of the individuals involved. asylum in the UK has been characterised by its relatively late development as a distinctive policy area. Oxford Brookes University For NGOs and RCOs there were also clear issues raised concerning the impact of growing numbers of asylum seekers and the neglect of integration and community development due to increased workloads. The degree to which this is happening at present is open to question. for example. • The growth in the number of RCOs in the region and the establishment of the Refugee Resource Centre in Birmingham also provide solid grounds for future development. In practice. The Home Office.5 The UK integration model: prospects and problems This chapter has noted the basis of contemporary British integration policy in the race relations framework which was generated as a response to immigration from the New Commonwealth in the post-war period.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration • School of Planning. would facilitate the process of networking and the pooling of information which is vital to effective refugee settlement. These essentially negative conclusions can be balanced by several factors: • There is growing evidence of the skills base of asylum seekers and refugees in the West Midlands region (Wolverhampton study) and a number of initiatives by the City Council. a multicultural approach to integration was to be implemented through the operation of market mechanisms promoting equality of opportunity and enforced through an anti-discriminatory legislative framework. By and large it is these agencies which have dealt with the logistical issues posed by the reception and integration of asylum seekers and refugees. in the West Midlands and throughout the UK. restrictive admissions policy on immigration was buttressed by changes in citizenship law which have reinforced an essentially racial conception of British identity. in its own terms. As yet there is little evidence that the integration policy framework has begun. What is clear is that the development of coherent regional strategies. Over this period. Ideally. to work in practice. 67 . This is partially due to the date of arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers from the late 1980s onwards (Home Office 2003a) but it is also reflective of the long-standing tradition of ad hoc response to arrivals as they occurred. significant inequalities persist in key areas of social life for Britain’s ethnic minorities. From a comparative EU perspective. The concentration of refugees and asylum seekers in London and the south-east was in part responsible for the introduction of a more coordinated approach to reception and settlement with the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. By way of contrast to Germany there have been no formal integration programmes for specific categories of migrant but rather the promotion of ‘fairness’ and ‘diversity’ for immigrants through the mediation of forms of ethnic community representation. the MRC and RA which aim to promote the integration of refugees in employment and housing in the region. organised dispersal of asylum seekers to the regions has resulted in new processes of refugee community formation outside London. Significantly.

although improved. Ethnic (refugee) community representation and delegation of responsibility to NGOs and voluntary agencies are consistent with the general tenor of post war race relations. The New Labour rhetorical patina is however distinctive 61. Funding programmes. Manchester June. voluntary agencies and RCOs and other ‘stakeholders’. Fairclough 2001. The second issue concerns the involvement of non-state agencies in the integration process. Currently. Policy formation will undoubtedly be subject to conflicting aims in this area. there is no clear rationale and guidelines for the NRIF and subgroups. It may well be too early to provide an assessment of the Refugee Integration Strategy. particularly as their changed roles impact upon their capacity to address the long-term settlement needs of refugees. voluntary agencies and RCOs have all been delegated central roles in the settlement of refugees in the regions. the Refugee Integration Strategy is based upon a ‘partnership’ model of governance. The evident underinvestment in terms of resources and personnel suggests a lack of political will in this area. although the following points can be raised: The first issue is the extent to which there is an intelligible refugee integration policy in the UK. In the UK. although it appears to be the case that speedier decision making has been prioritised over radically improving reception conditions (Head of AAPD. NGOs. There is a range of issues over the role of NGOs and RCOs which urgently require clarification. or might occur under the NASS arrangements. which are themselves a ‘partnership’ of local authorities. Overburdened NGOs and RCOs are currently shoring-up the dispersal system without adequate remuneration and at a cost to their organisational coherence and goals. whereby the NRIF is the central coordinating body for a series of reporting subgroups which in turn inform and are informed by the development of regional integration strategies. Oxford Brookes University The Refugee Integration Strategy has to be located within the broader framework of reception and dispersal of asylum seekers and is also firmly rooted in the multicultural and race relations paradigm which has dominated immigration and asylum in Britain. been satisfactorily resolved. But it is questionable whether they have been adequately resourced to fulfil these roles. The third issue is the degree to which de-centralisation of control has occurred. 68 . to date. the integration strategy would appear to be driven more by measurable outputs in terms of employment and education indicators than by ‘quality of life’ and more interpretive measures (Head of Research. the issue of regionalisation of control 61 For an examination of the political vocabularies of New Labour see Maile and Hoggett 2001. the bulk of practical effort goes into managing the dispersal process with settlement issues tending to occupy a poor second place.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Notably. The conflicting rationales of deterrence and social inclusion have not. The latter are to be enabled via the regional consortia set up under the NASS arrangements. NGOs . June 2002). In a similar vein. National Integration Conference. The explicit link between organised reception and dispersal and eventual settlement in the regions is rendered problematic by the emphasis given to deterrence in the overall approach to asylum in the UK. National Refugee Conference. 2002) as it is more amenable to the calculation of outputs than improved quality of life for asylum seekers. In addition. remains at a low level given the scale of potential demand. given the marked policy ambivalence – racialised immigration control versus the discourse of toleration of difference and multiculturalism – which continues to inform policy developments in this area.

At present this issue is only poorly addressed in the UK. with local agencies seen as best adapted to respond to local conditions in promoting the reception and settlement of asylum seekers and refugees (Home Office 2002). Consultative mechanisms and partnership models. In the conclusions to this report we argue that decentralisation is a key component of a successful refugee integration strategy.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. unlike the case in Germany. local authorities are tightly reined in by the centre and have little room for maneouvre and no independent scope for policy development. 69 . although they are an integral part of the refugee integration strategy stop short of the genuine devolution of decision-making which might facilitate greater responsiveness to local conditions and needs. Again. Oxford Brookes University has been raised by Regional Managers of the Consortia as a central issue.

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

4 Case Study: ITALY
Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the conditions which have shaped Italy’s approach to
migrant and refugee integration. The discussion of the current political debate on immigration
and integration is undertaken focusing both on the national and the local level. After an
overview of the asylum process in Italy and the integration framework, the chapter provides
an analysis of the key agencies involved in integration, stressing the importance of historical
and cultural factors in the definition of the Italian integration paradigm. Finally, the emerging
key issues are examined in details in the three case study locations: Rome, Tuscany and
Venice. As with Germany and the UK, Italy’s approach can be caricatured as obstructed
avenues to integration.
4.1.

From a country of emigration to a country of immigration

4.1.1. Myth and reality
From its unification (1861) to the 1960s, the years of economic boom, Italy has always been
among the countries of emigration (Macioti and Pugliese, 1993). Italy’s long and intense
experience of migration is characterized by two main features: first, the enormous number of
emigrants sent abroad – more than 26 million since official records began in 1876 (Favero,
1978); second, the dramatic switch, in the last three decades, from being a land of mass
emigration to one of mass immigration (King and Andall, 1999). The switch, statistically,
occurred in 1972 when in-migration exceeded out-migration for the first time. The impact of
such a change found the country quite unprepared in legal, policy and psychological terms.
Most Italian scholars did not have the interpretative tools to understand the change which was
occurring in the country: early scholarly interpretations of Italy’s new status tended to
emphasize the importance of ‘push’ factors in the sending countries, underestimating the
influence of ‘pull’ factors within the receiving country as a principal explanatory factor for
the presence of migrants.
The shift from a country of emigration to a country of immigration can regarded as the
result of three different migration trends: the constantly declining flow of emigrants, which
peaked in the early ‘60s before declining; the steady profile of return migration, which was
the initial force which reversed Italy’s migration balance in the early 1970s; and the
significant rise in immigration.
Hence, the Italian role in the system of international migration changed drastically in
the 1980s. The country became the final destination for more and more immigrants. At the
same time the number of people seeking international protection also increased considerably.
A distinctive feature of the migrant settlement patterns in Italy is the lack of
uniformity both in distribution and life conditions. Recruitment and distribution of migrant
labour are strictly linked to the different economies of the various regions and the operating
mode of the labour markets in the different areas of the country.

70

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

The near-absence of the classic immigrant niches, according to Hellman (1997:46), is
a distinctive feature of the Italian society and ‘it impacts on the condition of the newcomers in
many ways’.
A key feature of Italy’s approach to migrant issues is well highlighted by Andall’s
analysis on second-generation migrants (2002). She noted that, despite the presence of
migrant communities already into the second-generation, ‘public and political attention has
continued to focus on new waves of migration and especially on undocumented migration. As
a consequence, the conditions of settled communities have tended to be of peripheral concern
to immigration social policy makers’ (Andall 2002: 389).
By the end of 2001, there were 1,362,630 foreigners in Italy, making it the fourth
country within the EU by the number of resident foreigners (Caritas, 2002). According to
UNHCR (2002), the overall number of refugees living in Italy is about 23,000. Of this figure,
13,000 are Geneva Convention refugees, the rest have a permit to stay on humanitarian
grounds.
4.1.2 The political response to immigration
Despite the steady growth in immigration throughout the 1970s, the issue only began to
occupy a significant place in the country’s political agenda and to assume a national
prominence in the mid-1980s. Prior to this, the Italian response to the needs of migrant
workers’ needs was largely coordinated by the Catholic voluntary sector. The dominant role
played principally by Caritas in organising and responding to the needs generated by this new
social context, permitted the Italian political system to abdicate responsibility for the
phenomenon. ‘However’, suggest King and Andall, ‘the involvement of the Catholic
voluntary sector is significant also for another reason. The Catholic ethos underpinning the
strategy of Caritas stands in conflict with the development of restrictive stances with regard to
immigration in both Italy and Europe’ (1999: 152).
The first legislative response to immigration was Law 943 issued in 1986. One of its
main aims was to regularise the juridical situation of sans papiers migrants. The instrument
elaborated by this legislation was an amnesty (in Italian sanatoria), a topos in the Italian
approach to migration. As a result of the 1986 amnesty, 119,000 formerly undocumented
migrants legalised their situation.
Italian migration policy, according to a number of scholars, can be regarded as
characterised by these kinds of extraordinary measures. Indeed, the number of migrants
whose legal position has been 'regularised' through various 'sanatorie' in the last decade is
much higher of the number of those who accessed to Italy legally.
According to King and Andall (1999:153), ‘this first piece of legislation appeared to
conflate a number of conflicting aspirations: first, to formulate a pragmatic response to
immigration; secondly, to display a humanitarian and receptive approach; thirdly, to protect
the employment status of Italian citizens; and fourthly to implicitly encourage return
migration’.
Four years later, in 1990, Law 39 was passed. This legislative act again made
provision for an amnesty, and a further 235,000 immigrants were regularised. This law put
migrants on a more equal footing with Italian workers with regard to the possibility of
employment via collocamento (public employment centres). On the other hand, it can equally

71

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

be seen as an attempt to strengthen control on entry and to clamp down severely
contraventions of the law. One revealing shift between the two laws was the greater emphasis
regarding the expulsion of migrants, linking the behaviour of foreign nationals with
criminality.
When the so-called ‘Legge Martelli’ (Martelli Law named after the then Minister of
Justice who drafted it) came into force, there were 780,000 foreigners in Italy. This law
represents the first attempt in Italy to lay down a comprehensive framework of procedures and
instruments to regulate immigration and refugee. Amongst other measures, the act introduced
a policy of planned immigration and the provision of yearly immigration quotas. The quotas
were to be established by governmental decree after reviewing a variety of social and
economic factors. The 1990 act can therefore be regarded as a benchmark: the year when Italy
declared itself as being an immigration country in principle. However, as Hein (1998:36)
suggests, ‘the policy was never really implemented up to now and the quotas tended to be at
zero level, since it was felt that a major effort first had to be made to recognize and integrate
those foreigners who were already present on the territory’.
In 1996, the first Centre-Left government of the post-war period was elected in Italy.
After two years the government introduced a new immigration law, which was intended to
mark a radical change in the handling of immigration, ‘signifying a step forward from some
of the emergency measures which had preceded it’ (King and Andall, 1999:154).
The Centre-Right coalition won the 2001 political election capitalising the fear for a
mass invasion of Italian borders by migrants. Two parties in the government coalition, the
Northern League and the National Alliance, have very clear anti-immigration positions.
Significantly, the new Alien Act, introduced in the summer 2002, takes its name from the
leaders of these two parties: Umberto Bossi and Gianfranco Fini.
4.1.3 Gaining citizenship in Italy
The Italian legislation on citizenship, as the former Minister for Social Solidarity Livia Turco
acknowledged, is skewed towards protecting descent.
The contents of a new citizenship law in 1992 confirmed the increasingly restrictive
approach to immigration. Law 91, which drastically renewed the provisions of the Citizenship
law no.555 of 1912, established a clear hierarchy of desirable citizens. While facilitating
Italian citizenship for people of Italian origin with foreign citizenship and establishing a fouryear residence period for EU nationals in order to gain Italian citizenship, the condition
imposed on non-EU nationals to acquire Italian citizenship were quite different. Ten years of
legal residence were now required, as opposed to the earlier provision which had required
only five (King and Andall, 1999:153).
Law 91 reinforces the importance of the hereditary factor for the acquisition of Italian
citizenship. The ius sanguinis is clearly identified as the main, and prevailing, criterion for
becoming a citizen of the country. Such a preference for the blood tie rather than the territorial
one is typical of emigration countries, which aim to maintain their tie with expatriates.
According to Zincone (2000: 94), ‘Italy adopted a law as if it was still an emigration country.
But it had already become a country of immigration: it passed a law turned to the past’.
The 1992 law was also more restrictive in dealing with second generation immigrants.
The previous legislation granted naturalization to individuals born in Italy of foreign parents,

72

without the requirements imposed on non-descendant claims such as: knowledge of Italian cultural or language or simply permanence on the territory of the state.2 Asylum in Italy 4.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In 1998 a large number of Kurds arrived from Turkey and Iraq followed by Kosovo refugees escaping from ethnic cleansing. The 1992 Act introduced a new requirement whose effect was to make it much harder to gain the citizenship . Albanians were soon to occupy the role of dangerous foreigners in Italy’s xenophobic map. Oxford Brookes University if the individual was resident in Italy on reaching majority and if s/he registered the wish for citizenship within one year (Pastore. In the latter case the flow decreased only with the signature of Dayton agreements in 1995. political. To summarize.1 Political context The key event which pushed the Italian government to develop an asylum reception policy was the mass influx of displaced people escaping wars or situations of general and widespread violence in their country of origin during the 1990s. 73 . It: • Increased the number of years of permanent residence in the country before applying for citizenship • Gave preference to foreigners of Italian origin • Imposed harsher requirements for non-EU nationals • Retained high levels of discretionary power in the decision on citizenship claims • Maintained. 2001). and Refugees may apply for citizenship five years after receiving Convention status and permanent permission to stay. as pointed out by Korac (2001). From those who were initially called ‘our cousins’. ‘citizenship as an indicator of the formal membership in the receiving society.2. economic. foreigners with some Italian descendants could gain the citizenship directly by law. as main way of gaining citizenship. although for most practical purposes Convention refugees and those with permission to stay have welfare and social rights equivalent to other Italian citizens. because it does not guarantee full social inclusion. followed by displaced people from former Yugoslavia. clearly cannot be considered as a mark of full integration.the principle of continuous residence. In 1997 the second mass arrival of Albanians marked a clear change in the Italian approach. The first to arrive were the Albanians. However. 4. several aspects of the 1992 law on citizenship appears to put Italy on an opposite trend with respect to developing European legislation on the subject. marriage with an Italian national • Introduced the requirement of continuous residence for children born in Italy to foreign parents • Whilst the Act continued to make the decision on the request for naturalisation discretionary. regardless of its de jure guarantee of enjoyment of a set of civil. social and cultural rights’.

18) which gave the President of the Council of Ministers the power to grant the temporary protection to a group in need of protection by decree. Nevertheless. Kosovo Roma. The use of different measures for different groups of refugee claimants is symptomatic of Italy’s lack of a coherent approach to the changing role of migration in the social and politiccal landscape of the country. rather than firmer levels of status.000) followed the standard asylum procedures. were the group most affected by this decision (see Sigona. The first use of this decree was when it was issued on 12 May 1999. forthcoming). Therefore. No permission to stay under the provisions of this temporary protection was issued after this date. The first settled Albanians (about 20. to provide retrospective temporary protection to displaced people from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from the beginning of NATO bombing campaign to the official end of the conflict (5 August 1999). 2003. Oxford Brookes University Government responses to the increasing number of displaced people landing in Italy. a legislative provision which did not allow sufficient reaction time in emergency situations. But the enormous difficulties in handling such a large number of claimants using the normal procedural instruments suggested the need for tailor-made measures which could tackle cases of mass persecution. the government opted for granting temporary protection and assistance. were varied. Law 286 (Legge Turco Napolitano) introduced an article (no. about 20.000 people benefited from this procedure. the Italian government secured assistance and temporary protection for over 16. In 1997. Such a widespread use of temporary protection explains the very small number of asylum applications during the 1990s (see table below). Up to 1998 the use of temporary protection had to be decreed by a parliamentary law. when forcibly displaced migrants from former Yugoslavia began to arrive.500 displaced people. solely on the basis of displacement from the war-torn areas. Consequently. the government adopted different measures for the significantly new trend of arrivals of Kurds from Iraq and Turkey. following the second mass flow of Albanians. the Albanians did not receive work permits and once the emergency in Albania appeared to be ended. as reported by Vincenzi. Table 3 Asylum applications in Italy 1991-2001 Asylum applications Geneva status 1990 3618 1991 24442 1992 2588 1993 1568 1994 1844 1995 648 1996 680 1997 1887 1998 13119 1999 33364 2000 15564 2001 9755 1017 1203 151 168 320 103 204 397 1045 809 1642 2098 Source: Italian Ministry of Interior 74 .000 people were granted temporary protection during that period)’ Vincenzi (2000:96). fleeing from persecution by ethnic Albanians. However by 1998.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In this case the government decided to handle their claims under the normal asylum procedure rather than temporary protection. a number of them were repatriated. The use of temporary protection ‘managed to reduce to the minimum the number of asylum claims submitted by former Yugoslavs who sought international protection in Italy (about 80.

Where those documents are not available. a number of provisions exist within other internal regulations which make possible the enjoyment of such rights by recognised refugees. comma 3. Albania.3. 277 of 24 July 1954. In the context of these agreements. Italy ratified the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 by Law no. No comprehensive asylum act explicitly implementing the integration-related provisions of the Geneva Convention has yet been adopted. Section 1. Spain. provides that ‘any alien debarred in his own country from the effective exercise of the democratic liberties guaranteed by the Italian Constitution shall have the right of asylum in the territory of the Republic on conditions laid down by law’. i. Algeria. Since 1996.e. but only entered into force on 1 September 1997. Yugoslavia. The text of the readmission agreements is identical: it binds the signatory country to readmit its own citizens illegally entered to Italy and vice versa.2 Italy and relevant International Law: a legal framework Italy ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees by Law no. Italy has signed several bilateral readmission agreements with. According to the wording of these agreements. identity cards. comma 1 withdrew the geographical limitation. Slovenia. With respect to emerging European wide practice. However.2. Due to the so-called “geographical limitation” adopted when signing the Convention. ruling that ‘Section 10 comma 3 of the Constitution (…) has provisional value. Several decisions by Italian Civil Courts endorsed this restrictive interpretation. until 1990 Italy only recognised refugee status for individuals fleeing from European countries. of the 1948 Italian Constitution. not directly applicable nor claimable before Courts without further internal regulations based on an agreed procedure. Estonia. Switzerland. but they were not entitled to rights accorded by the Geneva Convention. so posing the basis for the full implementation of the Geneva Convention into Italian legislation. 4. Croatia. Morocco. Oxford Brookes University 4. Nigeria. asylum seekers coming from other countries could benefit from UNHCR protection once recognized as refugees under UNHCR mandate by the relevant Branch Office in Rome. Asylum seekers are only referred to in the context of transit permits for deportation to third countries. Romania. the illegal immigrant is submitted to an interview at the nearest relevant diplomatic mission.39 (Legge Martelli). Macedonia. Austria. The accession to the 1967 Protocol amending the Geneva Convention dates from 26 January 1972. Lithuania. refugees are explicitly safeguarded from expulsion in cases of readmission of citizens coming from third countries by crossing one of the signatory states. Slovakia. 523 of 23 December 1992. signatory states are obliged to also readmit citizens from third countries who have reached Italy by crossing their territory. However 1990 Law no. amongst other countries. Georgia. France. 338 of 30 September 1993 and the Dublin Convention of 15 June 1990 was ratified by Law no. Hungary.2. as it needs case-law practice to determine conditions for the exercise of the 75 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. This provision has been regarded for a long time as a non-binding declaration of principles. and nationality certifications. Tunisia. Nationality of immigrants is checked on the basis of their passport. Leetonia. No explicit safeguards are provided in favour of possible asylum seekers and refugees coming from one of the signatory states. Asylum in the Italian Constitution Article 10. Bulgaria. Greece.

the constitutional definition is met by testing the infringement of rights by the applicant’s country of origin. As a result of this judgment. even if not regulated by statute law. Constitutional refugees are protected from refoulement and have the right to remain in Italy. the legal status arising from the acknowledgement is not defined. However. aiming at regulating immigration in all its aspects (entry to the territory. In 1997 a significant judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal . Thanks to the wording of Article 10 (3) Constitution. In so doing. Nevertheless. the protracted legislative gap characterising Italian policy toward refugees. The Immigration Consolidated Law (Testo Unico) no.Corte di Cassazione. by that logic. the application for ‘constitutional asylum’ can be filed before the local Civil Court. In accordance with the judgment itself and with subsequent court rulings. and stated that that provision “recognises for aliens who find themselves in the situation described under the Section [10 (3)] a subjective right to the granting of asylum. was eventually bridged by the 1990 Alien Act: it was enacted as a urgent Decree Law on 30 December 1989 and subsequently converted into ordinary Law no. the Corte di Cassazione was called upon to rule upon the attribution of judicial power over the acceptance of a constitutional claim for asylum. deportation. 39 of 28 February 1990. distinguished it from Convention refugee status and.4. integration). residence permit. Thus. Since no legal provisions have been adopted regarding the rights attached to Constitutional asylum. although an asylum bill has been pending before Parliament for a long time under the past legislature. even with the lack of a law laying down conditions (…) for the exercise of the right” (decision no. Given the different juridical content of Constitutional asylum and Convention refugee status. many persons who have been granted Constitutional asylum remain without any formal authorisation to stay in Italy and cannot benefit from any other rights. the definition of constitutional asylum appears to be broader than that contained in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention: while the latter requires a (at least) well founded fear of persecution.2. No other laws regulating asylum procedure have been enacted for 12 years.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. establishing the judicial competence of Civil Courts over the relevant acceptance procedure. even in the context of an appeal challenging a deportation order or a negative decision on Convention refugee status. In the course of a trial before the Rome Civil Court. 286 of 1998 was conceived as a comprehensive act. in terms of ‘the democratic liberties guaranteed in the Italian constitution’. it contains only a few asylum-related provisions but does not deal with the refugee status determination procedure. the Immigration Law 286/98 eliminated all provisions of the 1990 Alien 76 . constitutional asylum can be regarded as a possible legal status in Italy for persons seeking protection. Thus. 4. In the final judgment the Court spelled out the meaning of this right. ‘Convention asylum’ in internal laws As mentioned. the highest of Civil Courts – intervened in this question. it is also possible to apply for the former to the civil courts and simultaneously apply for the latter under normal asylum determination procedure. Oxford Brookes University right’. the Corte di Cassazione explicitly admitted the binding power of Section 10 (3) of the Constitution. 4674 of 12 December 1996-26 May 1997). relegating these aspects to specific provisions within the deferred asylum bill mentioned above which remains to be passed. even though they are not automatically granted a residence permit.

Since. a single Section of the 1990 Alien Act. Oxford Brookes University Act with the exception of Section 1 and its implementing regulations. the entire file should be sent to the Central Commission within 7 days. During the eligibility procedure asylum seekers enjoy basic social rights and freedom of movement within the Italian territory. if the asylum seeker has not been detected entering the country. the remarkable difference between the possibility of the Public Administration and of the Judicial System to intervene in this field has to be taken into account: while the former handles the procedures at nearly all stages. gaps and ambiguities . decrees. Asylum seekers processed under the normal determination procedure receive a three-month residence permit.e. The following discussion aims at giving a brief overview of the asylum procedure as it has been implemented (note that the amending provisions of the new Bossi-Fini Immigration law of 2002 are not yet in force) according to laws. Applications are dealt with by an inter-ministerial body called the Central Commission for the Recognition of Refugee Status (Commissione Centrale per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato). This situation .characterised by a number of legislative oversights. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. the Judicial System 62. when they have been convicted of committing serious crimes. which are still in force. especially if the file has been moved from one Questura to another. it cannot be regarded as a real ‘reform’ of the Italian asylum law. decisions of the courts and practice. partly. chaired by a Prefect and composed of representatives from: the Ministry of Interior. The Questura gathers personal data and the asylum application written by the applicant in his mother tongue. During fieldwork many interviewees expressed considerable concern about the anticipated dramatic outcomes of the new legislation in this respect. Within this somewhat pragmatic framework. i. e. Courts may intervene at a later stage.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. this law also fails to deal with refugee determination procedure and with refugee integration rights from a comprehensive point of view. without eliminating this section. strengthening the role of the Public Administration and.5. together with a report and any supporting documents provided by the applicant. together with a 6-article Presidential Decree and a few references within the 1998 Immigration Law. The new Immigration Law approved by Parliament on 11 July 2002 (the so-called Bossi-Fini Law) introduces some restrictive amendments to Section 1 of the 1990 Alien Act. due to the transfer of the applicant from region to region. 77 . when they have been called on by the individual concerned.has contributed to the increasing power of praxis in this field. Presidency of the 62 However. renewable every three months pending a decision by the Central Commission. nature and involvement of Judicial action is very substantially less than that of the Public Administration. The asylum procedure from 1990 to the present As mentioned. although the scope for action of these two institutions emerges as a result of the same problem (the legislative gaps and lack of legal and procedural clarity) the weight. 4.2. or at the local Police Headquarters (Questura) once a claimant is inside the country. Thus.g. Asylum seekers are not admitted to the procedure (or allowed to enter the country if an application has been submitted at the border) if they are under exclusion clauses provided for by Sec. circular letters. asylum applications can be submitted to the Border Police. In reality this stage of the process can take months. like Law 286/98. According to law. 1 (4) of the 1990 Alien Act. but are not allowed to work. now in effect form the entire normative framework of Italian asylum law for this 12 year period during which the processes of migration have brought such profound change to Italy’s social and political landscape.

as it does not contain provisions reforming and regulating the asylum procedure and the rights attached to the refugee status. If the applicant does not appear in person before the Commission. -ter. appeals against negative decisions by the Central Commission for the Recognition of Refugee Status had to be lodged with the Regional Administrative Courts within 60 days. Negative decisions by the Regional Administrative Court could be further appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (Consiglio di Stato) within 60 days. it should be noted that the newly-enacted law modifies and integrates Section 1 (the only section still in force) of the 1990 Alien Act: as a result. appeals had no automatic suspensive effect. A positive ruling by the Administrative Court led to a re-examination of the case by the Central Commission. Features of its implementation cannot be foreseen at the moment. the claimant is granted a renewable 2-years residence permit and several civil and social rights. the Corte di Cassazione decided that appeals against the Central Commission’s negative decisions must be lodged with the Civil Courts. but this could be granted by the Court. In addition. the socalled Bossi-Fini Law was approved on 11 July 2002 and came into force on 10 September 2002. After a parliamentary debate marked by intensive coverage in the media and protests by NGOs. As already mentioned. Instead. 78 . the time required to process a case before the Central Commission usually takes up to 10-12 months. neither is it possible for asylum seekers to be assisted or represented by a lawyer during the interview. The law does not provide for legal assistance before the Commission. Oxford Brookes University Council of Minister. Civil Courts examine both the legality of the appealed decision and the merits of the case. Until a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (Corte di Cassazione) was made in 1999.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. This appeal. From a technical point of view. A UNHCR representative participates in the meetings on an advisory level. the asylum procedure in Italy is currently regulated by a single article 1 with the addition of article 1-bis. Negative decisions by the Civil Courts can be further appealed to the Appeal Court and then to the Supreme Court of Appeal.189 of 11 July 2002. In such cases. Although law provides a time limit of 15 days for the first decision. this law does not provide the much needed comprehensiveness and coherence of internal asylum law. In both cases. of an administrative nature. Asylum seekers have the right to be heard personally by the Central Commission about the reasons for their flight. the decision is generally negative. but the appellant may submit a formal request for suspension if s/he has been notified with a request to leave the country or with an expulsion order. it introduces detention of asylum seekers and establishes an accelerated procedure for detained applicants. quater. has no suspensive effect and is limited to reviewing the legality of the first decision. Recent developments in Italian immigration law regarding asylum procedure: provisions of Bossi-Fini Law no. asylum seekers may lodge a hierarchical appeal before the President of the Republic within 120 days from notification of the Central Commission's negative decision. and so on. given the rapidity of the procedure and the difficulty for NGOs advisors to intervene at that stage. The framework of the law has been heavily criticised by UNHCR and NGOs because it puts genuine asylum-seekers at severe risk of being rejected. There is no automatic suspensive effect. In a judgement on 8 October 1999. The following overview only refers to the wording of the law. In the case of recognition. the decision is made solely on the basis of the police report.

According to this system a National Fund for Asylum Policy and Services is set up within the Ministry of Interior. 64 The Questura shall transmit the application to the competent Territorial Commission within 3 days after the submission.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. In deciding on the appeal the Territorial Commission is joined by one member from the National Commission. Asylum seekers falling under these two provisions are submitted to an accelerated procedure 64. The new law establishes a system of assistance to asylum seekers who do not fall under accelerated procedure. However. 4. proof of the asylum claim are not available. According to article 1-bis and following sub-sections. 79 . the applicant can ask the Prefect the authorisation to remain in the territory until the end of the procedure. the Central Commission makes a recommendation on whether or not the conditions for granting a humanitarian residence permit are met. but this never happens in practice. It gives the right to work and study in Italy. Oxford Brookes University The new law establishes Territorial Commissions for the recognition of the refugee status 63. as well those staying in Italy under the temporary protection schemes for Somalis (1992). holders of residence permits issued under Sections 12bis (humanitarian grounds) and 12ter (Italy’s international or constitutional obligations) of the abolished 1990 Aliens Act. Within 15 days the Commission shall interview the applicant. they were not legally residing in the territory or had been given a deportation order before submitting the asylum application. Such a permit is generally granted for one year and is renewable on a yearly basis. can ask for a two-year work/residence permit or a residence permit on humanitarian grounds even without a passport. These decisions can be appealed before the Civil Courts within 15 days. asylum seekers can be detained when: undocumented or bearing forged documents.6. according to the same provision. in charge of funding local bodies which arrange assistance services for asylum seekers. According to Section 20 of Alien Act 286/98 the Government can adopt extraordinary 63 The Territorial Commissions are chaired by a representative of the Prefecture and composed of a police officer. displaced persons from Former Yugoslavia (1992) and Albanians (1997). the Questura can also. The final decision can be appealed within 15 days before the competent Civil Courts. but it has no automatic suspensive effect. and following a Directive by the President of the Council of Ministers of 6 August 1998. Decisions made following the accelerated procedure can be appealed within 5 days before the same Territorial Commission. Based on the same Section 19(1). Other forms of humanitarian protection According to Section 19(1) of the Aliens Act 286/98. In all cases where the asylum seeker cannot be recognised as a refugee under the Geneva Convention but cannot return to his/her country of origin. working under the responsibility of a National Commission. A decision on the request shall be made within 3 days after the interview. Asylum seekers must be detained when: they entered – or tried to enter –Italian territory illegally. On the basis of this recommendation the Questura can issue a permit of stay for humanitarian reasons. issue residence permits based on broader humanitarian considerations. the procedure of admission to the territory is pending.2. A decision shall be taken within the following 3 days. Asylum-seekers not falling under accelerated procedure are to be interviewed by the Territorial Commission within 30 days from the acquisition of the application by the Questure. a representative of a local administrative body and a member of UNHCR. In principle. a residence permit on humanitarian grounds can be granted to persons at risk of persecution.

Pursuant to this provision. Serbs and Roma people) who entered Italy between 12 May and 6 August 1999. 2000). The project was cofunded by the European Refugee Fund and the Italian Home Office. Some Italian NGOs involved in the reception of forced migrants locally and at a national level felt the need for elaborating a joint project of reception. but it represented the first attempt to coordinate different organizations working on refugee issues. on the lack of a reception system capable of dealing with the phenomenon of mass asylum seeking. CIR. which are scattered in nearly 80 . ICS. They were granted a residence permit valid until 31 December 1999 which could be extended several times and converted into work permits upon expiration. The main aims of NAP are to create and manage – through a network of municipalities – a national system of reception and assistance for asylum seekers and refugees. 4.2. which was named Azione Comune 1999. ‘Azione Comune emerges as the first consistent and coordinated attempt to build up a model of reception to face mass arrivals of displaced people in Italy. CIES. The beneficiaries were not only those refugees fleeing from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but all asylum seekers and refugees without any distinctions of nationality. Five NGOs (Caritas. by the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) and by UNHCR in June 2000 and it officially started to work from January 2001. According to UNHCR (reported in ICS. Azione Comune was implemented with contribution of 11 NGOs and support of UNHCR. The main difference with the previous project was the extension of the target group. The NAP was established jointly by the Italian Ministry on Interior. Furthermore.7 The building of a national reception system: from Azione Comune to National Asylum Programme The mass arrival of displaced people during the Kosovo conflict in 1999 shed light. The NAP network links a number of reception centres. once again. with support of local associations. Servizio Sociale Internazionale) and the International Organization of Migration (IOM) involved in refugee issues at a national and international level signed an agreement with the NAP for coordinating some specific programme areas. Italian municipalities play a key role in planning and implementing the programme activities at territorial level. which are commonly handled in an emergency manner’.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. in cases of war conflicts or natural disasters. The NAP (National Asylum Programme) was born from the experience of Azione Comune with a stronger involvement of institutional and international actors. a Directive of the President of the Council of Ministers of 12 May 1999 accorded special protection to Yugoslav citizens (Kosovo Albanians. It is an important step toward a system of reception and assistance for asylum seekers and for supporting the integration process of refugees and people with residence permits for humanitarian reasons as well. which ‘creates a better social environment for asylum seeker reception and lower the costs of accommodation’. only 6 months. The project had a short life. In 2000 the project was funded again and it saw the participation of a larger number of organisations and institutional partners. Oxford Brookes University measures of temporary protection. by means of a Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers. Such an innovation was not however matched by a corresponding increase of the project budget. the UNHCR evaluation stresses the importance of a dispersed model of reception.

it seems unrealistic to dedicate more resources to these aims. Each asylum seeker signs a contract with the NAP and renounces the financial support provided to those living outside reception structures. their funds may be significantly cut during the year with no possibility of applying for resources other than than those internal to the municipality. The direct involvement of local authorities can be regarded as the main feature of the NAP. as happened in 2002. especially keeping in mind that the client group is constituted by vulnerable people. As a consequence. But due to the further funding reductions for NAP made by the government in the 2002. eventually being obliged to cut part of the. the secretariat collects all available information on the assisted beneficiaries. beyond emergency provisions. Municipalities are selected on an annual basis among those applying through public tender. interviewees in the NAP secretariat emphasised how participation in the programme is open and not compulsory. ‘it is a guarantee against the easy demagogy broadcasted in the mass media and the changes in government attitudes’. A co-ordinating body based in Rome manages the programme and deteremines NAP’s policy. their projects are funded on such short time base. Oxford Brookes University all regions. facilitates the circulation of information within the network and organizes training sessions for operators. The scale of needs can only be tackled through effective networking among the different experiences of the NAP and training programmes for local staff and social workers.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. A central secretariat has been created to monitor the implementation of the programme and to provide technical support to all territorial projects. 2000). already limited. According to an ICS representative. of the country. considering the absence of acceptable alternatives. it is clear that it is a contract in which one party is much weaker than the other. and. on the other hand. But. 4. In such a context. the building up of a network of solidarity grounded in the day-to-day exchange in the field is one of their main goals. because Italy continues to conceive of itself as a country of transit. as stressed by some interviewees.2. As stressed by the interviewee. the allocation of asylum seekers and refugees in reception centres does not really take in consideration family and friendship links. Questioned on this point. Hence. Through their participation in the network a large number of people have had the chance to be mobilised on refugee issues. Through a central database. the state does not supply better services and facilities. local reception centres have faced increasing problems of management. the Italian reception system appears as a circular system of non-reception. Due to limitations of accommodation availability within the network (about 2000 places). Another aspect that needs to be highlighted regards the quality of services and facilities provided to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers do not want to stay in Italy because of the lack of assistance. the Secretariat coordinates the project activities. Most of the municipalities involved in the programme are very small. The NAP dispersal logic seems to be centred not on asylum seekers’ needs but principally on the available capacity of municipalities and NGOs. often in need of psychological support and other specific treatment.7. number of places. and in areas of entry and exit. Moreover. it is often hard to offer high-standard services. Points of concern regarding the asylum reception system As pointed out in the final report of the Nausicaa project (ICS. 81 . Moreover.

The Italian public discourse on migration has been focused on the idea of Italy as a country of emigration or transit. or for those not included in the network 65.336) released by Italian authorities to asylum seekers. In addition. Italy spends less than the EU average on social protection and welfare system. that is. the impact of the new Alien Act (Bossi-Fini Law) and the capability of expanding of National Asylum Programme network are challenged by two major concerns: • 65 The new law. Generally. Oxford Brookes University One outcome of such a vicious circle is that those asylum seekers who remain in Italy or who are proposed for repatriation under the Dublin Convention. despite the fact that it assists on average less than 82 . affects how the legal and institutional frameworks for immigrants and asylum migrants are developed’. which is valid till the first decision on the asylum case. Later. provides insufficient funding either for the reception of NAP’s asylum seekers. in some regions. are deprived of any sort of assistance.refoulement. As Korac (2001) suggests.364) and the number of temporary permits to stay (20. and face an extremely high risk of social exclusion and legal uncertainty. In Korac’s words (2000). It has led to insufficient legal and institutional provisions to meet the needs of asylum seekers in the country. asylum seekers are accommodated in large transit centres where they are identified. The impact of such an approach to migration issues has not been without consequence. and does not have a developed public housing or welfare system for its own citizens. Once asylum seekers receive their temporary leave to remain. either as a country of emigration or a country of immigration. NGOs have reported on the very poor living conditions within the centres and on the implications of the presence of many potential asylum seekers who have been denied the right to apply for this status. they have to leave the transit or the reception centre where they are accommodated and have to search for accommodation in a centre run by NGOs somewhere in Italy. how the state behaves towards its nationals also shapes its approach to the protection of those seeking or granted asylum. ‘the underdeveloped social protection and welfare systems have led to a corresponding approach to assistance for asylum seekers and refugees: the assistance is minimal and commonly does not cover even basic needs such as the provision of shelter and food’. let alone refugees and asylum seekers. The NAP was presented as a national system for reception. the Italian reception system appears to be characterised by a broad variety of practices and actors and by the complete absence of monitoring and evaluation practices based on generally accepted minimum standards of reception. with the correspondingly higher risk of violation of the right of non. as suggested by Carlo Bracci. once arrived in Italy. In 2000 ICS warned that the increasing pressure on controlling illegal migration was leading to a significant reduction in the right to apply for asylum at Italian border check points. ‘how a state ‘imagines’ itself.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Moreover. An alarming element pointed out by Schiavone.000 asylum applicants did not receive a residence permit as stated in the law. This means that more than 13. they are moved to a reception centre where they wait for the temporary residence permit. As stressed by interview accounts. although it seems to institutionalise the NAP as a national reception system based on municipalities’ involvement. Those who are considered not eligible to apply for asylum are moved to detention centres. In other areas of the country people wait for the residence permit in the transit centre. is the gap between asylum applications submitted in 1999 (33.

had to survive independently. They can easily get lost here and have bad or violent behaviour. Iranian woman) Discussing the national integration policy in Italy must take as a starting point the Turco Napolitano Law of 1988. have been outside the formal reception system. at present. Oxford Brookes University The reception network.029 Source: Ministry of Interior in ICS. if the first option is not available. appears unable to handle more than its current caseload despite the huge demand. On the one hand the government has demonstrated its will to institute state control of economic and forced migration. for its own safety.1. The Fund for 2003 is insufficient to cover the costs of the reception of claimants already part of the NAP case-load. in effect. The new Bossi-Fini Law sets up a National Fund for Asylum Policy and Services within the Ministry of Interior.364 8. After the initial reception procedure. a large majority. of the claims receiving a positive determination (both Geneva and humanitarian).3.311 Positive decisions Negative Decisions Humanitarian Claimants status suggested untraceable 809 633 860 6. In our families there are many youths. The rest. asylum seekers are left with only two possible choices: to emigrate to a northern European country or. Helping us should be a duty not only toward us but the whole Italian society. 83 . A further element emerging from the data is that. The impact of this factor is clearly highlighted in the table below regarding 1999. The concern is that such a system will not be able to deal with an increasing number of claimants entering in the reception system. In both circumstances the outcome is that a positive conclusion to the asylum procedure becomes impossible because many of the claimants become. that is the need to support the growing number of people who. A national integration policy? ‘I really cannot understand why Italy does not want to take care of us. Why doesn’t the Italian government do anything? (Masomé. But on the other. Of the asylum claims examined by the Central Commission. the rate is very high at about 73%. for too long reception has been handled in an emergency manner. clandestine immigrants.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration • School of Planning. let alone those outside this system and new arrivals. 2000 4. The NAP relies mainly on the human resources of NGOs and religious agencies who have been working in the field for long time but in the current year there is evidence of difficulties in guaranteeing a satisfactory standard of services in some municipalities. Table 4: Asylum applications submitted and processed in 1999 Asylum applications Asylum submitted applications examined 33. The integration framework 4. As suggested by Schiavone. approximately 72% received a negative response due to the absence of the claimant. This is not just because of financial constraints but also a matter of staff expertise and capacity. in charge of funding local bodies which arrange assistance services for asylum seekers.3. it has neglected the consequence of such intervention. to find friends or relatives somewhere in Italy and look for a job in the informal economy. as well as to adequately train social workers and volunteers. until now. This law was the first coherent attempt to address the issues 3000 asylum claimants and refugees a year.

The main task of the Commission was to elaborate an annual report on integration issues. Prior of this. assuming that those in need will be assisted primarily through the NGOs network and self-help systems established (in the present context) within refugee and migrant communities. Taking that definition as starting point. while the third. the rights of women and the protection of children. as the key instruments for achieving its goals. The members of the Commission were experts. This indirectly favours the already well-established Italian NGOs. I only need a decent job. But I am perfectly sane. which stresses the importance of guaranteeing each individual decent living conditions and a clear legal status. The preference for Italian NGOs and the consequent difficulty for ethnic organisations to make their voice autonomously heard are two major elements which typically produce. the dignity of the person. rather than new agencies developing from within the refugee and ethnic minority communities themselves.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Primo rapporto sull’integrazione degli immigrati and Secondo rapporto sull’integrazione degli immigrati. Oxford Brookes University related to immigrant integration. informal networks and church organisations are the key providers of basic social assistance services for vulnerable individuals. a paternalist policy. The 1998 Alien Act established a new consultative commission on immigrant integration: Commissione per le politiche di integrazione degli immigrati. Zincone (2000) discusses a possible operational definition of integration. This concern has been captured rather well by Masomé: ‘When I am upset with Italians they often tell me to visit a psychologist. I cannot spend the rest of my life in a queue for a warm free meal at Caritas’. Two reports were published. Law 286/1998 largely delegates powers to civil society actors. fragmentation and ghettoisation. Hence integration should prevent situations of marginalisation. which was dedicated to Rome and Sinti. according to Zincone’s analysis. In Italy. a decent house where my children can grow up safely. including migrant co-ethnic organizations. up to the time of the election of the rightwing government in 2002 led by Berlusconi. Principles that cannot be contravened. 2000). is implicit in the 1998 law and is expressed in article 3 of Law 40/1998 where is stated that: ‘Integration is a process of no discrimination and of inclusion of differences. and positive social interaction. which are a challenge to social cohesion. focused above all on new arrivals rather then on migrants already settled. The Commission had been working for three years. The claim is that this encourages them to become self-sufficient and 84 . characterised by care and protection rather than independence and security (Zincone. as highlighted above. practitioners and researchers. as a key factor for a harmonious community relations. it is a process of ‘mixing’ and experimentation of new behaviours and relational forms in the daily attempt to link together universal principles and particular attributes. Furthermore. the report identifies civil society agencies. The political system often abdicates its social duties. was not. In the first report. and affirm universal principles such as the worth of human life. with the chairwoman Giovanna Zincone. not even in the name of protecting differences’. The resulting definition is a combination of two factors: integrity of the individual. the inclusion of migrant organisations is more a wish than a reality since the formal requirements envisaged by the legislation for the participation of NGOs in the integration process are highly demanding. the approach to migration was mainly pragmatic and fragmented. The definition of integration. Nevertheless.

provisions of Alien Acts and other regulations explicitly mentioning refugees and asylum-seekers. As emphasised in the legal section (4. the legal status of refugees and asylum-seekers in Italy is defined by the combination of: provisions applying to all human beings present in the territory. Oxford Brookes University independent (obtaining shelter and employment which provides enough for rent and a modest diet) in a short period. does not have comprehensive legislation on rights accorded to asylum seekers and refugees. The importance of reception procedures and conditions to the eventual integration of those receiving positive status is widely acknowledged in research across Europe. Italy. for the most part the legal provisions are not specifically made for them) can their legal status be established and the scope for subsequent integration be delimited. given the high levels of marginalisation and destitution which asylum seekers experience. as we have emphasised repeatedly. only by examining the complex and disparate legal apparatus relevant to refugees and asylum seekers (even if. As we have seen. only very limited provisions exist (in the Turco Napolitano Law). one of the principal matters raised was the risk that the lack of a firm lead on integration by government could lead to the exploitation and the misrepresentation of migrant issues by political groups.2. and economic migrants. there was a lack of clarity as to whether refugees were to be included or not amongst their statutory duties. Thus. such as those Constitutional norms relating to basic rights. according to Korac (2001). as emerged in the interview with a former member of the Commission. But the lack of any effective political power by migrants and refugees. even within the Commission. amongst the many key issues in contemporary policy with regard to refugees and asylum seekers in Italy. The state’s abdication of a role and responsibility in elaborating and implementing a national integration policy creates the space for a fragmented concept of integration. has effectively relegated the issue of minimum reception standards to a secondary problem. has been another issue on the government and NGOs agenda for a long time. Equally in Italy. Of the concerns emerging in the fieldwork interviews. Moreover. Integration: social rights of asylum seekers and refugees in Italy The lack of a national reception system for asylum seekers and refugees is only a part of a major legal vacuum regarding asylum in Italy. ‘Such an approach to reception and integration reflects’. 1999). as well as the absence of strong migrant organisations capable putting pressure on political authorities. 4. seems more a rationalisation for nonintervention than a considered policy.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. that of integration is the most pressing.3. as the pressure on NGOs to have migrants in their management board grew. In short. which is shaped accordingly to the varied and often conflicting attitudes and ideologies of NGOs and local authorities. Another issue debated within the integration Commission’s report concerns the ‘fragility and volatility’ of co-ethnic organisations whose number has increased significantly in the last few years (Frisano and Ranci. provisions generally referring to aliens normally resident within the territory.2). but such an argument. During the 1990s. the definition of minimum standards of reception both for asylum seekers and refugees. ‘the surviving perception that Italy is not a country of permanent settlement regardless of its declaration in 1990 that it has become a country of immigration’. the building up of ‘manufactured’ ethnic representatives was a frequent phenomenon. 85 .

). in most cases. • Medical assistance with the same conditions of Italian citizens (for refugees see below) • Basic education • Access to vocational courses Financial assistance According to Decree No. This means that very few provisions afford specific consideration of the particular conditions of refugees. Asylum seekers who are accommodated in the reception centres are not entitled to receive this allowance Asylum seekers are not allowed to work during the asylum procedure. in contrast to other legal aliens.5 per day and is paid for only 45 days 66. 86 . according to new provisions of 11 July 2002. such as freedom of religion. renewable until the end of the asylum procedure. Refugee rights Fundamental rights and freedoms. medical doctor. 237/90 of 24 July 1990 implementing the 1990 Aliens Act. which is the average length of the asylum procedure. On the other hand. The following rights are accorded to refugees by internal laws and regulations: • Permit to stay: refugees are given a 2-year residence permit. opinion. if they are not accommodated within a reception centre. • Travel documents: refugees are given a grey-coloured “Convention Travel Document” which is valid for 2 years and renewable. family law. asylum seekers in need who do not benefit from any other form of support may apply for financial assistance.5 per-diem contribution only for 45 days. Oxford Brookes University According to this complex combination of norms. Children are entitled to the same amount as adults. they are entitled to a € 17.12 of the Geneva Convention. according to new provisions of 11 July 2002. points out the impact of long decision time for the asylum claim impacts on the asylum seeker’s physical and mental health. The permit is usually renewed the first time for another 2 years. • Citizenship: according to Italian Law on citizenship. asylum-seekers are entitled to: • Temporary leave to remain. these rights accord with those provided to immigrants legally resident. such as the forced nature of their migration. and entitles travel in European countries for a maximum of 3 months. access to Courts. Refugee rights are far more established than those accorded to asylumseekers.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. The amount granted is € 17. etc. This provision implements Art. It is of course impossible to survive for 12-14 months. privacy exist. • Personal status: pursuant to Italian rules of Private International Law. with the exception of those detained pending the accelerated determination procedure. asylum seekers are not allowed to work and the resulting passivity may further negatively impact on their well-being. According the Italian law. association. then for 4 years. with the exception of those detained pending the accelerated determination procedure. • Freedom of movement within the territory. according to the Schengen Convention provisions on freedom of movement. refugees are not submitted to national laws with regard to personal status (marriage. renewable until the cessation of the status. However. 66 Carlo Bracci.

Medical care includes paediatric assistance to children. €300. They are also entitled to social benefits (pension) provided for by the Ministry of Interior to disabled. • Fundamental rights and freedoms: in particular. Unmarried couples are not entitled to reunification. They are given relevant documents and enjoy all workers’ rights as Italian citizens. refugees can apply for Italian citizenship after 5 years. Persons with other types of residence permits also have the right to family reunification. • Medical assistance: refugees have access to the National Health Service and enjoy medical assistance with the same conditions as Italian citizens: i. which is usually quite low. valid for two years and renewable on a two-year basis. However. but they must meet the requirements applying to immigrants. Persons reunited with a refugee in Italy receive a residence permit for family reasons. i. and are not entitled to further accommodation after recognition. Oxford Brookes University who can apply for citizenship after 10 years of regular residence in Italy. blind and destitute over-65 years old persons. etc. appropriate housing as well as a monthly income at least equivalent to the social pension. in particular.). • Social assistance: refugees have the right to social assistance as available for Italian citizens. Refugees are not counted in the quota of foreign students annually admitted to Italian Universities.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. • University education: refugees may enrol in University courses after recognition of their diploma. dependent parents and dependent relatives within the fourth degree if disabled.e. to study and to be given access to the national health service. the latter can be legalised by the Italian Embassy in the country of origin. through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A special procedure is available in this regard: given the impossibility for refugees to contact their embassies for the legalisation of their diplomas. • Basic education: refugees have rights to basic education. privacy provisions exist regarding the asylum procedure. Medical assistance is usually free of charge. as the time of residence within those centres is limited. children up to 15 years are obliged to attend primary and secondary school. refugees have the right to be accommodated in the same centres provided for asylum seekers. Totally free assistance is recognised under the same conditions for Italian citizens (destitute persons. apart from a small contribution for medicine and examinations. they have right to a medical card and personal family doctor. • Work: refugees are entitled to work with the same conditions of Italian citizens. 87 . The permit allows its holder to work. These include. unmarried minor children. The right to family reunification is not subject to any housing or financial requirements. • Accommodation and basic assistance provided for by local bodies: in principle.e. Convention refugees are entitled to family reunification with their spouse. Family members who have entered Italy illegally may also benefit from family reunification. pregnant women. • Family reunification: Pursuant to Section 28 of Immigration Law 286/98. many refugees have already exhausted the period pending the asylum procedure.

according to some interviewees. ‘there is no question that the crisis of immigrant settlement has provided a revitalizing challenge to the Church in Italy’. while Church-based organizations are frequently criticised by non-religious NGOs as creating a dependent mentality among immigrants. Generally speaking. Furthermore. These organisations act as informal employment agencies and in some cases also help in finding accommodation. which may be appropriate in the short run but is less useful in the long run. where asylum seekers and refugees are particularly disadvantaged because of limited access to and a weak social security system. In some cases these ethnic associations have a strong political background: i. from the perspective state power and influence. for example Rome and Milan. they do not play a significant role in the political arena. ‘the Catholic Church has found a whole new social role as protector of immigrants and it has led the call for tolerant. with very few exceptions they do not participate in national-level decisionmaking processes. In the Italian context.e the Turkish Kurds in Rome. and finding work. civilized and democratic behaviour toward them’. Participation in public life at the local level is more significant given the immediate needs of their communities for basic needs as much as broader political rights and recognition. providing a range of services to the new comers that elsewhere in Europe are the responsibility of the state or private employers. which can apply for municipal or regional funding.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. these ethnic or functional networks may often literally mean survival. There are both formal associations. They have been filling the vacuum created by the lack of a clear public policy and adequate public resources. Lacking a national presence. especially for those just arrived and unable to communicate in a language other than a mother tongue.3. resolving housing problems. leads in practice to an assistance-based approach. There are marked variations in their structure and capacity. and informal ones. Oxford Brookes University 4. peace. women’s and green movements. in notable contrast to Germany and to a lesser extent the UK. play a crucial role in initial stages of reception in a system such as exists in Italy. has traditionally been the main player in provided support to migrants and people in need. Such an approach is s not only a feature of the refugee and migrant client group arena but is deeply rooted in the Italian 88 . According to Hellman (1997:36). RCOs and the social networks they represent. The Catholic ethos underpinning the work of religiously-based organization. Non-Governmental Organizations A distinctive feature of the Italian system is the fundamental role of the NGOs in the reception and integration process: Caritas. the author suggests that. They operate as an alternative ‘selfreception’ system for disseminating information. The secular elements of civil society involved in work with immigrants are the voluntary associations. generally staffed by activists from leftwing. Those more involved in projects rather than advocacy are often part of larger consortia of associations and they act in a consultancy role as ‘representatives’ of a particular ethnic group. Key actors Refugee Community Organizations In the main cities. Focusing at the grass roots.3. a Catholic-church organization. there is an established network of community-based organisations.

3. Most of the support services needed for effective refugee settlement are located in the Rome area. Oxford Brookes University social support system with its origins traced back to the Catholic culture of the country. Rome is the main area for the settlement of asylum seekers and refugees in Italy. • Individuals with Convention status and humanitarian permission to remain have full access to a range of services with minor differences in entitlements • There is no formal integration strategy for refugees • Refugee integration strategy is largely based upon the broader immigration framework but largely locally-based initiatives • NGOs play a key role in providing assistance and social support to refugees and asylum seekers.4 Conclusions to sections 4.-4. policy and psychological terms. Central/Regional relations. although the work of some nationally-based NGOs guarantees some coordination and coherence in the reception activities. Finally. reflecting the recent character of refugee settlement in the area. has established a sort of precedent for assistance-based policies which at various stages and in different areas of the country have bee partially emulated by the state at national and local level. as scholars noted. Emerging from the discussion of the integration framework the key features of the Italian system are: • Italy’s long and intense experience as a country of emigration has conditioned citizenship policy with a clear preference accorded to ethnic descent • The switch from being a land of mass emigration to one of mass immigration found the country quite unprepared in legal. Venice’s role and response must be 89 . Tuscany represents an example of a regionally-based system of reception with large participation of NGOs in the decision-making process.4 Case study locations Three principal locations were chosen for fieldwork: Rome. It represents a more recent area of settlement. Tuscany is a region characterised by a dispersed model of reception. Venice and Tuscany are less developed in these respects. NGO and voluntary groups as well as the bulk of RCOs in the country. The decentralisation of policy formation and the fragmentation of practices of intervention is a main feature of the Italian model.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.3. It is a leitmotiv of the Italian way to deal with migrant issues and. Tuscany and Venice. These include a dense network of statutory. Rome has some established refugee communities.1. 4. A common feature is the lack of data on refugee settlement and living condition. • The absence of state-led integration leads to multiplication of meanings of ‘integration’ and to fragmentation of practices 4. Recent refugee settlement in Venice partially explains the few developed refugee communities. Tuscany offers a dispersed model of asylum seeker and refugee reception does not facilitate ethnic concentration. The contrasting factors are: Infrastructure and services. Existing community settlement and size of ethnic communities. Venice is at the same time both an entry gate and a place of settlement.

Refugees living in the region are mostly Kurds and Yugoslavia Roma.467 foreigners living in the region (about 7% of total). According to Caritas (2002).Jesuit Refugee Service.915 (TCI. Top-5 countries of origin: Philippine. Centro Astalli . are obliged to spend all day wandering around.1. Tuscany Region Total population of 3. Main city: Florence (383. According to data provided by Caritas Report 2002. 1998). Medici Senza Frontiere.Focus. Romania. 4.4. estimated 1000 asylum seekers in 2001. 16 of them have an agreement with Rome's special Bureau on Immigration (USI). this is limited to nine months. The statistics for 2000 suggest that in fact 95% of the spaces are occupied by asylum seekers. It is hard to estimate the number of asylum seekers in Rome. The agreement states that one third of the places must be reserved for asylum seekers. ICS (2000) estimates. Most asylum seekers live in the neighbourhood of the city of Rome itself. In Veneto there are 127. that there are approximately 1900 asylum seekers in Rome. Poland. the number of foreigners living in Rome is 212. Medici Contro la Tortura. Caritas. Rome: gateway to somewhere else The number of asylum applications submitted in Rome is not large. Oxford Brookes University framed in the context of the city’s political orientation in the Veneto region. About 40% come from a European country. but the Italian capital represent a key point of transit for those who wants to leave Italy and is an important location for those waiting for status determination from the central Commission. who are not allowed to work officially. Casa dei Diritti Sociali . Estimated 1. The main NGOs working in the asylum field are: CIR (Italian Refugee Council). Moreover. In the Nausicaa report. In the capital district there are 26 reception centres for foreigners.654 million (TCI.095.523 million. As a result asylum seekers. A major concern regarding these reception centres is the fact that they are built for migrant workers and residents are thus not allowed to stay in the centre from early in the morning until evening. despite the presence of some very high quality providers. ICS (Italian Consortium of Solidarity).900 asylum seekers (Nausicaa. Bangladesh.00). Ass. 2000). whilst the asylum procedure lasts on average much longer. there is a little turn over. taking into account the applications for 'early assistance contribution’ and the number of people living in reception centres.588 foreigners (9. while very few claimants residing in the rest of the region. there are 94.4% of total). Due to the long waiting time for receipt of a status decision. Virtus Ponte Mammolo. Venice Population. No data available on refugees settled.298. CIES. Rome Total population in 1997 of 2. regarding the stay in the reception centre. Ass. Albania. 1998).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Concerning services provided to asylum seekers and refugees in Rome. the lack of co-ordination and often the competition among NGOs in the region produces a waste of resources which could be far better and more effectively deployed. and consequently a long waiting list for getting a place in one of the centres. Servizio Rifugiati e Migranti della Federazione delle Chiese 90 .

and the training of cultural mediators (CIES).2. Servizio Sociale Internazionale has a monopoly in the field of advocating the recognition of foreign degrees and diplomas. Most of the agencies provide specific services to asylum seekers and refugees. Oxford Brookes University Evangeliche (FCEI). whose membership overlaps. L'Ass. Asylum seekers and refugees contribute paying a small rent. CDS tries to link together both assistance and advocacy. Fatebenefratelli. a key position in the Italian migration system. which provide a intensive medical and psychological support to victims of torture. The local authority in Rome tends to delegate services to the private sector. the smaller organisations notably tend to be more sectoral.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. After a one-year training programme graduates are employed in different services. Borgo San Lorenzo. The main change occurred 91 . ‘it is very helpful to work in parallel on these two aspects because this allows more efficient employment of resources and to provide better and more holistic support to asylum seekers in need’. 4. i. Ass. Azad. Senzaconfine and Ass. run by NGOs. run one of the few accommodation centres in Rome. where successful graduates from its programmes are placed.Egidio. It trains cultural mediators. Tuscany had only one asylum seeker reception centre for Kurds in Cecina. In Italy this procedure is particularly bureaucratic and tortuous. The cultural mediator position is one of the few highly qualified posts available in the Italian public sector for migrants. In some public hospitals. Police headquarters. This is a revealing comment on the lack of coordinated policy and provision for refugee reception and integration in Italy – the motif of this chapter. Virtus Ponte Mammolo. S. Organizations with a national profile are often weakly rooted in the territory. founded a few years ago. are small groups who have been working hard to place migration and refugee issues on the political agenda in the capital. Meanwhile some with a considerable potential for advocacy prefer to not be involved at this level. asylum seeker reception was run individually and sporadically by NGOs and voluntary groups.4. Senzaconfine and AZAD. What follows is an overview of the recent history of asylum seeker and refugee reception in Tuscany. As stressed by a lawyer in Rome. Cecina and Volterra. Tuscany: a regional system of reception A number of interviews were undertaken with refugees and community groups in Florence. opting instead to provide basic services with a low public profile. within the framework of immigrant reception. CIES has agreements with many public offices such as the Interior Ministry. The largest part of this responsibility concerns the management of reception centres. Up to 1998. Comunità di S. schools. The agency’s focus is to work on the integration of their clients within the local community. providing a very high quality service. During 1990s. A municipal office (USI) allocates asylum seekers to the different centres and supervises the activities of NGOs working for the Commune. Another specialist agency is Medici Contro la Tortura. Servizio Sociale Internazionale.e.Gallicano. there are some professionals who work together informally on issues such as victims of torture. CIES is a highly professional agency and it works in the specific field of employment.

there was no budget allocation until 2000 (ICS. Later. Once the NATO bombing ended. no electricity. At a regional level. Those who were unable to access either of these options had little choice but to become illegal and invisible. Unfortunately. Two main aspects emerge: regarding the audience. the Interior minister notified all local police divisions and border check-points that the ‘extraordinary measures’ were rescinded since the war was officially over. They. within the national framework programme called Azione Comune. the first semi-structured and co-ordinated network of asylum seeker reception centres. Indicative of the markedly poorer conditions which the Roma experience is the evidence from fieldwork at the so-called 'Masini's camp' in Florence: ‘irregular’ Roma and Geneva Convention refugees share the same barracks and tents and the dramatically inadequate living conditions (no running water. Lacking clear international recognition of an ethnic conflict in the terms of experience at the start of the decade. building up. it helps to develop ‘empathetic’ feelings. On 12th May 1999 the Prime Minister Decreed ‘extraordinary measures of protection for FRY displaced people'. shantytowns in the neighbourhood of the major cities. ECRI (2002) reports. family and friendship networks attracted a growing number of displaced Roma who often were not recognised as refugees. a small reception community. This process leads necessarily to an analysis of ones’ own past and present. no schooling). Initially this was because there was no other choice. asylum seekers are involved in community building which has as its main focus their own experience and the importance of being able to communicate it to others. They had only two possible choices for legally staying in Italy: to seek asylum or to try to be regularised by an amnesty for economic migrants. member of the National Asylum Programme (PNA). In Volterra.000 Roma arrived in Italy during the spring/summer of 1999. which are a primary element in any attempt to work on integration as a two-way process. NGOs and lawyers begin to work on this issue and to campaign to guarantee non-refoulement for Kosovars. It is estimated that about 10. has developed a programme based on theatre training. 2000). through a technique called ‘reportage-theatre’. at the same time there were no ad hoc protection measures in place either. Roma found protection only in camps. NGOs and the several medium-to-small reception initiatives run by local city councils began to network. Oxford Brookes University in late '98 with the first flow of Kosovars.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. The project leader has been working for a long time with refugees and their experiences. Many Kosovars could not be included in the extraordinary temporary protection measure having arrived in Italy before the official start of the war. Deciding to participate in a project such as the one of Volterra. ‘have benefited comparatively less than other groups from the various opportunities for regularization’. The Italian Interior Ministry started to allocate specific resources for refugee reception and to sign agreements with local authorities. The dispersal of those who were unable to receive temporary protection is an unsolved problem in the Azione Comune programme. NGOs begin to lobby with local authorities. workshops and performances. The Tuscany regional administration’s reaction was positive and in 1998 Tuscany established that 20% of the National Immigration Fund expenditure would be spent for displaced Kosovars. In the project director’s words: 92 . The second aspect concerns the ‘actors’. paying special attention to the journey of asylum seekers from their homeland to the country of refuge. The focus of the ‘hidden theatre’ is the tale of the asylum experience.

Because the port of Venice is a key entry point along the north-east border of the country. 93 . Venice is seen as a political laboratory where reformist and sometimes cutting-age ideas are experimented. which started to provide free medical treatment for sans-papiers around Venice and Padua. The main aim of this project .3. in mid-2001. Iraqi. It is a two-room container where newcomers can have a shower and ask for basic information. recently refurbished apartments.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. an information point is located at the maritime station. My principle aim is not to create actors.4. there has been pressure to restructure the services already available and to establish new services. The significance of this innovative city council decision lies in the acknowledgement of the importance of progressing from emergency solutions. Kurds. to support repatriation. Iranians. which became the centre for all the displaced people who up to that time were living in destitute conditions all around the city. is the electoral base of the ruling coalition. Tensions emerge in both camps and the police had to intervene to guarantee public security. in small.’ 4. the number of asylum seeker is estimated in 1000 (ICS. in same cases. Another camp was built in San Giuliano in 1994. Somali and Yugoslavs. In Venice itself. Amongst other initiatives the following are noted.project Mila . the city council of Venice decided to address the need of these forced migrants by building a refugee camp. Reception and other services are designed. An analogous service is provided at Fiumicino airport in Rome. through medical neglect. In the last decade the administration of Venice has been led by left and centre left governments. Zelarino. 2000). despite the intention for them to be a temporary solution. with its large industrial plants.was to facilitate the exit of those living in the camps and their settlement in ordinary flats or houses in the city or in its neighbourhood or. lodged both downtown and in the old city centre. of a number of illegal migrants has led to initiatives by regional governments such as Veneto. mainly Turks. The camp was directly managed by the municipality. the city hosted 100 people of different nationalities. for economic migrants. such as camps. as happens in most of Italy. Thus. in fact experienced little turn over since there was no other ‘move-on’ accommodation programme. to longer term provision where the goal is integration of refugees and due recognition for their autonomy. In 1999 the city council adopted a project for the progressive disbanding of the two camps. following the emergency situation in Former Yugoslavia and the arrival of large numbers of displaced people. Venice municipality is constituted by Venice and Mestre which is a working class borough and together with Marghera. In 1993. Oxford Brookes University ‘This type of experience is of course not just theatre. the scandal caused by the deaths. Venice: political laboratory In Veneto region. In 1998. In the Italian political context. but to give to the asylum seekers living here as many tools as I can to interpret and understand our society. Given the increasing number of asylum seekers and refugees. Both camps. and at Malpensa airport in Milan. Often their limit is not to understand how better communicate their experience to us. These comprise both families and single person households. when newly displaced people arrived in Venice following later stages of the war in the Balkans no space was available for these newcomers.

which is structured in five main parts each managed by a different NGO: • Darsena project: 9 families (41 people) are accommodated in flats in Venice and Marghera. As reported in the Tuscany section. Residents receive a small amount of pocket money. Costs of the accommodation are partially covered for the first few months by the project funds. the reception centre in Volterra can be regarded as an example of good and innovative practice in the Italian context. indeed. There are a number of innovative actives to assist integration. a distinctive feature of the reception centre. which focuses on asylum seeker and refugee reception and integration. despite this positive evidence.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. • Exile Café: The café is in the historic centre of Venice. Venice has had a Refugee Bureau. Consequently few resources are provided nationally and programmes are sporadic and lack co-ordination. It is part of the National Asylum Programme. The Bureau at present co-ordinates and monitors the implementation of the Fontego project. The focus on theatre training. and occasionally refugees.4. Through the work of experienced staff it has developed a model of public reception which is unique in Italy. flats and rooms in the private market once State assistance is withdrawn. Its main goal is to offer refugees and asylum seekers an informal meeting place and information. Since 1994. highlights some interesting elements regarding integration and simultaneously offers asylum seeker and 94 . Practices of integration As noted in earlier sections. 4. integration of refugees is not a high priority in the Italian political landscape. On the other hand. • Boa project: 50 asylum seekers. they also receive financial support for food and basic needs. The project is funded by the European Community (European Refugee Fund) and the Ministry of Interior.4. are lodged in Fort Rossarol in two-bedroom accommodation with shared bathroom and kitchen. A caseworker facilitates their access to general public services. Another aim is to facilitate the integration of refugees in their new environment. typifies the pattern found in the rest of the country. Another goal is to create a place open to the rest of the city. There is no recognisable strategy for integration. • Cason project: This provides asylum seekers and refugees with support in the search for apartments. Nonetheless there are examples of good practice. All this is in marked contrast to the other two case study regions of Italy and. to the rest of Italy as well. Oxford Brookes University Starting in June 2001 Venice City Council commenced a project entitled Fontego. there is clearly a significant level of activity in Venice and the Veneto region with regard to the needs of refugees and asylum seekers. talk or just drink a coffee and thus achieve some measure of social exchange and integration • Voluntary repatriation: The Refugee Bureau and International Organization of Migration coordinate repatriation plans for those whose asylum claims are rejected and for those voluntarily choosing to repatriate to their homeland. In summary. as well as socio-psychological support. where Italians and refugees can exchange ideas. the picture which emerges of fragmented and patchy provision which is both reactive and under-resourced.

to get in touch with host citizens as one way of restoring a ‘normal’ life.4. mostly only deal with asylum seekers • Low levels of funding and unanticipated budget cutbacks by central government which necessitate local authorities reassessing their strategies. 4. the latter notably with regard to accommodation indicate some of the more proactive tendencies which are beginning to emerge in Italy. A potentially important point emerging from interview narratives is that it appears easier in Italy.4. than in other European countries. • Short term projects dependent on funding allocation system. 67 It is worth to note that in Italy it is very uncommon that Italians think about former Yugoslavia countries as Mediterranean. despite the geographical proximity they are perceived as ‘the Balkans’. Regarding the point on learning the host country language. Lack of language training is also notable by the absence of provision.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Fieldwork in the three principle locations highlights some crucial points regarding local integration strategies and the relationship between local and central authorities: • Lack of dedicated structures capable of addressing the specific needs of asylum seekers and refugees • The instrumentality of local political contexts. This view seems to be supported also by the comparative research conducted in Rome and Amsterdam on former Yugoslav refugees by Maja Korac (2001). This perception has been analysed with regards to the Italian indifference for the ‘90s wars in the region (see Rastello. The need to support and facilitate greater independence must be particular objective in the Italian case where the culture of imposed dependency makes it very difficult for asylum seekers to express their life in Italy. although usually stated in terms of including both asylum seekers and refugees. 1997) 95 . Similarly in Venice. which is sometimes described as a Mediterranean country like their own 67. This is particularly significant in a country such as Italy where the willingness but discretionary ‘attitude’ of NGOs and individual civil servants is a key factor. despite the huge voids in the official reception system. The need for voice and a more assertive role for RCOs in articulating the process of integration are also notable for their absence in Italy. let alone systematic programmes across the country. In Korac’s report interviewees highlight how they feel at home in Italy.5 Conclusion to section 4. it is very hard to have any sort of solidarity. Oxford Brookes University refugee as well as the hosts valuable perspectives on their different societies which can only aid integration processes. Sale suggests: Until one is not able to find a common language with the other people living in the centre. the active work of the agencies and the City Council. those who speak his own language. One tends to rely only on his own co-ethnics. the political orientation of local authorities and the established NGO network in the definition of integration strategies • Nearly-absence of data on refugees and their living conditions • Presence of many small pilot projects which inevitably leave out the bulk of asylum seekers and refugees • Refugees never appear as primary target group of social policies which.

in migrant integration at a national level can only partially be justified by the recent shift from a country of emigration to one of immigration. is the most noticable. Oxford Brookes University Conclusions This chapter has emphasised the near-absence of a refugee integration in the contemporary political and policy landscape of Italy. local authorities are not tightly reined in by the centre and have some room for manoeuvre. Funding programmes. In Italy. the premature ending of the Commission as a consequence of the change in political orientation of Italy’s government in 2002. and prevailing. by and large it is NGOs. As a consequence. criterion for becoming a citizen of Italy. unfortunately. remained at a low level given the scale of potential demand. which have dealt with the logistical issues posed by the reception and integration of asylum seekers and refugees.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration 4. as one of the key factors. As in the UK case. although improved under the centre-left coalition. Moreover there are some opportunities for independent scope for policy development. their underdevelopment in Italy should be investigated and its causes adequately addressed. Italy preserves features typical of emigration countries: restrictive citizenship law. decentralisation is strictly linked to the abdication by the central government of its responsibility regarding migrant reception. The under-investment in terms of resources and personnel suggests a lack of political will in this area. Concerning the involvement of non-state agencies in the integration process. voluntary agencies have all been delegated central roles in the settlement of refugees in Italy. Local authorities lack access to national and European funding programmes and sub-delegate NGOs to implement their projects. especially from catholic backgrounds. this statistical fact has been used time and again as the pretext for the very poor reception provisions for migrants and asylum seekers. The ius sanguinis is clearly identified as the main. or the very recent and limited interest. particularly. The lack of interest. Another central issue is the degree of de-centralisation of control and decision. As stressed in the chapter. with regard to NGOs. The efforts made in the late 1990s by the Commission on Immigrants’ Integration to develop a conceptual framework to address integration issues did not. The chapter suggests. sheds light on the fact that integration is not a key issue in the national political arena – indeed rather the reverse. There are a range of issues over the role of NGOs and RCOs which urgently require clarification. asylum in Italy has been characterised by its relatively late development as a distinctive policy area. lead to sensitive practice. A relative new comer in the field of in-migration and notably for refugees and asylum seekers. based on descent. the fight for public resources which sees established national NGOs in a position of advantage. As far as RCOs are concerned. But this is in the context of very limited national political concern and still less the dedication of adequate resources to support integration initiatives at 96 . as their state-substitutive roles impact upon the capacity to address the long-term settlement needs of asylum seekers and refugees. as highlighted in the chapter.5 School of Planning. From a comparative EU perspective. Like the German case. Moreover. the condition of settled communities has tended to be of peripheral concern to immigration social policy makers. The political debate on immigration is strongly focused on new flows of migration and especially on undocumented migration (so-called clandestini). NGOs. Immigration and integration are still partisan issues.

which produce a variety of outcomes.e. Oxford Brookes University the local level. can directly access national and European funding and implement their own projects directly. refugees). The resulting fragmentation of the idea of integration leads to a variety of practices. Their lack of power and their dependency is based first of all on the uncertainty of their legal rights and then on the lack of basic entitlements. more generally. The fundamental issue in Italy with respect to both integration and. this produces a fragmentation of practices with very varied and different quality standards. an understanding of the situation of refugees and asylum seekers derives from a cultural and academic vacuum: the fact that there are poorly developed tools of inquiry. Generally speaking. This lack of a national framework is particularly relevant in the Italian context because this leaves any definition of integration largely to the agencies active on the ground. The lack of political visibility for the issue is reflected in academic debate on integration. that the analysis has had to be conducted on many different administrative levels and with the participation of many varied actors involved in the process (i. the fact that there have been relatively few applications for asylum in Italy does not mean that there are few people in need of protection from persecution. What does all this imply with regard to the definition of Italy’s integration paradigm? Firstly. none of whom appear to share a consistent or cohesive view of the scope process and objectives of integration. A major concern regarding the resource allocation system is the short-term basis of most of the funded projects. Little attention is paid to refugees and asylum seekers: the focus of debate such as it is lies on economic migrants. 97 . In a context of very weak coordination such as occurs in the Italian case. On the other hand. the issue of integration therefore tends to be reduced to the simple factor of ‘finding a job’. interpretation and analysis. volunteers.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. This lack of interest by academics can be linked to the relatively recent arrival of asylum seekers in Italy. In this millieu. Nationally-based NGOs. the marginal role played by refugees and asylum seekers in such an ‘a-systemic’ system is even more marked than in Germany and certainly in contrast to the UK. NGOs. or large NGO consortia. limited data and limited exchange between researchers with each other and with the categories and groups which are the subject of their inquiry. with a larger internal coherence between policy and practice.

It provides a synopsis of findings based on is a desk study of secondary sources. 2000). journal articles and a web search of government sites. more general. The data for the chapter are presented in the Appendix Volume which provides a short profile of each of these 12 EUMS. 2000) contained a tabulated version of the ECRE material.1 Sources Several surveys of policy and practice relating to the integration of third country immigrants into host countries in Europe have already been carried out and this report has drawn extensively on these. examines the policy fields related to integration based on the following variables Financial assistance. 2001). These surveys provided an extremely useful framework in terms of country coverage and policy overview for the current literature survey. examines the issue of residence status (5. Statistical data are published by OECD (2001) and UNHCR (2001). 2002) and are notable for being supported by statistical data and for feeding into comprehensive information services within Denmark. country-by-country survey (ECRE. SEON Foundation.8). include labour and family reunion migrants as well as asylum seekers in their annual overview of world migration flows. Housing. A comprehensive survey of integration practice in EU countries was carried out with EU funding for refugee. public attitudes (IOM.4). However. 2001) and good practice (ECRE.6). The Danish government publications deserve special mention for the thoroughness of their analysis (2001. The background paper to an ECRE conference on integration held in Antwerp in 1998 included another useful.9).net website. There are some useful reports compiled by NGOs on various aspects of integration. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) produces periodic country profiles which cover demographic and legal aspects of migration but also look at the socio-economic conditions for exiles in host countries and any changes which have occurred since the previous reports (ECRE. Freedom of movement.net: the findings are presented in tabulated form on the refugee.2). 5. 1998). 2001. they were only a starting point 98 . and by government departments (Dutch Bureau against Racial Discrimination. Citizenship (5. Oxford Brookes University 5 Integration Policy and Practice in 12 EU Member States: A Literature Survey This chapter complements the detailed case studies with a survey of integration policy and practice in the remaining 12 EUMS. This chapter: reviews the sources of the data (5. assesses the presence of foreign populations (5. The reports of the Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD/SOPEMI. Employment.finfo.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. All these reports deal mainly with people who claim to have suffered persecution in their countries of origin. a 2000 report commissioned by the Danish Refugee Council (Liebaut. 1999). explores the differing concepts of citizenship with respect to the 12 countries (5. Education and training. NGO and refugee group.5). explores the barriers to integration (5.dk). Language training. including a practical manual for local authority and other workers in the field of integration (see http://www. The evidence is drawn from a wide variety of English language sources – books. particularly employment (British Refugee Council. Family reunification. and finally considers matters of discrimination (5. compares administrative regimes for integration (5. 2000b). Most of this material is available on the internet.3). 2000). on the other hand. reviews the differing chronologies of legislation and policy related to refugees and integration (5.7).1).

This survey has not investigated individual countries’ interpretations of the meaning of the term ‘integration’. in some respects. Oxford Brookes University and. adjustment and social inclusion and that countries. particularly when it comes to making comparisons between countries. 99 . it also has weaknesses. a definitive work on the scale and implications of 20th century migration. However. Access to citizenship. otherwise. settlement. inclusion. the material is patchy or repetitive. they are not an entirely satisfactory resource. NGOs and refugee groups for confirmation of specific facts or further details in order to provide a more rounded picture of aspects of integration in practice in a particular country. The survey for this report has attempted to eradicate some of these shortcomings by drawing also on papers in academic books and journals and by searching through a large number of web sites of government departments. Some of the surveys are evidently responses to questionnaires and are distorted by the desire to find answers to all the questions. rarely defined in country context nor is it necessarily specified which groups of migrants are involved or what they are to be integrated into. acculturation. that the material is completely up-to-date. incorporation. In some cases. Short summarized entries can be misleading if qualifying detail is omitted. dedicated to assimilation. Jordana and Sayers on Portugal. and negative or positive aspects of integration policy and practice in a particular country may be exaggerated disproportionately. Heller and Zolberg (1996. Sitabopoulos on Greece. in particular Silva. for example.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. including assimilation. especially Westin on Sweden and Pennix on the Netherlands). adaptation. such as the Netherlands. This report recognizes that ‘integration’ is an umbrella term for summarizing a wide variety of facets of immigrant experience and possible trajectories and outcomes. In the time available. it assumes that all integration policies will have as their ultimate aim enjoyment by immigrants of comparable rights to those enjoyed by nationals and a commitment to comparable civic responsibilities. Bauböck. Author bias and subjectivity is sometimes apparent. Some countries have included a definition in their integration legislation but it is. either in terms of funding or of the number of people involved. probably depending partly on whether the material was provided by an official or a member of a migrant group. However. Joly and Cohen (1989. or to visit the countries involved for corroboration. Spain and the Netherlands respectively) and articles in the Journal of Refugee Studies (notably Van Selm on the Netherlands. Among the most valuable sources for conceptualizing integration and providing background information on the situation in individual countries are Castles and Miller (2003). is usually much more complex than a simple statement of the number of years of residence required in order to qualify might imply. so the information in them is not always compatible or comprehensive and it is difficult to infer a comparative scale of significance between items of information. They are generally compiled from submissions by a number of different contributors. The detail provided varies between countries and between various aspects of integration and individual programmes. interpret the term differently from multicultural countries. nor was there sufficient time to interview national or local government and NGO officials. only secondary sources in the English language could be consulted and there was no opportunity to look at daily newspapers and other topical resources to ensure. augmentation or qualification of the findings. Abiri on Sweden and Delouvin on France). as far as is possible. not necessarily in proportion to the size of the project. individual migrants or community groups. sometimes inconsistent with other surveys or even within the same survey and not always clearly dated. such as France.

even though those who eventually become permanent residents may comprise the group most in need of integration support. Spain and Sweden).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. such as residents who have been in a country for many years but have never applied for or been eligible for citizenship. The UNHCR figures for the population of concern have had to be estimated from applications for asylum in the previous 10 years for 7 of the countries in the survey (Austria. nevertheless. Ireland. such as students. naturalization and participation in periodic legalization programmes for undocumented migrants which vary between countries. Several different groups of aliens are quantified in this section. Moreover. new potential candidates are arriving daily. not only is it unclear from the literature exactly which groups of new arrivals and foreign residents are considered to be in need of ‘integration’. or those who enter and remain in the country illegally. although all agree that refugees should qualify for any integration assistance which is available. In addition. It is apparent that. The foreign population figures. they exclude groups who may. which means that even well-intentioned governments are finding it difficult to plan ahead and devise strategies for coping. Finland. No country has reliable records of the number of recognized refugees residing within its borders. The table below gives figures for asylum seekers in 2001. such as those who acquired citizenship by reasons of birthplace or parentage but who remain linguistically or culturally foreign. On the other hand. be perceived as marginalized in their host countries. The numbers claiming asylum are generally recorded accurately but asylum seekers are not generally eligible for integration programmes. 100 . Denmark. Germany and Italy). but also many who do.2 Foreign populations The population figures quoted in this section have been extracted from tables in the OECD Report (2001). for example. except for the ‘population of concern’ figures which are taken from the UNHCR web site (2001). Oxford Brookes University This literature review covers the following 12 EU countries: Austria Finland Ireland Portugal Belgium France Luxembourg Spain Denmark Greece Netherlands Sweden It excludes the 3 case study countries which form the subject of the main body of this report (UK. but also that none of the countries are able to accurately quantify the need. but the figures are only an indication of the potential ‘market’ for integration programmes and none of them are a satisfactory measure of the number of people involved. The numbers of new foreigners arriving each year also include groups who do not require integration. Netherlands. Profiles for each of the 12 countries are arranged under the following headings: 5. or citizens of other European countries. North America and Australasia. such as family reunion arrivals. usually in the form of spontaneous asylum seekers. official figures for the size of the foreign population are conditioned by the rates of repatriation. include groups who are unlikely to be expected to participate in integration programmes.

906 1. but with a tradition of centralized planning for the reception of refugees and other immigrants in the context of a long history of concern for human rights (until. are highly urbanized and have absorbed newcomers into their municipal structure. a recent swing to the political right and increasing hostility to immigration). The ease with which new immigrants are integrated into a host country does not seem to bear a direct relationship to the density or size of the indigenous population (see table.219 2.2 First instance recognition percentage 17 13 13 44 41 59 2 10 19 27 3 Normal case processing time (months) 7 12 6 5 10-12 13 21 Source: Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (June 2002) Factsheet Denmark Another feature of foreign populations which does not appear in the figures is the distribution of immigrants within a country.000 inhabitants 8 21 38 24 27 23 27 2.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. especially since most countries have now devolved responsibility for integration to the regions and municipalities. which is highly significant for integration planning. Dense populations. other than through records of the number of immigrants who come to the attention of the authorities.651 689 192 No. whereas integration has been more successful in Denmark. even in those countries which practise the enforced dispersal of newly arrived refugees and asylum seekers. They gravitate to cities where they are more likely to find work and to make contact with family and co-ethnic communities and networks.263 32. but none of the countries publish regional distribution figures and it is likely that only a few municipal or regional governments collect their own data or. of asylum seekers received France The Netherlands Austria Belgium Sweden Denmark Ireland Spain Greece Finland Luxembourg Portugal 47. also with a small population of just 5 million.549 23.579 30. Oxford Brookes University Table 5: Asylum 2001 Country No. 101 . that is. but low density populations in Finland and Sweden are restricted by the physical geography of the countries and are also highly concentrated in urban regions: in Sweden.135 24. indeed have a mechanism for doing so. Immigrants are heavily concentrated in a few large urban areas in all the countries in the survey. 65% of the immigrant population lives in just 13 cities. Ireland with a population of only 4 million has had difficult absorbing new arrivals because of the religious and ethnic homogeneity of the indigenous population.4 4 3 16 0.324 9. Density of population appears to be less an indication of the chances of successful integration of newcomers than its distribution.513 13. ethnic composition and experience of discrimination.403 10. below) or the proportion of new arrivals to permanent residents. of asylum seekers per 10. for example Belgium and the Netherlands.

Oxford Brookes University Table 6 Population density and GNP Country Population (millions) Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Ireland Netherlands Greece Portugal Spain Sweden 8 10 5 5 59 4 16 11 10 39 9 Population density (per sq km) 98 312 125 17 107 54 466 82 109 79 22 GNP (billion $) 210 251 170 123 1427 71 384 124 106 552 222 GNP (thousand $ per capita) 26 25 32 24 23 19 24 12 11 14 25 Source: World Bank (2001) World Development Report 2000-1: Attacking Poverty Wealthy countries with more centralized control have more detailed and more accurate statistical records than the poorer countries and these variations make comparisons between the countries difficult. Immigrants joining large ethnic communities slot into communities with their own associations and services which help newcomers to feel at home but may also be perceived as 102 . The attraction of a destination country to immigrants is undoubtedly affected to some extent by the strength of its economy although. and these countries have highly developed services and aging populations which are dependent on foreign labour. again. a phenomenon which can be explained partly by cultural difference but also by prejudice and racism. The southern European states have less well-funded integration programmes but also exert less control on immigrant populations and offer more opportunities for working in the illegal economy. but they also exert more control over illegal work and entry. The table. the relationship of migration flows and subsequent integration to GNP is not straightforward. Immigrants from former colonies are in a special category as they are likely to share culture and language with the host country: migrants from Suriname to the Netherlands. Countries receiving mainly European or homophonic immigrants face different problems of integration from those whose integration programmes need to cater for a much wider spectrum of countries of origin. Governments in the northern European countries with high GNP are able to spend more on integration assistance and welfare support. for example. above. Another item of information presented in the ‘foreign populations’ section is the main countries of origin of migrants which has an important influence on the ease with which integration is achieved.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. shows GNP per capita in the 12 countries in the survey. A case in point is the suspicion of Muslims living in Christian countries which has undoubtedly increased since September 11th 2001. The presence in a host country of an existing community of migrants from a source country or of family members is believed to be one of the strongest influences in attracting further immigration. Research in many of the countries included in the survey has concluded that the greater the contrast between phenotype of immigrants and the native population the more likely they are to be marginalized. some of them culturally and ethnically very different from the host country. appear to have achieved almost total integration and a position comparable to natives in the Dutch labour market. but more as a source of support and information to the prospective migrant than as an indicator of the ease with which integration can be achieved.

it would be very useful to know more about the age. The relationship between immigration and crime is another area which is only just beginning to receive attention although it is known that some immigrants trying to make their way in a new country remain hostages to traffickers and other organized crime networks for many years and discrimination is also known to operate within the justice systems in many countries.000 applicants in Belgium’s campaign held in 2000) give some indication of the size of these hidden populations. has shown strong resistance to settlement by large groups from Albania and other neighbouring Balkan countries. in general. which welcomes the immigration of Pontian and other ethnic Greeks. where there is no recognition of the concept of minority groups. gender. should have considerable implications for policy (Spain 16:1. In contrast to the large numbers of 103 . Portugal 7:1. but. there is no ethnic monitoring of figures in Sweden and Finland for civil rights reasons (although individual PIN numbers can be used to break down unemployment figures in Sweden into nationality and country of origin groups) nor in France. the Netherlands and Luxembourg record the country of origin and nationality. Greece. A notable exception is the statistical survey of the foreign population in Denmark which is now being published annually by the Danish government. language skills and educational background of possible candidates for integration programmes. for political reasons. The number of foreigners available for work and the rate of unemployment among ethnic minorities are highly significant if the aim of integration programmes is seen as economic self-sufficiency. and their marginalization ultimately affects the integration of the majority who stay. although the unemployment figures in Austria. None of the countries in the survey are able to accurately quantify the numbers of undocumented migrants and failed asylum seekers living within their borders. Lack of resources. though their presence within ethnic communities undoubtedly affects the perception and acceptance of immigrants by the host country. Oxford Brookes University a threat by indigenous populations. In Spain. such policies have tended to be based on co-ethnicity (eg recently returned descendants of emigrants from Portugal) or colonial ties (eg the Netherlands Integration Programme which targeted specific ethnic groups in the 1970s and 80s) rather than need. However. communities of Muslim West Africans have experienced particular difficulty in achieving integration in Ireland. such analyses of foreign population figures are not available. Netherlands 8:1. Belgium 6:1. There is very little data available relating ethnicity or length of residence to poverty or wealth differentials and other vital indicators of social exclusion and the literature generally shows very little evidence of long-term monitoring of indices of integration. the variety of immigrant groups is thought to have aided integration. Some figures for the ratio of foreign to native imprisonment in 1997. A few countries have begun to set up databases which log this information and a few research projects have carried out local surveys but. The numbers coming forward in the legalization programmes held in several countries (eg more than 50. foreign labour figures only record the numbers registered for work and not the large numbers who are believed to be working illegally in European countries.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. sensibilities about ethnic monitoring and distrust of authorities by new arrivals uncertain of their status mean that detailed analysis of foreign populations is nonexistent or patchy at best. France 5:1. Austria 4:1 and Denmark 3:1). members of smaller communities may become marginalized and isolated but may also have more opportunity to build relationships with the host population. for example. As well as country of origin. Some countries have focused resources on integration programmes for specific ethnic groups. the fact that immigration has become a central political issue only comparatively recently. Moreover.

Occasionally.4 Residence statuses All the countries in this survey are signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 104 . and on the increasing significance in Europe of transnational communities.3 Chronologies of legislation and policy Governments of many European countries have introduced a spate of legislation and implementing regulations to cope with the increase in flows of asylum seekers and illegal entrants since the 1990s. In particular. For example. Such omissions will only be serious if very recent legislation has radically changed the approach to integration in the country concerned. legislation passed in 2001-2 may have been overlooked. Ireland was the only EU country not to have ratified the UN Convention of All Forms of Racial Discrimination until it finally did so by introducing the final stages of the appropriate domestic legislation in 2001 (in fact. Some of the northern countries (eg Denmark. EU countries are moving towards harmonization on integration issues. National policies in individual countries have their origins in different traditions: socio-democratic movements in Sweden. 5. Greece) have only recently begun to react officially to the implications of offering permanent residence to non-nationals. 5.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Integration programmes in the more advanced countries are currently moving on from a focus on migrants to incorporation in wider agendas targeting social exclusion in areas of deprivation where there are high concentrations of immigrant residents (eg projects targeting youth in priority action zones – ZAPs – in Belgium). Oxford Brookes University people who currently slip through the integration net in EU countries. therefore. Netherlands. The information was obtained from secondary Anglophonic sources and may not. many of the integration projects which qualify for inclusion in the section on ‘Good Practice’ which concludes this literature survey. while others in the south (eg Portugal. Legislation for integration of foreigners in individual countries has also become an issue within wider discussions on harmonization and integration of constituent countries and their citizens within the EU. but in general. the legislation has brought about (or reflected) a radical change in the host country's response (eg when the dispersal of new arrivals was enforced in Denmark in 1998). be completely comprehensive. multiculturalism and religious identity in the Netherlands or republican assimilation in France. Meanwhile. They do not include legislation designed solely to regulate immigration or to lay down rules for entry procedures and determination of status. Sweden) have been working up to the current phase of legislation for more than 30 years. This means that some countries are becoming more tolerant while others are tightening up their procedures. particularly with regards to employment. but withdrew this right in 2001 when they introduced a regime of benefits in kind and reception centre accommodation for asylum seekers. although this change has silenced the critics of Ireland's failure to incorporate the Convention it has not yet effected radical changes in attitudes to ethnic minorities in the country). The chronologies in this report concentrate on a selection of legislation and institutional policy changes which are known to relate directly to integration of foreigners who have been granted residence rights. Belgium was the last EU country to offer asylum seekers the same social welfare benefit as was paid to citizens. appear in most cases to cater for very small numbers of people.

It is not always clear from the literature whether or not integration policies which have been introduced in various countries apply to foreign workers and people under all the forms of subsidiary protection currently available.5 Administration In countries still in the early stages of development of national integration policies. however. The status of these groups of foreign workers often remains ambiguous for many years and while they remain on temporary residence permits and the option of return to their home countries is not discounted. asylum seekers now form the bulk of applicants for permanent residence in the countries forming the subject of this study. The development of separate departments to manage integration has certainly simplified procedures for migrants who have sometimes found language difficulties and bureaucratic red 105 . there are different reasons for a lack of separate provision. this situation reflects a lack of resources or the comparatively recent development of a state welfare system for citizens. Portugal). In countries at a more advanced stage of development. there is a philosophical refusal to recognizes the separateness of any group within the state. in France. measures to implement their integration may not be appropriate and.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. integration policy in the Netherlands has recently been specifically extended to include long-standing residents (‘oldcomers’). the country is too small and the number of newcomers too few to justify separate provision. so common provision for migrants and citizens is a matter of principal. newcomers have to appeal to mainstream statutory service providers or charities. In some instances (eg Greece. 5. on the other hand. Countries with traditions of guestworking (eg France. generally seem to be designed for 'newcomers' although concern is now being expressed in several countries about second and third generation immigrants who have not yet achieved an acceptable level of integration. continuing a tradition in some countries of providing induction programmes in the past for mass arrivals of refugees. Some countries with well-developed and long-established integration programmes. they may not be eligible for integration packages. Sweden) have recognized the inefficiencies of 'unjoined-up' provision and have set up specific departments within one of the Ministries to administrate the designated funding and implement integration programmes. Meanwhile. In the case of Luxembourg. (Denmark. for example. Those who achieve refugee status are the principal recipients of integration support. They do. as well as to Convention and de facto refugees. Luxembourg) are also coming to terms with the fact that many temporary workers are not going to go home but want to be reunited with their families and become citizens of their host countries. however. churches and NGOs for welfare support. Oxford Brookes University New York protocol so are committed to offering asylum to applicants deemed to be in need of protection against persecution. The result of a significant increase in the number of individual spontaneous asylum seekers arriving in European countries has been a range of subsidiary forms of protection offered to applicants for asylum whose cases are not considered 'well founded' but who cannot return home for various reasons (humanitarian cases) or those who have become ex officio refugees because of the length of residence in the host country. the Netherlands. eg the Viets in the 1970s and the Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. indeed. Apart from people arriving to be reunited with family members with residence permits. countries with ageing populations are devising new forms of residence and work permit in order to encourage controlled foreign labour immigration.

In countries with structured integration policies. In the more organized countries. whereas in others it has become highly structured (eg in Sweden. individuals may move between municipalities and the funding travels with them. in Belgium. lump sum subsidies are advanced for a further 3-year transition period and additional financial rewards have recently been introduced for municipalities demonstrating a good record on integration). for example. However. Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries in the former category (the DIS in Denmark and the COA in the Netherlands) and Sweden. the programme may be devised between the individual migrant and local stakeholder agencies only after settlement has taken place. All the countries have devolved responsibility for administrating support for new arrivals to the regions or municipalities. Some of the more advanced countries have decided that the same Ministry should process applications for asylum. and in Denmark. The relationship between refugee community groups and governments seems to be ambivalent and RCGs do not yet seem to have been used to any great extent in implementing integration policies. in some countries. individual integration programmes may be worked out during the reception phase and travel with the new arrival to the municipality. including integration measures. critics of separate provision claim that they may achieve the reverse of what was intended by emphasizing the marginalization of minorities in mainstream society and are in fact designed to increase state control of minority groups. Funding is almost non-existent in countries with poorer economies or less efficient administrations (eg Greece. However. it seems that single responsibility does not necessarily achieve a greater degree of coordination: there may be as little coordination between separate units dealing with different stages of the whole process as there is between different Ministries. a right to access the national health service can often only be exercised through the personal advocacy of an NGO or other supporter. where state funding is paid per capita for 3. in Greece. Most of the countries have accepted that integration needs to be funded centrally. grant residence permits and allocate new arrivals to the municipalities (if dispersal is in force) as well as implement integration in order to achieve a seamless service. NGOs are active in integration in all the countries. where integration policy has been legislated for but not yet been implemented because funding has not been forthcoming from the government). different laws apply in Vienna from those which have developed in some of the other 12 Länder. although they are 106 . the latter. In Austria. for example. Oxford Brookes University tape insuperable barriers to accessing entitlements in certain countries: in Greece.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. while others consider that integration is quite a different process from enforcing entry procedures and have separated the two functions. The highly organized Danish Refugee Council in Denmark acts for and is funded by the Danish government. integration policies (as well as native language) differ considerably between the Flemish. Some countries within the EU are federal states in which each region has its own parliament and policy on welfare matters. where funding is made available for 3-year integration programmes. whereas in others. government funding is sometimes targeted to improving participation by certain groups in specific activities (eg the Netherlands). if only to institute some kind of cross-subsidy for municipalities with high concentrations of foreign residents. while in others they must stay in the municipality to which they have been allocated for the duration of the programme. Wallon and Bruxelles regions.5 years for each individual participant in an integration programme. Caritas and other church based NGOs have a long tradition of providing refugee support in Austria. the presence of UNHCR and MSF is essential for providing welfare support for migrants which is not forthcoming from the government.

impose the norms of the host society on new arrivals at an early stage if they are to eventually become permanent residents. Oxford Brookes University responsible for some of the small-scale projects described in the ‘good practice’ section at the end of this review. Social researchers. Convention refugees generally have full rights and permanent residence. These elements are provided for newcomers in a separate package from provision for citizens and the participants in the programmes only move on into the mainstream provision when the programme is complete (if the programme is compulsory as in Scandinavian countries) or when the newcomers opt out of the programme in order to move into private accommodation. Asylum seekers are generally specifically excluded and are increasingly being segregated into reception centre and benefits in kind regimes. freedom from discrimination. guidance in access to statutory institutions. such as the health service.6 Policy fields The policy fields for the integration process seem to be consistent across all the countries in the survey. take up an offer of employment or simply exercise their freedom of choice (options in countries where the programme is voluntary. In this context. and some countries (eg Belgium and Luxembourg) have established networks of local consultative bodies which involve representation from immigrant groups. participants may take this action also in countries where the programme is obligatory although often at the cost of loss of all or part of their benefits).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. including work permits. play an increasingly influential role. at the same time. adoption of citizenship. is conditional. language skills. The cost-benefit equation of integration programmes is a matter of increasing concern to politicians and public opinion. the media. accommodation. or is denied to some groups and allowed to others: it seems that governments wish to hedge their bets. In countries which have specific formal integration programmes. vocational training and language tuition are considered to be essential prerequisites for integration and have become integral parts of the programmes for their duration. family reunion. all the countries in the survey recognize and facilitate the human rights of all immigrants to receive basic health care and education for children. More research needs to be done on the relationship between the immediate costs and long-term benefits of integration programmes. An individual migrant may achieve integration in terms of one field but remain marginalized in terms of another: eg economically integrated while remaining culturally marginalized or vice versa. designed to encourage return rather than integration. multicultural festivals. financial support for the destitute. outreach programmes and mentoring. including the internet. such as a sense of belonging or acceptance by the host community. to avoid encouraging integration if return is a real option but. orientation within the local area. participation in the political life of the state and. Between these two extremes. Beyond the boundaries of integration programmes. in order to prevent the formation 107 . more controversially. 5. welfare workers and the migrants themselves see integration in different terms. although the financial and social costs of extending these rights are becoming a matter of increasing concern to over-burdened states. a commitment to the adopted country. Indicators used by states to measure whether integration has been achieved are economic independence (ie employment). Eligibility for integration support and access to integration indicators is dependent in most countries on residence status. Induction programmes provided at the commencement of the integration period in some countries (eg the Netherlands) include elements which do not qualify as 'policy fields' eg instruction in the culture and behavioural norms of the adopted country. access to rights.

in some cases (eg the Bosnians in many EU countries) have been given work permits. Among the countries in this survey. only Austria applies ius sanguinis strictly (ie citizenship by descent) which means that children born in the country to foreign parents have no rights even if they have lived there all their lives. The policy fields examined in the country profiles which follow are: ƒ Financial assistance ƒ Employment ƒ Education and training ƒ Housing ƒ Health ƒ Family reunification ƒ Citizenship 5. often participants in mass arrival programmes from areas of civic conflict.7 Citizenship Some groups of immigrants from third countries take on the positive characteristics of ethnic communities. apart from Austria. are a special case in many countries: they have tended to be been treated as asylum seekers and placed in reception centres but have also had family reunification rights and. France. Most ius consanguinis countries. their cultural distance from host countries is greater and their socio-economic position makes them a target for racism. Asians and Africans because they are the most recent arrivals. especially Arabs. ie children born to foreign parents. have taken steps towards ius 108 . The Netherlands has recently decided to bring the complexity of eligibility to an end by introducing a single residence status for all new arrivals. Groups under temporary protection. One area in which the differences between them become apparent is in citizenship rules.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. acquire citizenship at birth. Ius soli is applied most consistently in Ireland: a child born to immigrant parents in Ireland automatically becomes a citizen and ius sanguinis is used only to confer citizenship while citizen parents are abroad. others (eg France) grant citizenship but at the price of cultural assimilation. so the third generation automatically become citizens unless they specifically withdraw at the age of majority. These countries also practise double ius soli. The reasons why groups become minorities is not primarily related to the characteristic of migrants but more to the historical ideology and structure of the countries concerned. at least one of which was also born in the country. while others acquire the more negative presence of ethnic minorities. Belgium and Netherlands practise a combination of the two systems: ie children born in the territory to foreign parents obtain citizenship if they have been resident for a certain period and fulfil other conditions. Oxford Brookes University of ethnic minorities. The main marker for minority status seems to be phenotypical difference: there is a widespread acceptance of EU citizens in European countries but hostility to non-Europeans. There are 3 main groups of citizenship regimes: some countries (eg Luxembourg) make it very difficult for immigrants to become citizens. while in a third group (eg the Netherlands) it is possible to become fully functioning citizens while maintaining a distinct cultural identity.

in Austria. In Denmark. 5. resistance. and specific features of the newly arrived populations on the other. there is a perception that immigrant entrepreneurs have an important contribution to make to the social and cultural life of the country and laws and regulations are the same for native. Ireland and Luxembourg have relatively small social rented sectors. It is easier for states to manage integration programmes linked to allocated accommodation in countries with available public housing stock than in those where this option is not available. economic crisis. One set of factors which needs to be taken into consideration in judging the ease with which integration might take place relate to the way in which the socio-economic structure of a host country has developed on the one hand. Researchers suggest that dual citizenship on the basis of ius soli is the ideal form of citizenship. including lack of financial resources. Another example is the attitude to foreign entrepreneurs in various countries. housing shortages. as do hostility and rejection from the host community. on the other hand. Finland and Luxembourg expect renunciation of former citizenship upon naturalization. In Sweden. Finland. the social rented sectors are the same size or smaller than private rented sectors. dual citizenship is permitted but Austria. trauma. the Netherlands and Belgium. In France and Sweden. lack of skills and education. foreign entrepreneurs find it more difficult to obtain the right permissions and licences than native Greeks and are often forced to marry or go into business 109 . and ill health among the immigrant community itself impede progress. inadequate administrative structures. In Greece. migrant and refugee entrepreneurs. young people of immigrant origin (foreigners who have been resident for 5 years before the age of 16 and have lived there since) can become citizens by declaration between the ages of 21 and 23. rising unemployment. The ways in which governments manage asylum seekers and tackle discrimination are examples of two specific problem areas which could determine whether immigrants form vibrant multiethnic communities on the one hand. or marginalized and disaffected ethnic minorities on the other. Giving up a previous nationality is seen as a marker of integration in many countries and hanging on to it as a desire for separatism but some countries recognize that keeping former nationality may be necessary for the development of self-esteem in the new society. allowing people to achieve integration while retaining links to their former lives. Oxford Brookes University domicili ie entitlement arising from long term residence. all entrepreneurs have to deal with a complex system of licensing regulations but refugees have made a success of businesses abandoned by Belgians because they are willing to work hard for long hours. In Belgium. Portugal and Spain have minimal social rented sectors and very large owner-occupied sectors. Denmark and France. and similar rules apply in Belgium. political shifts to the right and the perceived threat to the notion of the nation state. Belgium. where the level of self-employment is the highest in Europe. Denmark.8 Barriers to integration There are many barriers to successful integration of foreigners in host countries. One example within the first set of factors is the structure of the housing market. while Greece. On an individual level. The Netherlands and Sweden have comparatively very large social rented sectors. The Netherlands allowed dual citizenship until 1997 but withdrew it because of a belief that applicants for citizenship were not sufficiently committed to the Netherlands and were applying for passports so as to be able to travel in the EU. where young people are given the option of naturalization.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. France attempted to withdraw the privilege in the late 1990s but was forced to restore it after intense protest from immigrant groups. Securing decent accommodation is a vital feature of integration.

7% in 1990. is now 2% of the total and many illegal workers are resident in the south. music. the biggest contributions to integration of mature immigrant populations in many countries have been effected by the migrants themselves and adopted by host communities without government intervention . These countries have continued to offer preferential treatment to returning nationals who may already hold citizenship when they arrive. Spain. the level of education among migrants can be taken as an example. quite apart from other 110 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.9 Models of integration Historical factors and fundamental differences in attitudes to foreigners have affected the approaches taken to integration by the countries in the survey. who are keen to avoid providing statutory benefits for workers.4 million Albanians have been deported. on the other hand. Immigration flows to other countries has been conditioned by their colonial past. Indeed. One way in which the countries can be grouped is in terms of their history of immigration. in the south. 5. and Portugal has instigated special vocational training programmes for young Portuguese living abroad who are willing to return home. Tunisia. prefer illegal workers. have historically been countries of emigration until they began to attract immigration in the 1970s. family values and other cultural indicators. Spain. Portugal and Greece. Migrants to Portugal and Greece tend to be mainly poor peasants and out of work farm labourers with poor levels of education who are prepared to take jobs in the strong illegal economies in these countries rather than return home or risk destitution.5 million expatriated citizens. Oxford Brookes University with a Greek to get a loan or a licence to operate. but many more declined to participate because of fear of expulsion or a preference for illegal status because the employers. A legalization programme in Greece in 1998 had only limited success because many illegal entrants did not know about it. are largely better educated elite youths. However. the flourishing underground economy in these countries has shaped inflows of illegal migrants which the governments are generally too weak to regulate. Morocco. Host communities must also be prepared to change and accept the positive contribution that can be made by immigrant communities. Within the second group of factors. though 2.in the form of restaurants. Meanwhile. Ethnic businesses often started in vulnerable conditions often compete only on price. speak the national language and be more amenable to cultural integration. Guinea) and the East Indies to the Netherlands (Surinam). Deeply entrenched corruption in the Greek administration prevents it dealing with illegal immigration. for example. has 2. which was only 0. ethnic food imports. Belgium and the Netherlands were colonial powers and have a long tradition of immigration from former colonies and protectorates: people from North and West Africa to France (Algeria. they also have to take the low skill jobs that the locals are unwilling to do. Many already had citizenship and spoke the language of the destination country which immediately put them at an advantage in terms of integration. France. the foreign population. Greece welcomes Pontian and Albanian Greeks. although their opportunities for work have been affected recently by an increase in labour inspection following race riots in south Spain arising from hostility to illegal agricultural workers. for example. Migrants to Spain.

These countries have more traditional forms of social support and rely much more on church. Countries which have maintained a policy of attracting guestworkers.are interventionist and have highly organized integration programmes. Political models also play a part. as former colonial powers have moved towards multiculturalism and stricter controls on immigration. They therefore tend to form ethnic minorities rather than communities. Countries conforming to this model are often former guestworker countries where there is an unwillingness to accept that integration in the labour market will lead to a demand for integration in other areas. particularly the long undefendable coastline of Greece and its islands. The possibility of levelling down is politically untenable in these countries. such as welfare and citizenship. Austria and Luxembourg. until unemployment and economic reconstruction in the 1980s plus demands for family reunion. with civic roles as parents. The prospect of levelling up remains very unlikely for these countries and would be very costly. Denmark. workers and consumers but not accepted fully as part of social. additionally (but also Austria) are more accessible to source countries of illegal immigrants. they have had to shed the former privileges offered to colonials. sees their nation as essentially a community of birth and descent. They also have comparatively strong economies and higher GDP than countries in southern Europe so can afford to support more highly developed welfare state provisions for both citizens and highly structured integration schemes for newcomers. Foreigners may be integrated into the labour market but not into other spheres of belonging. cultural or political society. they have for many years been treating most legal immigrants as permanent settlers from the start. both landlocked countries have more chance of control than countries bordering the Mediterranean – South Spain. Portugal and Spain (and also Ireland) is much more recent and less comprehensive. permanent settlement and citizenship began to challenge this tradition. more traditional societies of southern Europe. Finland. Strong centralized governments in northern European countries – Sweden. Oxford Brookes University privileges they were given compared to other groups of immigrants. Ironically. Belgium the Netherlands . in return they become fully fledged members of the 111 . Southern France and. in some cases (notably Greece-Albania) sharing borders. expect foreigners to give up their distinctiveness in terms of language. on the other hand. Development of the welfare state in the poorer. culture and social characteristics until they become indistinct from the majority population. Assimilationist states. including Greece.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. and. such as the welfare benefit system or citizenship. Classic countries of integration with strong socio-democratic governments. This can be described as a differential exclusionary model. of which Austria is the main example in this survey. have encouraged permanent settlement and family reunion and. though they also had guestworker programmes. Countries in southern Europe. notably Sweden and Denmark. Other European countries with well-developed economies have a long-standing tradition of encouraging temporary migration of foreign labour in guestworker programmes. the naturalization rules remain highly restrictive. more recently. Geography has a role to play in the challenge faced by states in controlling immigration flows and thereby implementing integration. NGOs and family support for integration services. Austria and Luxembourg still cling to the guestworker model: although there is now more opportunity for permanent settlement and family reunion in these countries. Another division occurs between the countries of north and south Europe.

investors and employers benefit from this situation but social problems are created as immigrants remain concentrated in insecure jobs. resulting in isolation. though the ultimate aim may still be assimilation ie to encourage migrants to give up their former life in favour of becoming members of a new civil society and nation. It is these conditions which make integration politically necessary and why integration policies. though the state now accepts this stage takes longer to achieve than was once thought possible. such as Finland. Temporary stay is likely to take place under discriminatory conditions. Residential segmentation also occurs: newcomers lack social networks and knowledge. If the myth of short-term sojourn is maintained. Sweden and the Netherlands) are designed to promote upward mobility. In the short term. have low incomes and status and experience discrimination in the form of high rents or refusal to rent. social and political participation. and to become indistinct from the majority population.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Newcomers often feel strongly attached to their former identity and the insistence in France that separate services should not be provided for fear of giving a sense of otherness has been replaced by a series of targeted integration programmes. demonstrate a willingness to accept difference in spite of fears of loss of national identity. Expectations are influenced – the temporary residents themselves get blamed if governments refuse to admit that temporary settlement is turning into permanent immigration. to accept the existing social structures and its set of norms. with pluralistic political aims. which lingers to varying degrees in all European countries. They form a large part of the at-risk population at times of economic decline. particularly in inner city areas. The model has to some extent been abandoned in most countries in favour of a more flexible integration policy. The ultimate aim however remains assimilation and newcomers are expected ultimately to give up their distinctive linguistic. separation and emphasis on difference. Other states. Countries. either as a result of laissez-faire policies or deliberately. where a substantial proportion of residents are immigrants. France has retained an assimilationist stance more than any other EU country but even France has had to adopt more flexible policies. cultural and social characteristics. irrespective of cultural difference. Highly skilled foreign workers are welcome but are usually temporary residents. The myth of temporary stay. such as the Netherlands. the contradictory perspective becomes part of migrants’ consciousness: they settle and form ethnic groups but cannot plan for a future as part of society. political participation and naturalization. Oxford Brookes University nation. The state’s role is to create conditions favourable for this process through insistence on the dominant language and so on. unskilled workers are more likely to want to stay permanently but their importance to the countries of immigration is generally unrecognized. subject to exploitation. has implications for status with respect to labour market rights. and with little hope of promotion. are ambivalent and aim for assimilation in some areas and multiculturalism in others. A full multicultural model aims for equal rights while maintaining diversity. Two key features of multicultural models are the recognition of the right to cultural difference and an acceptance of a duty by the state to create conditions for equal economic. in some countries at least (eg France. A political discourse presenting immigration as threatening creates problems for longstanding immigrants and their subjects: anyone who looks different becomes suspect. a slower process requiring group cohesion. Immigrants are frequently victims of labour market segmentation which hinders integration. 112 . These countries believe that immigrants should be encouraged to share the values and norms of the host society but also have the opportunity to maintain and evolve their unique qualities and capacities.

governance and administration. although the contours of this duality vary significantly between them. The rites of passage conferred by citizenship provide certainty of residence and guarantee key rights: these are significant variables on which successful integration depends. This chapter provides the point of departure for the following two chapters which assess the typologies of integration and their relevance to the present study (Chapter 6). the deterrence to and regulation of immigration is reflected in the notable firming up of entry into both the EU Member States and also to citizenship within them for those claiming refugee status. 6. status determination and the timing of integration. Moreover. to multilateral and finally to the communitarian adoption of legal instruments and interventions. the integration of Third Country Nationals (TCNs).Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. against the backcloth of the dramatic growth in asylum claims in Europe. The chapter considers the following: citizenship and integration. and the development of indicators of integration and the challenges in operationalising them.2 Citizenship and integration Whilst citizenship is not integration – the latter being dependent on a complex range of socioeconomic processes and policies – it is an important staging post. reception. From these perspectives. citizenship. Oxford Brookes University 6 Comparative issues Introduction The chapter elaborates the issues raised by three main case study countries and the survey of the remaining EUMS within a comparative framework. integration and policy harmonisation. These have been salient features of policy in this field in the last decade. Over the last decade the Member States have embarked on an incremental process from unilateral. Thus. a second key finding is that there is only ambivalent evidence as to the commitment to and effectiveness of integration policies especially with regard to refugees in the case study countries. A measure of the challenge to accomplish a harmonised framework of polices and strategies for the integration of refugees is illustrated in the case studies. 6. strategies for settlement and integration. And yet conversely at the same time. the unique character of the particular national models of citizenship and nationhood and the differential impact these models have upon refugee integration. NGOs. the prospects for the communitarianisation of integration policies with respect to refugees are challenging. All three countries display marked duality in their approaches to citizenship and integration of asylum seekers who may then obtain refugee status. is a central component of the emerging coordination of responses to asylum as part of the development of a common asylum and immigration policy. the meaning of integration. and in some respects.1 Comparative data The key finding of the study is the distinctive. including recognised refugees. The coupling of measures conferring citizenship with the process of integration takes 113 .

There is a marked contrast with Italy and Germany. There remains a mix of ius soli and ius consanguinis principles of citizenship with the balance tipping away from the former over the last thirty years. citizenship for refugees is predicated on the twin tracks the liberal integration for those eligible for citizenship with restrictionism (which of course is now stringent) with regard to entry for putative refugees. In this context however. Italy is new to the field of immigration and refugees. Thus. cultural dilution versus plurality. A substantial body of statute law facilitates this multi-ethnic model of citizenship. In the case of the UK. is not (in constitutional terms at least) a multicultural society and continues to resist recognising itself as a country of immigration. which assumes importance where the labour market case for immigration is prioritised. the discourse on citizenship and integration is essentially informed by questions of race relations. encouraging them to retain distinctive cultural values and identity in the private sphere rather than absorption into the dominant national culture. Oxford Brookes University different forms across EUMS – broadly polarised between assimilation and multi-culturalism. for those refugees seeking to integrate. Compounding the challenge are the following factors: adjustment to the concept of immigration (as opposed to the Italy’s profoundly embedded concept of itself as a country of emigration). it is distinctive in a number of respects in comparison with the more established policy environments of Germany and the UK. immigration and integration policies defines the political problematique for Italy at the present time: this is in marked contrast to Germany and the UK of course. the complex social dynamics provoked by large scale and often ‘illegal’ immigration. Largely reactive until recently. whilst significantly. The principle of ius consanguinis remains firmly part of citizenship modalities of Germany. These factors impact on refugee citizenship and integration because. Britain represents a tendency found in rather few other EUMS. the context of a 114 . The debates around the 1992 constitutional change made clear the distinction between basic rights and restricted access to citizenship for refugees and residents who did not have German ethnic affiliation. At the same time there are parallels with other southern EUMS in relation to geographical location and an enduring history of emigration. despite easing conditions for the acquisition of citizenship. and labour market needs. The lack of a well-established and coherent framework of citizenship. the contours of integration policy for refugees are defined by the country’s lengthy history as a destination for immigration from diverse origins. although the 2002 Immigration Act introduces an integration strategy which applies to all those pursuing citizenship. apart from ethnic Germans. and a number of other EUMS where functional adaptation is paralleled by cultural assimilation. Lacking the backcloth of the immigration histories and the consequential citizenship and integration experiences of the other two case studies. legislative changes have introduced a more proactive model of the kind utilised in Sweden with for example compulsory language training and mentoring. Germany. Its model of citizenship and integrationism involves the functional adaptation of immigrants (in economic. the UK’s somewhat pragmatic model of citizenship is consistent with the multi-cultural modalities of integration. There is an enduring resistance to the integration of non-nationals.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Lacking the instrumentality of policies elsewhere in the EU. an assimilationist model exists with expectations of conformity to citizenship norms. Germany exemplifies differentiated integration programmes according to status. social and political spheres) as in other countries. The latter comes to the foreground where issues of cultural security and race relations dominate the political agenda.

3. The UK has a large portfolio of legal instruments and norms built up incrementally over recent decades. brings together a number of compulsory and discretionary dimensions such as language and vocational training. Important to note is the fact that refugees are incorporated into these measures and entitlements as individuals with permanent residents rights and there is no practical distinction between refugees and other immigrants eligible for citizenship. It is of course too early to judge the impact of Germany’s strategic innovation in the field of integration policies and much will depend on the fact that the balance of power for developing and implementing domestic policy in Germany lies with the Länder.2). albeit a destination which is still restricted for many who have lived in Germany for long periods of time. also perhaps reflect Italy’s relatively recent history as a united country. In this regard. Thus. This stresses both functional and socio-cultural integration as we have seen above. as was effectively the case in practice in the past. particularly the second generation have been neglected and are increasingly subsumed by successive governments’ preoccupation with the escalating volume of asylum seekers and new immigrants. it is to be expected that drive to achieve programme uniformity will remain an enduring challenge.3 Strategies for settlement and integration There are distinctive contrasts with regard to integration strategies in the three countries. now has a substantially expanded responsibility for co-ordinating integration programmes for all foreigners. Consistent with its assimilationist model. economic and social/welfare programmes dimensions. reinforces these principles of citizenship. Administrative reform accompanies this new departure: BAFl. 6. whose previous remit was only for asylum claims. certainly in the case of the UK. rather than the Federal administration. only Germany of the three case study countries. Oxford Brookes University restrictionist Europe. although there are common denominators such as the impetus given to both functional and socio-cultural integration. ethnic affiliation and thus the principle of ius consanguinis. to 115 . Italy’s model of integration can be defined as a reactive assimilationist model. although there is an extensive range of initiatives. the integrationist interests of long settled immigrants. In Italy.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. enshrining inherited culture and language. This strategy marks a significant shift from an essentially reactive to a more proactive approach to the process of integration. Italy’s response to the citizenship demands and integrationist aspirations of non-ethnic immigrants. In contrast. like Germany. are the critical variables in determining citizenship and thus the potential capacity for integration. Like Germany. Germany’s integration strategy (see section 2. and the tendency to adopt a reasonably consistent residence period prior to citizenship application – usually around 5 years. Against these conventional benchmarks. The significant increase in Italy of return migration in recent years. These attributes are typically found in other countries of emigration and. has been notably pragmatic compared to the other two countries where periodically incisive legislative or constitutional interventions (in the case of Germany) punctuate periods of incremental adjustment. neither the UK nor Italy has a co-ordinated integration strategy. though not rooted in the protracted experiences of war and ethnic displacement as is the case of Germany. has adopted an explicit national strategy to co-ordinate programmes for integration – in the 2002 Immigration Act.

with obligations to complete compulsory citizenship programmes. A distinctive feature of the UK since 1999 is the dispersal of asylum seekers to language-based clusters. These policies are driven by the need to ‘manage numbers’. in recent years. More precarious short-term livelihood combined with uncertainty over long term residence impair the prospects for integration. as in the UK. awareness of majority cultural attributes). For the most part Italy reveals pragmatic interventions with legal instruments which. It introduces. an embryonic citizenship strategy. a research study commissioned by the UK Home Office. for the first time. Equally. Thus the increasing incidence of secondary migration has been identified. The recently approved 2002 Immigration and Asylum Act does however introduce. This is reflected in the political preoccupation with the issue of asylum seekers. Oxford Brookes University promote equality of opportunity in the main spheres of economic social and welfare rights. the effect of British legislation and policy with regard to asylum seekers and refugees has diverged. whether from refugees or other eligible categories. 116 . In principle. Other countries have adopted dispersal policies. one objective of which is to build up local community formation which at the same time provides a vehicle to facilitate local integration should a successful claim for refugee status be made. to relieve pressure on housing and welfare services in localities where asylum seekers would freely settle. increasingly restrictive conditions of access to rights and welfare benefits applying to this group and a growing resistance to affording the option of long term settlement and citizenship. whereas in the UK the policy contrives to link ‘number management’ with some appreciation of the ultimate integrationist needs of those afforded citizenship. This has influenced the pattern of settlement with a marked concentration of refugees settling in London and the south-east. early evidence 68 highlights the lack of coherent regionally-based strategies for integration and suggests that the articulation between the dispersal policy and integration strategies at the local level remains very poorly conceived. In the case of the UK this may be a defining moment of departure from a multicultural to an assimilationist model of citizenship. somewhat contentiously. the preoccupation with emergency conditions of the 68 Zetter et al 2002 Dispersal: Facilitating Efficiency and Effectiveness. Although a basis for community formation and integration. However. an ad hoc approach consistent with the multi-culturalist and liberalist stance of UK integration policy. these apply regardless of the status of the citizenship claim. the measures remain laissez-faire in the UK. in practice at least. Italy’s recent entry to the field of immigration and integration leaves it with a patchwork of local initiatives which lack co-ordination or strategic direction at the national level. though short of conferring citizenship. a feature which typified the UK experience of dispersal of quota refugees. and it is predicated on the absorptive capacity of co-ethnic networks and communities. instruments of citizenship (language competence. The longer term implications of these interventions for the subsequent claims for citizenship are now being faced. Whereas countries like Germany and Sweden. regularised the status of different categories of migrants.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Devoid of coherent reception and settlement strategies – with the exception of quota refugees – integration is notably dependent on processes of secondary migration. which are taken as read elsewhere in Europe where ius consanguinis is the determinant of citizenship. between this group and other categories of non-forced migrants claiming citizenship. The UK’s multi-cultural stance on integration leaves much to the ‘market place’.

performing the vast majority of integration work with refugees and defining the parameters of the nationally formulated integration policy. in promoting the welfare interests of immigrants including refugees and asylum seekers. Oxford Brookes University last decade has left the matter of ‘second phase’ support and integration strategies relatively neglected. 6.4 Governance and administration Governance and the distribution of administrative responsibility between different levels of government play a significant role in the processes and mechanisms of integration. it seems likely that local initiatives on refugee integration. increases the challenge the government faces in developing a coherent strategy. In Germany. Driving this change has been the government’s objective to restrict and regulate the rights of asylum seekers in order to counter the rapid rise in the numbers entering the country. and even in here this was articulated with local authorities who were responsible for implementing integrationist policies and supported by the voluntary and community sectors. Against the background of nationally determined norms and principles for integration based on a multi-cultural model. often in partnership with the voluntary sector and local ethnically-based community groups. At the same time.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Since the mid-1990s there has been growing tension between central and local government responsibility and a marked shift to centralised control in the UK. the legacy of a heavy reliance on NGOs. given the relative autonomy of the Länder. the local administrative level enjoyed substantial discretion to develop and implement policies. the picture is more confused. rather than government. as we have seen. constitutional and political histories. given the sensitivity of the relationship between the Federal and Länder levels of government. In contrast to spontaneous refugee arrivals. as on other matters in this policy sector. These variables contrast markedly between the case studies. will tend to predominate for some time to come with an essentially enabling role being conducted by federal government. outcomes which again relate to differing legislative. the UK government played the major role in managing quota refugees in the past. A new government agency. This is a ‘stable state’ set of affairs which contrasts with the picture in the UK and Italy. A centre-periphery model characterises the UK administrative picture. Concerning the balance of administrative power and responsibility for integration in the UK. the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was established under the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. but an explicitly contractual role with central government in the implementation of housing and other social 117 . Furthermore. the Länder are the key variable. the degree to which integration policies and multicultural programmes have been introduced varies significantly across the country. but this was the exception. The concentration of refugees settling in London and the south-east is attributed to the ‘benign’ attitude towards directing the settlement locations of refugees. with the balance shifting between central and local government interests at different times. On the other hand. They highlight the challenge of harmonisation. in terms of policy determination. Part of the rationale for the national integration strategy envisaged in the 2002 Immigration Act is to instil a measure of uniformity in the integration instruments associated with the citizenship process. Centrally controlled management and finance of asylum seeker policies – in which the dispersal of asylum seekers is the main instrument – places local authorities in a more subservient role.

As regards Italy. limits the 118 . the contours of administrative responsibility for refugee integration are. the absence to date of a co-ordinated national policy framework and the lack of government presence in the landscape of immigration and integration. appears to inhibit local level community-based initiatives for and by asylum seekers and refugees. At the same time. To the extent that there are active policies in this field. These outcomes are accounted for by the different political and historical features of the formation of these states and the presence of NGOs within these processes. 6. at least in the short term. the comparatively recent experience of large-scale influxes of refugees and asylum seekers in Italy contribute to a relatively undeveloped NGO sector. By and large the mainstreaming of refugees within the broader framework of NGO activities for other migrant groups provides the basis for beneficial outcomes. the lack of an assertive or coherent role at the central government level induces a patchwork of barely sustainable responses by local administrations and NGOs. this has tended to inhibit. Moreover. In the first place. In general it appears that it may be harder to mobilise this level in Germany. these are religiously-based organisations embedded in the culture and history of the country. is striking. but falls rather short of the complex centralised administrative responsibility for policy in the UK with a well-developed substructure for policy implementation by local administration. These agencies have had to adapt rapidly to new roles and to develop new capacities to cover the inadequacies in the dispersal programme. not just refugees and asylum seekers. However. This contrasts with the clearly ascribed powers of the German Länder. for example. In Germany the prominent role of large NGOs in the integration of migrant groups. then the default position tends to favour the national centralised management but the role is unassertive. Italian NGOs play a substitutional role. these are significant changes which will inevitably impact on the capacity to integrate of those eventually receiving full refugee and citizenship status. Oxford Brookes University and welfare services for dispersed asylum seekers. compared to the greater complementarity between NGOs and government agency in Germany. Despite the national presence of these NGOs. as we have seen. This gives a significant presence to refugee issues at the national level and a level of partnership exists between government and NGOs in Germany which is perhaps only found in Denmark amongst EUMS.5 NGOs The data in the main case studies illustrates the key role played by NGOs in the reception. ill-defined at the present time.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Nevertheless there are distinctive variations in how this role is enacted and the impact it has on the process of integration. Even more than is the case in Germany. Major new contractual responsibilities have been delivered to the private sector for accommodating asylum seekers – a significant departure from most other EUMS. the dominant role of large NGOs. But the restricted access to citizenship and limited programme finance impose constraints on integration policies in practice. settlement and integration of refugees. and in contrast with the Germany and the UK. But there are points of contrast with the German situation. given the limited capacity of the government. In sum. Italy offers a similar picture of a few nationally active NGOs. their role in facilitating the integration process. For notably different reasons. Moreover the shift of power to the centre has also had a destabilising impact on an already vulnerable NGO and community group sector.

This is not to say that these local agencies in the UK have sufficient capacity or make a major contribution to integration at the present time.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. may commence very early after arrival. they may often be ethnically based. at the local level. Together with limited public resources to support refugees. given the emerging research evidence which highlights the role of social networks in the reception and settlement of refugees. Whilst the political rationale for this clear-cut demarcation is understandable. community and legal variables. 119 . Equally. Rather. this places enormous burdens on the local capacity of the NGO sector. integration is a continuous process which. recognition and integration. creates a number of problems for effective integration. the UK is characterised by a proliferation of smaller. Oxford Brookes University impact which they have on national discourse and policy. specialist NGOs which support asylum seekers and refugees. However. The concentration of NGO resources and personnel in the capital exists. Consistent with the multicultural and laissez-faire stance to integration adopted in the UK. On the other hand. to identify clear impacts and to focus on longer term priorities such as integration. government absence from the field at the operational level and the unregulated distribution of the asylum seekers and refugees has resulted in spontaneous and widespread demand for support. depending on the mix of individual. 6. Status Determination and the Timing of Integration There are significant points of connection. the UK is characterised by a simpler division between London. between reception. there are distinctive points of contrast with Germany and Italy. in both policy and practice. On the other hand. The dominance of church-based NGOs found in Germany and Italy is not evident in the UK: the vast majority of NGOs working with refugees are secular and. in distinction to the few large NGOs dominating integration work in Germany across the different Länder. Concentrating limited resources on emergency and medium term care and subsistence needs. the existence of RCOs ensures that a critical resource is in place to support the different modalities of integration. the south-east and the regions. their disarticulation across EUMS and the deployment of practical integration measures for recognised refugees only.6 Reception. mainly in the larger cities. there are several respects in which the restrictive character of reception polices and practices in each of the countries thus cut across effective integration. ample research evidence shows that such a fine line is unsustainable in practice and that the resistance to the introduction of positive integration measures in the asylum determination phase is counterproductive. Driven by the hard line view which EUMS adopt towards permanent immigration. The stance adopted in most EUMS is that asylum seekers (and possibly refugees) will return home and thus integration begins at the point of positive status determination. while Germany’s federal structure promotes both equality and significant differences in NGO activities between the 16 Länder. there is a notable growth in refugee community-based organisations (RCOs) compared with a minimal role in Germany and Italy where national agencies and the assimilationist model of integration have tended to inhibit grass roots initiatives. these activities tend to dissipate their overall ability to co-ordinate. Furthermore. and in Italy diversity is the product of a weak policy sector. As regards the UK NGO sector. The dominance of secular NGOs at the national level is a particular point of contrast. but is perhaps less marked than is the case in the other two countries.

6. the often inadequate level of language training. involving key variables in thesocial and economic life of hosts and refugees. inhibit the development of life experience in the country of settlement. and limited access to skills training. at intermediate stages during reception and upon final decision . In respect of these variables. as in the case of Italy the lack of a nationally directed settlement strategy.7 The Meaning of Integration Whilst there is some measure of convergence surrounding the instruments and processes of accessing citizenship and the practices to support integration – for example both the German and the UK legislation in 2002 address these issues amongst other factors – the fact remains that there is only limited consensus over the meaning of integration. Conversely unconstrained geographical mobility or. eligibility for support. whether quota-based as in Germany and planned as in the UK (since 1999). shows how this process undercuts ethnic community formation and the role of independent networks in promoting the long-term settlement of refugees and fostering their integration. integration is about promoting social and economic cohesion.thus becomes critical to the process. as the study indicates. amongst other rights. Poor articulation between reception and full status determination. the timing of integration measures. on the longer term capacity of asylum seekers to integrate when they receive permanent status. This militates against effective integration. notably with regard to access to the full range of welfare benefits. points to the core of the political and cultural factors and tensions on which integration is contingent. produce substantial lacunae in the process of integration. Of equal significance are the disjunctive impacts of protracted decision-making on status determination.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. There are major gaps in policy and practice at all these stages irrespective of the country. 120 . Thus for some. Isolation from the economic and social mainstreams of the country. In a similar vein to reception centres. skills training programmes and to housing provision (especially for single refugees). In respect of all these facets of reception – dispersal. That it might be a two way process. Variables such as the means and form of integration. Evidence of dispersal impacts in this report. Evidence from a study of reception policies in other EUMS 69 indicates the negative impact of reception centres. prolonged uncertainty of status is shown to be highly de-motivating in the short term and by deferring access to key elements of integration such as employment. inhibits the longer term aspirations of settlement. the degree of independence afforded to refugees. for others it is overcoming the barriers of social marginalisation and exclusion which are endemic experiences amongst refugee and ethnic minority groups. reception centres. appear to promote integration by enabling refugee/ethnic support networks to consolidate and by facilitating labour market access and social mobility. Yet compulsory geographical dispersal and prohibition on movement are gaining momentum. protracted decision making – the failure to design effective exit strategies for those receiving positive refugee status is a particular stumbling block to successful integration. there are both similarities but also marked differences between EUMS. in countries such as the Netherlands. Oxford Brookes University Freedom of movement is a key factor in integration. The timing of integration measures – upon arrival. mediate the process in significant ways.

cultural indicators of integration such as levels of community development. intergenerational measures of assimilation are far less evident in the integrationist modalities across EUMS. Much reliance is placed by EUMS on measurable factors and output indicators related to functional integration . and Italy’s preliminary stages in developing refugee integration policy. whilst the lack of a clear national integration strategy for each country might make it more difficult to achieve trans-national baseline for EU harmonisation of integration. current practice across EUMS indicates a controlled. but rather less agreement on the end state.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. This emphasis inevitably highlights bureaucratic procedures and instrumental means to integration. managerialist and closely demarcated framework of measures. rather than being enabled to organise the processes of integration for themselves. In general terms. In all these respects. for the most part these apply only to recognised refugees in EUMS. strikingly illustrates differences in institutional arrangements for refugees which have important implications for the comparative analysis of refugee integration policy across EU Member States. First. an increasingly similar picture in the UK. levels of language proficiency. convergence is less evident but is emerging. Germany’s ‘corporate’ approach. economic mobility is a key variable in integration. Moreover the need to ‘mainstream’ refugees with other groups seeking citizenship and integration is an important proviso here. up-take of skills training programmes. These differences also bring to the fore the processes for supporting integration. On the degree of independence afforded to refugees and the role of different administrative arrangements. Whether or not there is an explicit strategy is perhaps less important than the coherence and fit of the policies and practices. This is a major issue still to be addressed. ethnic cohesion and identity. These variables are the more profound determinants of the effectiveness and success of the refugee integration. in the case of Italy and the UK the initiatives and practices do not add up to a coherent integration strategy. EUMS have a major challenge in harmonising the meaning of and the practices for supporting integration. Citizenship. convergence at a general level conceals significant differences in practice. Oxford Brookes University On the means of integration there is some degree of convergence. all demonstrate that refugees tend to be administered to. with regard to the refugees themselves what matters more is the effectiveness of the polices and practices within the country of residence in meeting their needs. Thus. yet they are largely neglected in the search for convergence by EUMS at the present time. 6. For example. 121 .for example employment take up. More significantly with respect to form of integration. Differences between assimilationist and multi-cultural models have been highlighted. Nevertheless. There are three key factors here. integration should be based upon active partnership between migrants and the host society. Moreover the timing of integration measures. integration and policy harmonisation The comparative discussion of citizenship and integration strategies raises important implications for the long-term development of a harmonised immigration policy and specifically the approach adopted for the integration of refugees. creates artificial barriers to the long term effectiveness of programmes.8. the fieldwork evidence of a small number of RCOs in Germany and Italy compared to the case of the UK. and integration must be supported by coherent settlement packages at different administrative levels. The evidence suggests that: the integration process should start as soon as possible after arrival.

Third. the lack of national strategies is symptomatic of a more significant conclusion. Oxford Brookes University Second. This. begins to erode the fundamental principle of protection. a significant element in the past. according to many commentators and advocacy groups. 122 . elaborating an EU-wide framework for refugee integration remains a formidable challenge. enforcing discernable distinctions between these two groups. whereas in the past the integrationist policies and practices of most EUMS did not readily distinguish between asylum seekers/refugees and other migrant groups claiming citizenship. beyond mechanistic and procedural harmonisation. is beginning to break down. At the same time within the country. between the EUMS. and distinctive variations in the strategies for social inclusion and the connections which refugees make to their host society. employment. The contrasting histories of immigration and how these have informed the processes and practices of integration in different member states. in practice. of the processes and instruments which underpin the pursuit of citizenship and integration. welfare benefits – impedes the medium and longer term capacity of refugees to adapt and assimilate/integrate. More restricted engagement with the instruments of settlement and integration whilst awaiting refugee status determination – for example housing.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. treating refugees as a special case with regard to integration policies runs the risk of ghettoising them rather than managing diversity in the way refugees and other groups integrate into the host society. now the impact of legislation for the reception of asylum seekers is. with regard to the national political discourse on refugees. The danger here. is that immigration and refugeehood have become conflated in recent years. The data highlight markedly different conceptualisations. establish marked distinctions and clearly imply that. The evidence suggests that the ‘mainstreaming’ of refugees within the general framework of integration polices and practices.

1. The key difference lies in the involuntary and therefore essentially reactive impetus to refugee migration in contrast to the proactive role migrants play in more orthodox circumstances.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.). policy frameworks (for example. place of birth). Research on the particular characteristics of refugee integration tends to track the concepts and methods deployed in the broader field of migration. and examines the prospects for harmonising integration policies and practices in the EU.2. integration and state formation (7.4. The empirical evidence of the previous chapter and the conceptual discussion of this chapter are brought together in the final chapter (Chapter 8) which develops a series of indicators of integration. Concepts and Typologies of Integration By examining the data on integration within a comparative framework. offer relevant insights into the specific case of refugees. The argument here is that the way states incorporate foreigners (for example through participation in social institutions in the host country) reveal the structure and function of membership systems or incorporation regimes. integration and rights-based access (7. agency and modes of inclusion (7.3. We draw on four author’s’ work which capture the main contours of the discourse on integration which.). Oxford Brookes University 7 Concepts and Typologies of Integration Introduction Building on the comparative assessment of issues for refugee integration revealed in the case study evidence. this chapter assesses a number of conceptual typologies of integration and their relevance to the present study. ancestry. refugee acculturation and integration (7. Integration: agency and modes of inclusion For Soysal (1994) the modes of inclusion exercised by nation states in relation to foreign populations holds the key to understanding the processes of citizenship and integration. Four conceptual frameworks of integration are considered: integration. Specific emphasis was given to the differing conceptualisations of integration – essentially the distinctive models of assimilation and multi-culturalism . 123 . let alone the enormous volume of empirical investigation of these variables in many specific communities and many countries.). the last section highlighted both convergent and divergent policies and practices within EUMS. at the same time. assesses the challenges in operationalising them. 7. Needless to say there is a substantial generic literature on migration and the consequent processes of citizenship and integration which migrants engage. this section elaborates in more detail the concept of integration by reviewing some of the main typologies of integration and by exploring their relevance to the present study in terms of developing indicators which are considered in the next section. Building on these conclusions. These regimes comprise legal rules (for example in the case studies duration of residence.and the important implications these contrasting conceptualisations have both for refugees themselves and for harmonising policy and practice amongst EUMS.5).2. 7.

3. The citizenship regime in the Netherlands parallels the picture in the UK. Operationalising this concept Soysal develops a fourfold typology of membership models which elaborates the ways in which foreigners are incorporated.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Austria? Italy Source: based on Soysal 1994 * Examples derived from current research In relation to this study – the specific character of refugee as opposed to non-forced immigrant integration – there are some limitations in pressing the applicability of the model too far. Rather than a proactive. supported by the fact that the UK and Germany are two cases which Soysal discusses. The evidence from the case study of refugee integration in the UK closely echoes these characteristics. Sweden UK + 1. There are two key parameters in the construction of the typology: first the locus of governance and action in relation to membership (for example the state. Soysal suggests. the typology of membership models is as follows: Table 7: Soysal’s Typology of Membership Models Model 1. In this respect. Contingent here are factors such as labour market mobility and above all. Corporate Liberal Statist Fragmental Locus of Governance Social group Social group State State Administrative Organisation Centralised Decentralised Centralised Decentralised Examples* Germany. Summarising Soysal’s analysis. the main contours of the incorporation regime are demarcated by the proliferation of voluntary sector agencies in the UK often drawing on local authority financial support. civil society or social groups which organise membership). the multi-cultural race relations framework combined with anti-discriminatory measures and fostered by measures to attain equality of opportunity in employment and housing. national and centralised policy to foster Corporate (1) ethnic identities and groups – the case for example in Denmark and Sweden although in the latter case integration is ‘managed’ through a local ‘contract’ with each individual – the UK instead provides a framework which protects and enables groups and individuals to claim their rights of access to the modes of inclusion. Given the absence of a clearly demarcated national policy for integration in the UK. and second the degree to which the administrative organisation of membership is centralised or decentralised. the Netherlands France. amongst other impacts. 124 . Oxford Brookes University case study evidence of reception practices and dispersal). demarcate the main contours of the. define the relationship between the receiving state and foreigners and thus the modes of inclusion. Incorporation regimes are historically encoded outcomes of the divergent and contrasting ways in which states have come to define their understanding of membership and belonging. Nonetheless. as the case study revealed. Denmark. These regimes. and administrative and organisational structures (for example the role of Länder in Germany or NGOs). the locus of governance wresting with social group capabilities. is the emphasis on decentralised enactment of the modalities and individualistic strategies to gain membership. the general utility of the typology resonates closely with the case study. 4. 2. the corollary. Soysal suggests that the UK conforms to the Liberal (2) model of incorporation. notable for the paucity of state sponsored modes and instruments of incorporation.

Closer inspection shows that. Applying Soysal’s typology to the Italian case again reveals a combination of models: in this instance embracing both the Fragmental and Corporate models. the dominant position of churchbased NGOs and the commensurately marginalised situation of agencies from within the refugee and ethnic minority communities. for example: centrally funded language classes. Whilst from its assimilationist standpoint Germany makes minimal or no provision for ethnic minorities in the sense required in the Corporatist model. from this perspective.operating in a decentralised mode. from a governance perspective it is centralist and corporate in its reliance on intermediary groups. for the incorporation of foreigners. the German approach is sustained through. In this sense Castles explains why variation in incorporation and integration exist. the state creates the space for what appears to be a patchwork of civil society agencies . where the combination of models underscored an essentially complementary picture of locus and responsibility. the key factor is the impact of different processes of state formation. and there are distinct variations in practice between them. With provisos. whilst the Länder are the most significant actors in terms of implementing incorporation policies. 125 . whereas Soyal’s concern is to explain how different structures and functions of membership systems impact on incorporation. This locus of power in a fragmental polity accordingly empowers these agencies to shape the modalities of incorporation. in terms of historical processes and experiences. with Soysal and other researchers. Whilst conflicting attitudes and ideologies exist between the social agencies in Italy. his findings hold in the case of refugee integration as well. Integration and State Formation Castles’ work on states’ response to immigration and ethnic diversity (1994) also introduces a number of models to explain the processes for incorporating immigrants into receiving states. in the sense that the NGOs are nationally-based social institutions and fulfil the role of key providers of support for integration. At the same time. reinforces the Corporate power of these well established interests. the agency of the NGOs. Though falling short of a fully articulated Statist model. in general terms. occupying an intermediate position which incorporates elements of the Corporate (1) and the Statist (3) membership models. But by abdicating its responsibilities for the practical task of incorporating foreigners in general and refugees in particular. local authorities and informal networks . the Italy experience discloses a rather more antagonistic and confusing tension between the models. Castles’ typology resonates. but it complements Soysal’s interpretation in that for Castles. the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. in so far as the state occupies a major legal and policy vacuum at national level and possesses a disparate but weak array of legal apparatus. a Corporate locus of governance defines the position of these agencies. in this case the large NGOs (church-based or linked to political parties).3. Oxford Brookes University For Soysal. The lack of both a comprehensive set of policy instruments for the reception of refugees and a national integration framework have been noted.NGOs (predominantly church-based). Germany’s position within the typology is less clear cut then the UK. The Fragmental model encompasses the defining characteristics of Italy at the present time. 7. in terms of a unified and commonly held view of integration as assimilation. In contrast to the German case however. the Federal framework within which they operate is clearly Statist.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. and BAFl’s enhanced responsibilities for all integration matters under the 2002 legislation.

the question now being asked is whether assimilation. there is a growing ambiguity in the differentiation of refugees. illustrate Castles’ third category of assimilationist states. but an ill-formed position with regard to new forms of immigration. the Netherlands Source: based from Castles1994 *Examples added: derived from current research project Germany. a plausible example of differential citizenship and incorporation/exclusion (model 2) with citizenship for the Aussiedler emphasis on ius consanguinis. but ideal types. has created an adequate basis for social. it offers more lenient measures for conferring citizenship on the basis of ius consanguinis notably for the descendants of emigrants from earlier generations. France. Integration and rights-based access In a number of recent papers Penninx (1999. though 126 . A shift is emerging from this dominant paradigm of citizenship rights and assimilation to a model of integration which is more pluralistic in character. By highlighting distinctive features of citizenship and incorporation in terms of progressively more ‘intensive’ forms of incorporation. As with Soysal these models are not discrete representations. premised on the republican and constitutional defence of rights-based equality for all citizens regardless of ethnicity. economic and cultural relations between different ethnic groups. Castles’ typology helps to identify the key variables and indicators of integration as well as drawing attention to key dimensions in the process of harmonising EU immigration and asylum policy. UK + model 4 UK +model 3. a belated state with extensive borders and a ‘vulnerable’ geographical location reveals. Interestingly the current debate on integration of immigrants in France is beginning to challenge the long-standing assimilationist stance adopted with respect to the integration of ethnic minorities.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. too. Denmark. Castles’ typology refines and extends this rather polarised framework by proposing four models. as we have seen in the case study (Chapter 2). 2000a) offers a typology which. Table 8: Castles’ Models of Incorporation Model Total Exclusion Differential Exclusion Assimilation Pluralism Characteristics not relevant to EU partial inclusion with restricted and differential rights to citizenship and resistance to permanent settlement absorption into the mainstream by subsuming cultural differences recognising multi-cultural diversity and equality of rights Example* Germany.4. at least prior to status determination from the incorporation of other foreigners so that for the former group model 2 may better reflect their experience. Sweden and Denmark. in which the extreme right achieved a significant if short-lived profile specifically on the issue of immigration. Following the presidential elections in mid 2002. Yet even here. The UK with a long standing history of civil society. avowed multi-culturalism from the 1970s. 2000. Oxford Brookes University The case study analysis in Chapters 2-5 adopted a twofold typology of citizenship and integration distinguishing between assimilationist and multi-culturalist tendencies. fits the prototype of differential exclusion. particularly refugees. notably refugees. It is a belated state like Germany and with even more vulnerable borders. Italy. and extremely low naturalisation rates for other foreigners. Italy Sweden. and political liberality conforms to Castles’ pluralist model with some assimilationist characteristics. though not part of the study. 7.

what are the distinctive features of citizenship and. To the ‘why’ of Castles and the ‘how’ of Soysal. It makes clear the modalities. Dwelling on the key benchmark of citizenship. whilst simultaneously indicating the policy environments within which these rights should be developed and protected. what are the channels of mobilisation available to immigrants in a receiving state. welfare entitlements • Cultural and religious rights: eg inclusion of migrant organisations. such indifference is set to continue. These different aspects of citizenship operate at different levels at the same time. the policy focus is on the first two categories. Whereas Soysal’s remit is with the structures and agency of membership. From the perspective of refugee integration. Oxford Brookes University still evolving. Cultural and religious rights are not addressed proactively or systematically. 127 . Penninx’s perspective on citizenship and integration adopts a rights-based analysis and how access to these rights is the determinants of incorporation. Clearly some rights are granted. Penninx’s approach highlights the fact that almost exclusively. some are not. perhaps top down or bottom up – as opposed to Soysal’s categorical centralised or decentralised model. Given the assimilationist stance on citizenship operated across a number of EUMS.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. multi-cultural education Defining citizenship in terms of these three distinct spheres of rights enhances the discussion considerably. This indicates the role of state agency in conferring rights and opening up the channels and structures to mobilise rights. Gradual convergence by EUMS is accompanying a curtailment of rights for putative refugees in the form of increasing deterrence to arrival and in-country restrictionism. Penninx’s citizenship typology has five categories which overlap with earlier models. Moreover the three spheres are mutually reinforcing in their impact. Socio-economic rights for asylum seekers are being curtailed at crucial stages of reception and status determination: this subsequently has negative impacts on settlement processes. and Castles’ concern is with differentiating the degree and characteristics of incorporation with respect to processes of state formation. by which citizenship and incorporation are enacted. embraces and elaborates many of the variables already discussed. and the availability of rights is not fixed. Penninx’s conceptualisation is less clear on measuring the extent to which these rights are provided. Penninx adds the ‘what’ . he suggests that this can be differentiated in terms of three rights-based spheres: • Juridicial and political rights: eg formal rights of citizenship • Socio-economic rights: eg employment rights. and particularly on the first whether at the national government (in respect of the three case studies) or at the communitarian level. more particularly.

to the extent that integration occurs. Refugee acculturation and integration In the review so far. These polarities are further reflected in the institutionalisation of citizenship and integration processes. Whilst extensive empirical research on refugees illustrates many points of contact between the experiences of this group and the wider processes of migrant membership and incorporation in a receiving society. As discussed above. Oxford Brookes University Table 9 Penninx: Typology of Citizenship Model Liberal Nationalism Liberal Neutrality Liberal multiculturalism Cultural Pluralism Communitarian Pluralism Characteristics Some tolerance of other cultures but retention of national model of belonging and inclusion – survival of national culture paramount. the overlay of additional entry and membership criteria . Deploying Penninx’s typology. countries like France also fit the Liberal Neutrality category with strong constitutional/juridicial protection of equal (in effect natural) rights of citizenship. Thus Peninnx contrasts countries which have an explicit formulation of immigration policies linked to integration and those which more reluctantly acknowledge immigration and are thus likely to lack a coherent policy and institutional framework for integration. whilst Italy and Germany (alongside the Nordic EUMS) span the Liberal Nationalism/Liberal Neutrality categories.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. only a small cadre of researchers in the field of 128 . economic membership and cultural diversity is only weakly evident.5. Developing these distinctive variables. the debate is opening up as to whether this approach has created divisive social and economic outcomes.not just as migrants but as refugees as well. Endorsing the twofold distinction adopted in this research report. cultural differences relegated to private sphere Indifference to cultural identity: again integration occurs at juridicial/political level. focus on ethnocultural differences Equality between groups but minimal interaction Based on Penninx 2000 Penninx’s conceptualisation of citizenship is developed further in terms of the ranking of integration polices according to the degree of inclusionary or exclusionary practice. nevertheless he detects convergence in several northern European states around multicultural practices. the predominance of political rather than economic imperatives to migrate. On this basis in terms of the categories in his typology the UK’s regime (alongside the Netherlands for example) might be termed Liberal Multiculturalism. integration through partial inclusion of migrant organisations Progress to complete equality in public domain. Amongst the key variables are: the forced removal (either directly or indirectly expelled) from membership of the former ascriptive group. Integration occurs at juridicial/political level. a number of critical factors distinguish the experience of forced migration for refugees compared to other forms of voluntary migration and thus the implications for integration. models of refugee integration have been subsumed within the wider framework of migrants as a whole. the limited choice of receiving state. 7. with no account of cultural differences or state recognition Cultural differences are recognised in the public domain. with some evidence of Cultural Pluralism. attempts to forge greater equality. but the commitment to social. integration at all levels. Thus he argues that although many EUMS are exclusionary in relation to citizenship at the current time. then Penninx suggests a progression in Europe from assimilationist (ie Liberal Nationalism) to multicultural regimes. the potential temporariness of migration.

He points to: the significance of mediating variables at both individual and group levels. he captures the essential contrast between refugees and other forms of migration in terms of degrees of autonomy in the migratory process – refugees are reactive migrants as opposed to proactive in the latter case. Whereas the strategic outcomes and terminology resonate with those identified in the earlier models. notably the reactive mode of refugee migration and the coercive nature of exile. His work thus has particular currency in this study. a key finding in Berry’s work is that the strategies of assimilation and integration are generally less individually stressful than where migrants pursue strategies of separation or marginalisation. Whereas Richmond’s focus is largely on how migrants engage and then respond to the process of exit.as the critical variables in the integration process. Richmond argues that exit. It is the refugee/migrant her/himself who determines which of these strategies to adopt. Berry has developed a conceptualisation of acculturation from a psychological perspective in which migrants pursue a range of possible strategies.the role of the receiving state in terms of reception and membership . In later work Berry (1997) develops the multidimensional character of acculturation. The experience of refugees is set within the broader praxis of the integration of migrants as a whole. introduces two additional perspectives to the integration process. Berry suggests that these strategies are conditioned by the response which migrants adopt to the two critical choices they confront. 1999) also locates the migrant/refugee at the centre of the analysis. Reinforcing and developing this point. Table 10: Berry’s Acculturation Strategies Is my cultural identity of value and to be retained? No Yes Yes No Are positive relations with larger (dominant) society to be sought? Yes Yes No No Strategy/response assimilation integration separation/segregation marginalisation Adapted from Berry 1980 Although not altogether surprising. 1997. But the significance of Richmond’s analysis is to show how the variables creating the impetus for migration also condition subsequent reaction to protracted exile and the processes of integration. Berry in a number of publications (eg 1980. Oxford Brookes University refugee studies have conceptualised the specific characteristics of the integration process for this particular group of migrants. The further significance of Richmond’s model in the present context is to place the refugee/migrant at centre of the process counterbalancing the instrumentality and agency of the receiving state which are the key variables of the earlier models. the differential pressures for change emanating from the dominant group level (ie receiving 129 . Richmond’s multivariate model of migration (1988. These are summarised in the following table. This critical distinction impacts most obviously on the propensity to migrate and the predisposing factors. 1994:56-70). the key point to emphasise in Berry’s model is the locus of control.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Whereas the models considered so far have stressed the significance of entry . First. are salient factors impinging on the integration process. the distinctive feature of Berry’s work puts the spotlight on migrants in the receiving country at the integration stage.

Conversely. many refugee groups have assimilated but this does not necessarily mean they have ‘devalued’. and positive relations with the dominant society are sought. but the refugee populations still display many of the characteristics of marginalised and separate communities. is to resist categorising a country’s regime. Although encompassing the impact of internal and external variables on the process of integration. Table 11: Berry's Framework of Acculturation Acculturation stage Prior Factors [society of origin] Group Individual political context economic situation During Factors [society of settlement] attitudes social support from hosts and co-ethnics demography status migration impetus personality phase of resettlement acculturation strategies coping mechanisms social support societal attitudes Adapted from Berry 1997 The significance of Berry’s work.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. again generalising. Because the current research has not investigated integration and membership from the refugees’ perspective it is not possible to relate Berry’s typology directly to the case studies. Oxford Brookes University society) and the non-dominant group level (group of origin). by internalising the instrumentality of the state and the ‘dominant society’ as a strategic issue for the refugee/migrant to resolve. 7. in Berry’s terms their own cultural identity. individually and in groups to confront the process of integration. the typology does not allow sufficient weight to these factors. in comparison with models of state instrumentality. coping and adaptation (the example of language acquisition best illustrates these stages and the paradoxes inherent in the progression) underpins the adoption of acculturation strategies which lead to different levels of acculturation. amongst many refugee groups in Italy and Germany cultural value and identity is to be retained. another important implication of Berry’s approach is to indicate that different groups may well adopt different strategies within the same country of settlement. the refugee may well be rebuffed by that society. In any case the key factor here. Moreover. In Sweden and Denmark. the key to his approach is to invest the migrant in the centre of the psychological process of acculturation in terms of overt and covert patterns of behaviour. In this respect Berry’s work is the counterpoint to the other models based on the agency of the host society The limitation of Berry’s approach is that. and he distinguishes between the way these two levels moderate the process prior to and during the acculturation process. In general terms the experience of refugees in the UK might be said to fit quite well with Berry’s integrationist strategy. in contrast to the other typologies.6 Conclusions With respect to the integration of refugees in EUMS this review of the typologies highlights a 130 . lies in his emphasis on the proactive capacity of migrants. An iterative but dynamic progression of stress. Thus even if ‘positive relations with larger (dominant) society {are] sought’.

Changes in citizenship rules and in social perceptions in the Netherlands suggest that this country has become progressively more multicultural in its stance on integration. integration and citizenship are contested concepts. in relation to the ways in which states incorporate foreigners – the regimes and modes of inclusion. This in turn compounds the challenge of harmonising policy and practice. at a general level. Berry’s approach provides a significant counterpoint to the instrumentality of receiving state regimes which form the analytical foundation for the majority of conceptualisations. it is the relative character of integration which is paramount: relative in the sense of the attributes of the refugees and relative to the norms and values of the receiving society. the tendency of some EUMS such as Denmark and Austria is to move in the other direction towards more rigid models of membership and citizenship. Second. as the detailed analysis of Germany. policies. Oxford Brookes University number of significant conclusions. Despite this. The process of convergence. some evidence from the case studies indicates a process of informal convergence. In this respect. the UK and Italy illustrated. is given momentum by the communitarian project progressively articulated from 1997 onwards by the Treaty of Amsterdam. an essentially ‘post-modernist’ perspective. Socio-economic and cultural processes of inclusion – ie integration – are notably subservient by comparison. France is a powerful and current example where traditionally ‘accepted’ concepts of citizenship and membership are not necessarily static. This is where the challenge to membership and national identity seems greatest. combine with material conditions and opportunities as well as the psychological adjustment to new circumstances – a perspective captured in Berry’ work. notably 131 . nature of these conclusions underscores many of the broader tensions and challenges to the harmonisation of immigration and integration polices. where exclusion dominates the political agenda. The paradoxical. narrowing down the criteria of belonging inevitably brings to the fore the unique national variables which define membership rather than collectively held or convergent characteristics. substantial variations remain in the details of incorporation. on the basis of her examination of some of the same countries as the current study. argues for such convergence. Because states adopt contrasting conceptualisations of. The Vienna Action Plan and European Council Meeting in Tampere.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Yet. Social participation within the host community. as discussed in this study (Chapter 1). The typologies are notable for the remarkably similar terms they adopt. and in some respects the contradictory. Berry’s term ‘acculturation’ offers perhaps a more neutral description of the process. and notwithstanding the challenges to convergence which these models present. and most obviously. the modalities for managing membership dwell on procedural and juridicial components – ie citizenship. interaction between cultures and ethnicities lies at the heart of models of citizenship and integration. Soysal for one. the important point to make is that within states citizenship and integration are malleable commodities. integration is not a chaotic concept. For the most part in the models we have explored. although the meaning of the terms may differ in detail. Focusing on refugees as proactive agents in the process of integration. this produces great difficulty in agreeing clear definitions and indicators. Thus the largest differences between EUMS in conceptualising integration and developing policy frameworks remain in the cultural sphere. The key factor here in. although inevitably change is slow. is the nature of the framework of statutes. and regimes for the integration of foreigners. and institutions to manage and enable these processes. First. On the other hand. Arguably. although the typologies and models demonstrate the absence of a comprehensive definition of integration. Conversely. Especially in a climate of restrictionism towards refugees. Third.

Whether such a shift of focus for refugees. and the understandable wish of EUMS to eradicate clandestine entry and especially human trafficking. as the models imply. and to promote equal take-up of employment or welfare rights or training and education. it is still the case that ambivalence and tension are the dominant characteristic of EUMS migration policy with respect to TCNs. Yet. as the current study has concluded. explicit forms of social exclusion. Specifically with regard to refugees. with continuing high rates of asylum applications and illegal in-migration. together with uncertainty over the intra-European migration impacts of enlargement and the longer term challenge of tackling Europe’s growing labour shortage. through a variety of social processes. The various models presented in this chapter highlight the way in which contrasting national histories and traditions. The value of deploying the typologies is that they throw into sharp relief the tensions balance between convergence and divergence with respect to the ways in which EUMS integrate foreigners. then the individual and the collective interests of EUMS policy making should be refocused on modes of refugee inclusion rather than on the restrictive instruments of the incorporation regimes: the latter. many of the instruments and policy interventions to promote integration tend to focus on outputs . preliminary shifts in policy to multi-culturalism can be detected amongst some northern European states. On the one hand there is policy convergence as Member States face common challenges in responding to globalised patterns and processes of international migration. Post-national forms of belonging and modes of inclusion.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. the characteristics of self reliance and how it is promoted. as the case studies show. To the extent that these tendencies hold. On the other hand. These tensions remain at the heart of the EU project and reveal the size of the challenge set out set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Oxford Brookes University with regard to refugees. refugees are perhaps a special case in this respect and invite more intense political resistance. protracted decision making on status. However. remains to be seen. are increasingly taking precedence over national citizenship such that integration is mediated by modes of inclusion with are much more profound than legal status. remain the major preoccupation. the extent to which membership and integration are achieved in terms of these variables is crucially dependent on key inputs such as the type of education provided. the fact remains that large numbers of asylum seekers and other migrants remain in EUMS for protracted periods without full citizenship. seeking to retain the national differences in the conceptualisations of citizenship and membership which are deeply embedded in their sense of identity and their policy regimes. Finally. and the value given to cultural diversity: in other words the social and cultural relevance and 132 . is to question the significance of national citizenship per se as a gateway to integration as foreigners are increasingly able to enjoy social. and modes of belonging and membership vividly colour the incorporation regimes and the instruments by which foreigners are integrated. The fifth conclusion. notably with respect of naturalisation rules and labour market entitlements. the case studies show how the reception and incorporation regimes (deterrence. Despite growing restrictionism. of course. and curtailed rights) are antithetical to modes of inclusion. But even at a national level. Policy convergence is gradually eroding the distinctive citizenship and integration regimes of individual states. Convergence and respect for national differences go hand in hand. states are resisting this convergence predominantly in the cultural sphere. notably with regard to refugees. can be politically accomplished at the present time. economic and political rights without the acquisition of citizenship. the form and appropriateness of training and language skills. or other foreigners. Fourth.for example measures to prevent discrimination.

especially under conditions of restrictionism.impacts and consequences – rather than issues which may challenge the national histories and perceptions of belonging. In effect most measures designed to promote integration deal with proxy measures . at an earlier stage of policy formulation Germany and France. for example the UK and. 133 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Oxford Brookes University efficacy of vital resources of membership. Significantly a number of countries. These tensions and ambiguities impact directly on the design of indicators and they have profound implications for the harmonisation of integration policies of refugees and TCNs at a supranational level within the EU. These factors are considered in the next chapter. are now exploring these more profound modalities of integration.

time and place which directly impacts on the policies and practices of integration found in EUMS.3). The chapter also concludes with an assessment of the prospects for harmonising EU immigration policy with respect to refugee integration.2) and assesses the challenges in operationalising them (8. and assesses the disjunctive effects of differentiating refugees from the wider task of integrating minority communities at regional. The tendency for this diversity to be glossed over in the models of integration should not conceal the fact that measurement thus remains a major challenge in research and policy development with respect to refugee integration. 8. In other words the objective has been to measure the extent to which integration appears to have been achieved in terms of variables such as participation rates in employment or skills training programmes. nor even within the same national/ethnic group of refugees is integration an homogenous experience . The propensity to integrate may differ substantially between different ethnic groups within the same host community and thus in relation to identical prevailing conditions. Even within the same ethnic group. this chapter develops a framework of integration indicators (8. national and communitarian levels (8. The methodology used in the case studies. These are the core themes of the preceding chapters. Indicators are needed which accommodate these often latent variations in how groups have acculturated with the majority host. Harmonisation and Conclusions Introduction Based on the comparative findings from the case studies and the criteria offered by the typologies of integration examined in the last chapter. this examines the limits to convergence. First.4). Indicators of Integration. integration is a contested and relative concept which varies in context. provide some resolution of these tensions and form the basis for an approach to defining indicators below (7. location of settlement and the response of the local host community. Second.1 The Problem stated At the outset there are four points which underscore the problematique. the patterns of integration may show marked variations related to duration of residence. the formation of refugee community-based organisations.3). the comparative analysis of Chapter 5 and the conceptual discussion in Chapter 6. Consequently. neither within the refugee population as a whole. indicators of integration reflect this tendency. This stance is also reflected in our 134 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. given the divergencies in policy between Member States. Developing a portfolio of indicators of integration is contingent on reconciling some of these conceptual and definitional differences – in itself a key challenge for policy makers in the EUMS. the incidence of racial harassment and discriminatory practices. A third key point to emerge from the analysis is that the present format of policies and instruments to promote and stimulate integration in EUMS tends to emphasise outcomes rather than inputs and processes.a point which the case study chapters dramatically illustrated. Oxford Brookes University 8.

The study has profiled the substantial conceptual and practical differences between EUMS with respect to integration which limit the extent to which a detailed template of this kind could be designed. Determining what data to collect and the appropriate field methods to collect them also pose major challenges to the field researcher and policy maker. and the barriers to access. for example.4 elaborates some of these methodological problems. types of data and the form of indicators adopted. In short indicators cannot be divorced from the conceptual and political framework within which integration policies are located. Rather it becomes the analysis of a relative and contested process shaped by a clash of norms in particular time periods. the extent to which access to different tenure forms is constrained.2 Indicators of integration The comparative experience of integration in the three case study countries and the discussion of the research literature highlight both the challenge and the way forward in developing indicators. the research evidence points to four main clusters of indicators built around key policy variables which constrain and facilitate (often simultaneously) the process of integration. Indicators of integration need to be reflected in a distinction between these input and output variables. formulating indicators becomes progressively more complex through the series of four 135 . places and contexts. Taking these constraints into account. stating that: The pursuit of successful integration ceases to be the search for absolute levels of measurable variables (eg economic participation or income levels) beyond which we assume integration to have been achieved. Rather. the nature of discriminatory practices in recruitment. (Robinson1998:120). significant methodological challenges remain in operationalising a framework of indicators. in the case of labour market participation on: the design of education. At this stage. Section 7. we are sceptical of both the feasibility and the value of designing a detailed and comprehensive check-list format of indicators. 8.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. policies and the measurement of the processes and levels of integration are essential so that comparisons can be made across EUMS. In general terms. Input-driven policies and programmes for integration of refugees and other minority groups would instead focus on. Convergence of concepts. Robinson provides valuable advice in the search for indicators. For EUMS the more complex policy challenge is to tackle policy inputs. Thus from the perspective of policy makers in EUMS. Oxford Brookes University proposals set out below. harmonising integration policies across EUMS goes hand in hand with harmonising concepts and the methods of data collection and analysis. Analysing and verifying as complex and dynamic a concept as integration in practice is methodologically problematic. Fourth. language and skills training programmes to enhance the skill sets possessed by refugees. For housing. Absolute levels of measurement of a social phenomenon such as integration are clearly unsustainable and the extent to which integration is revealed crucially depends on the methods of assessment. the sensitivity of the programmes to the background of the client group. the sensitivity of access and housing management criteria to the needs of refugee households. even if some of definitional and conceptual challenges can be overcome. an inputs approach would focus on the behaviour of the different sectors of the of the housing market with regard to refugees.

Broadly speaking the first two clusters define the contours of integration from the perspective of the host country. in defining relevant indicators the task is both to map the components of citizenship and to identify the manifest and latent processes which a refugee has to negotiate to achieve citizenship.the design. a definitive indicator of integration.2). At the same time we recognise the need to develop measures of the actual ‘performance’ and experience of the refugee client groups – indicators which may define the extent to which individual refugees or specific groups of refugees have faired in the process of integration. whilst legal conferment of citizenship is not. In the main we address the performance of policies. in developing the framework of indicators. a map of the relevant indicators of citizenship might include: the legal frameworks and procedural obligations for acquiring citizenship. the different statuses available to asylum seekers as they progress through the stages to full refugee status and then citizenship. rightsbased discourse which at least in principle disregards a citizen’s provenance (whether refugee or indigenous descendant) in a country like France. instruments and frameworks – what might be termed the stance of the host country.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. and the differential rights of access to social economic and welfare rights accorded to the different stage of refugee status and citizenship determination. the defined time period for this journey. the assimilationist stance and practices of 136 . National frameworks of policy and process define the contours of integration in terms of certain stated public outcomes and/or procedures which demarcate defined entitlements and rights of citizenship. scope and reach of juridicial provisions and citizenship law. The essential point to recall here is that policies and legislation on integration found across EUMS are informed by contrasting paradigms of citizenship deeply rooted in the particular histories of the individual states and norms of belonging. Recalling the discussion on citizenship and integration (5. per se. The challenge. 8. For example such a framework should accommodate the contrasts between constitutional. the practical starting point for determining indicators must be the operational framework of national policies to promote integration and the legislative instruments which support these policies . and their modalities.2. The three case studies have illustrated the validity of this approach in which indicators were used to map out the component elements of the citizenship regime in each country and the negotiative processes of acquiring citizenship. is to capture and highlight these contrasting conceptualisations. In other words. not just the practices which they support. they reveal only part of the picture. In this respect. structures. The point to emphasise here is the interrelationship between the components of citizenship. In elaborating a range of indicators within these four clusters. However it should be stressed that a specific cluster does not exclusively reflect just one perspective. Whilst indicators which explore and measure the instrumentality of juridicial and procedural practices offer a necessary perspective on the extent to which integration might occur. The latter two clusters tend to emphasise these conditions. Oxford Brookes University clusters. we focus on two sides of the equation. which are the essential pre-requisites of integration. Both have significant impacts on the extent to which integration is achieved: it is the interplay between them which is critical. it is invariably a necessary if not sufficient condition for achieving this broader objective.1 The citizenship domain .processes and instruments of citizenship As we have argued.

the models of citizenship explored in Chapter 6 further nuance the indicators by which to measure the conceptual stance and the practices of EUMS with regard to integration. state practices and the differing conceptualisations of citizenship and incorporation. respectively dealing with strategies for settlement and integration. 5. and what is perceived to be a multi-cultural mode of citizenship in countries like the UK and the Netherlands which gives rise to positive discriminatory procedures designed to benefit minority ethnic groups (whether refugees or not).5. The case studies demonstrate a methodology using indicators which detail the conjuncture between legislative frameworks. resources and responsibilities between them. define the distribution and articulation of powers. duration of residence can be used to highlight the differential experience. administration and civil society Governance is the platform on which integration policies are implemented. the approach adopted in this report has illustrated how indicators such as reception practices.4 and 5.3. To this extent. Indicators which map the locus of their 137 . In all three case studies attention is drawn to the critical role played by NGOs in the governance of reception.2 The governance domain – governance. status determination procedures. compared to other immigrant groups with regard. 8. explore the mediating role of these factors and their impact on the process of integration. This apparatus and the demarcation between refugees and other migrants have significant implications for the subsequent processes of ‘membership’ of the host country. These indicators reveal the impact of the various models of membership on the form and extent to which integration of refugees and other minorities takes place. and the powers and resources which the different levels of government possess to develop and implement programmes of support for refugees and their host communities. map the distribution of responsibility between different levels of government and also between the agencies of state and civil society. deterrence and restrictionism has infused legislative and policy agendas of EUMS over the last decade with regard to the rights of entry and citizenship claims of asylum seekers and refugees. But as the research has indicated. Thus a framework of indicators should: map the stakeholders involved in the process of integration. Significant in the German and UK case studies is the impact which the distribution of powers between central government and sub-national levels has on the modalities of integration. Again. citizenship processes.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. In this respect. Most conceptual models of citizenship and integration relate to migrant communities as a whole.2. Oxford Brookes University German citizenship. Thus the indicators used to define these processes and impacts should be sufficiently fine-grained to distinguish the refugee/asylum seeker experience from the generic experience of access. key indicators here concern criteria such as: policies and practices for the dispersal of asylum seekers and refugees. The study has emphasised the significance of governance in promoting or constraining the effectiveness of measures for integration – sections 5. settlement and integration. have highlighted the formative role of these criteria. The case study chapters highlighted a methodology which indicated the mediating role of the structures of governance on the process of integration. governance and administration and NGOs. neglecting the distinctive features of the refugee experience.

one of the most important is the need for effective co-ordination of strategies. A further issue. structures and capacity for co-ordination provides. There is an extensive portfolio of indicators to reveal levels of integration and these are widely used in social policy research. 138 . actors and programmes. 8. or parity with hosts in terms of. Of the challenges which EUMS face in their approaches to integration of refugees and other migrants. • Housing – eg access to social and public housing by special client groups such as refugees. In this respect labour market mobility is cited as a key variable in refugee (and economic migrant) settlement and integration. powerful indicators of the effectiveness of integration policies and programmes. Yet constraints on access to labour markets and labour mobility reinforce the marginality and exclusion which refugees confront. reveal insights into their impact on the integration process. Whilst a formal process of coordination is not of itself a key indicator. Amongst the main indicators of functional integration which we have used in this report are the following. as well as the relative weight of their contribution. participation rates But there are some critical problems too. access to welfare benefits. And some indication of the extent to which effective co-ordination is achieved. housing provision.4). employment and unemployment rates. the fact remains that more positive progress towards integration is predicated on better co-ordination of policy and practice at all levels. in countries like Germany. noted above in 7. EUMS place most emphasis on functional integration: that is the extent to which refugees and other migrants achieve access to. employment take up. as the next section discusses (7. provides insights into the overall stance of government towards the challenge of integration. The objective here is to ascertain if refugees are represented in a range of key baseline socio-economic indicators proportional to the host population. An example here is the limited value which is often placed on supply-side skills and qualifications which refugees bring with them because of the discriminatory practices in labour recruitment. Indicators such as these are very much in line with the UNHCR’s approach to the measurement of integration and they underpin the Council of Europe’s definition of integration in terms of social and economic cohesion between hosts and migrants.2. levels of educational participation.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. however inadvertent these may be. • Language skills – levels of performance and hence the emphasis.3 Functional domain .2 is that these indicators tend to measure public outcomes but are less effective in assessing input variables and the barriers which refugees confront in accessing the socio-economic fabric of the host country. on obligatory language training as a precondition of citizenship • Labour market participation – eg eligibility for training. The case studies illustrated a spectrum of performance in this respect. skills level. One issue. Assessing the processes. as we have seen. • Education and skills training – eg scope and scale of programmes.social and economic participation As the study has noted. Oxford Brookes University activity. is the nature of the survey instruments to measure the extent of functional integration. the roles they perform vis à vis other (mainly public stakeholders).

2. social networks and social capital So far these clusters of variables provide a range of indicators to assess the effectiveness of public policy frameworks for the integration of refugees. Data Collection and Demographic Characteristics. cultural identity. more profound social dynamics which prevail in the host country and which demarcate levels of social inclusion. Oxford Brookes University 8. a point stressed by Berry in his analysis of how refugees assess the value of their cultural identity (Chapter 6. As we have seen these resources tend to be more flexible and adaptable whereas formal processes of reception and integration may paradoxically work against participation. We propose indicators which reveal the extent to which the cultural and social networks flourish and support refugees alongside the instruments and resources of the host society. The case study evidence has underscored the role of social networks and the social capital of refugee communities in providing the foundations for integration. and a reflection of. Here the key to integration is the extent to which refugees are active participants in the receiving societies. Whilst EUMS hold substantial and 139 .ethnicity. In terms of indicators then we are looking at measurements such as the formation of refugee community groups (including their coverage and functions). These findings resonate with ECRE’s conceptualisation of integration in terms of a dynamic process between hosts and refugees which impacts on many dimensions of social life of both communities. participation and connectivity by minority groups such as refugees in the majority community. In this sense integration is subjective and suggests that social compatibility and adaptability are as significant for the sense of inclusion as structured measures to ‘make’ integration. However these policy frameworks are themselves determined by. data collection issues and the appropriate units of measurement. Social participation is also determined by the expectations and experiences of both the host society and especially the refugees. The emphasis here is less on measuring the role and impact of state organisation more on the social processes of refugees and their hosts.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. 8. how the physical and social resources within the communities are mobilised and empowered. ECRE’s approach provides the clue to the kind of indicators which are appropriate here and which the research has highlighted. The case studies in Chapters 2-4 and the conceptual analysis in Chapter 6 have reinforced the weight which should be placed on the social domain in any measurement of integration. These policy frameworks set the boundaries for specific social and economic interventions and outcomes.3 Data collection and methodological issues in developing Integration Indicators An effective framework of appropriate and meaningful indicators of integration is contingent on resolving a number of methodological problems.4 Social domain . their access to resources similarly available to host groups. and the proactive capacities of the refugees at the individual level. These are now discussed. The quest here is for indicators of integration which capture the processes of membership and social participation in the host society.5). Indicators which might disclose how refugee groups perceive and exert their rights as members of the host community or which appraise the extent to which they balance the retention of cultural identity with processes of social inclusion in the mainstream are more likely to demonstrate whether integration is successful or not.

characteristics. Factors such as age. and survey instruments. First. including refugees. social status prior to exile. One would expect assimilated households to reflect the characteristics of the receiving society whilst a multicultural model of integration would be evident where a variety of ‘household’ configurations were identified. policy makers and NGOs. gender roles. Local factors are the key here such as access to housing. Oxford Brookes University increasingly complex data sets on asylum seekers. pre-existing language competency will all have an impact and may not be effectively measured. but it presents particular challenges with respect to data collection and measurement of integration. Whilst Berry’s model of acculturation focused on the individual. aggregate social and cultural variables provide the core interest of politicians. These contrasting philosophical positions clearly impact in a very direct way on the practical task of developing common indicators and measurement between EUMS. notably the controls on family reunification according to different levels of status determination – in the case of refugees the stages of asylum seeker. governments. households and groups even within the same ethnic/national community. In France these factors of social and economic life are the substance of a citizen’s universal right of equality. Clearly the immigration status of a household at any particular time will impact on both the aspirations for integration and the capacity to integrate. Thus. highlighting the significance of differential experiences. more extended rights to remain which exist in EUMS and then full refugee status. There is much evidence of markedly contrasting experiences between refugee groups from the same ethnic/national provenance. household is a socially and culturally constructed concept. because households are simultaneously a unit of measurement and also an indicator of the level and form of integration. not matters of ethnic or racial discrimination or preference. Time period. the phenomenon can be measured at the level of the individual. Data coverage and collection are fragmentary and diffuse: this severely compromises the levels of standardisation needed for comparative analysis.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Equally pertinent. ethnic and national identities distribution. Time series analysis could play a useful role here although little research has been conducted on this basis with 140 . few if any EUMS retain detailed up to date demographic data on refugees – numbers. let alone for the political task of harmonising policy. for example. a consistently difficult situation exists in reconciling different data sets because of different terminologies. Scale of Analysis. What is the appropriate scale and unit of analysis to assess integration? As the models of integration demonstrated. time series. What is the relevant time period over which to measure integration given that it is an incremental process? Substantial variations are to be expected between individuals. education and employment and the capacity of existing social networks to support the process of integration are all material here. The scale of analysis also presents challenges at the group and community level. educational performance or employment take-up by ethnic minorities (although refugee-specific data is unavailable). As with asylum seeker data. membership of migrant households is mediated by immigration regulations. almost inconceivable in France is the availability and depth of government baseline data which policy makers can access in the UK with regard to. Thus the household is a conventional unit of measurement for much social research and policy making. Methodologically the variety of definitions is problematic. The politics of data collection are perhaps the most revealing of the stance which different EUMS adopt for integration of refugees and immigrant populations. so with data on refugees. the household and the wider migrant community.

language competency as an indicator of integration may develop over a longer time period whilst membership of social and civil structures of the dominant society may take much longer. the importance of time period is predicated on the range and type of variables used to determine the extent of integration – the indicators. Thus employment invariably occurs at an early stage of integration. Host Society Response. there are two critical factors.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Moreover the variables to measure integration impact over different time scales. There is marked variation in models of citizenship and the meaning of citizenship across EUMS. But with respect to the complex and interconnected variables which condition the modalities of integration. Apart from the general point that the choice of variables will inevitably condition the extent to which integration is evident. the principal determinant of integration is the agency of the receiving society. discussed below. But what are the comparators to gauge the level of success? Here the data and analysis will need to reflect conditions in the host society. household size – which uniquely impact on refugees? Basis of Comparison. control groups or benchmarks need to be established. For the extent and effectiveness of integration to be verified. For example. whereas lower level indicators might include factors such as the existence and efficacy of refugee community groups. Second there is the need to separate out the factors which differentially impact on refugees as opposed to other migrants or the host community as a whole. Instrumental are the judicial and political rights which refugees enjoy. These variables need to be evaluated and this demands appropriate tool of measurement and data collection sensitive to the fact that the impact of these factors will occur at different levels of analysis and it will differ between refugee groups. Quantitative measurement is essential for policy makers and governments in determining trends and impacts. Appropriate methods. The choice of methods also presents a challenge. The issue here is whether there are access and eligibility criteria – eg length of time on waiting lists residence. the agency of social and welfare entitlements as well as the extent to which cultural assimilation or multicultural identities are engaged.4 Implications and Conclusions A number of implications and conclusions draw the research to a close. The furthest extent of integration might be measured by active political participation in the main stream. 8. The embedded nature of these national models defines the challenge of 141 . access to different modes of housing is often taken as a measure of integration. As the models of integration examined in the last chapter clearly illustrated. As we have seen already. the conditions of civil society. methods of data collection and analysis are needed which facilitate interpretative understanding of the process. An assessment of integration is largely conditioned by the choice of variables. Oxford Brookes University refugees. First is the need to prioritise the variables having the greatest impact – again these may vary from community to community. although as noted above the lack of standardisation militates against effective comparison. The historical and political encoding of membership profoundly affects the processes and objectives of integration – broadly the polarity between assimilation and multiculturalism. Choice of Variables. and comparisons made between different refugee groups.

Oxford Brookes University convergence and indicates that functional measures will dominate the process of harmonising EU policies on integration for the foreseeable future. And much of the evidence tends to highlight the instrumentality of agencies and institutions in the integration of refugees However. although measures for integration should address the domains of citizenship. one of the most important is the lack of effective co-ordination of the strategies. promoting social and economic cohesion (ECRE). actors and programmes for integration of refugees and other migrants. 142 . From these perspectives. Rather. and the contrasting definitions of social inclusion and membership which characterise the EUMS. because integration is more than a functional process of adaptation and it is not easily susceptible to objective measures. This suggests a move away from a purely objective set of indicators which can be applied in a standardised form across EUMS to a context specific and interpretative set of measures. Thus. the levels of participation with the host society and the opportunities which the state apparatus offers for integration. On behalf of refugees. The fact remains that more positive progress towards integration is predicated on better coordination at national and regional levels. there is considerable difficulty in elaborating a cross-national set of integration indicators given the variations in national policy frameworks. governance and functional performance. The relationship between the objectives of protecting rights. the stance adopted by representative agencies has underscored many dimensions of this research. measuring the degree of integration depends on assessing the social and cultural domains of refugees and the mediating role of the instruments of membership of the host community. Of the shortcomings amongst EUMS which the report has identified. promoting opportunity and facilitating proactive engagement underscore both the tensions and challenges which EUMS face in the quest for integration. Of themselves citizenship and functional measure of integration are necessary but insufficient indicators. integration is conceptualised in this study in terms of social inclusion. the capacity to sustain and empower their own internal networks and support systems balanced against the structure of social relationships between hosts and refugees. the extent to which refugees are able to retain and develop their ethnic and cultural identity. in the intended outcomes of these policies.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. and recognising the role and dynamics of ‘social agency’ by empowering refugees to engage in and participate in the multiple dimensions of social life of the receiving country (Council of Europe). the key variables of integration concern the types of social connection made by refugees with their host society. the process of integration has to be validated in terms of the refugees’ own perceptions and experience of the process and the success to which their aspirations have been accomplished. Policy frameworks and instruments play a formative and potentially empowering role in the integration process. It is debatable whether or not a formally coordinated strategy is essential – in this regard only Germany has explicitly recognised the need and has commenced the process of developing a nationally co-ordinated strategy. and within their own communities. Accordingly. These are the crucial social commodities of integration. and integration is critical. emphasising the varying objectives of: combating social marginalisation (for example. The concept of end-to-end policy which recognises the interplay between the various stages and processes of refugee status determination and settlement. the Refugee Council UK). access and equality of opportunity and rights.

Conversely. for example. the question raised here is whether it is the structured nature of state intervention which has brought about the multicultural outcomes in which integration is measured in terms of social diversity. In the context of entry. may militate against effective integration. Interestingly in Italy. there is ambiguity as to whether refugees are better served by state-led. In this context. that the lack of state engagement with the refugees promotes independence and self-reliance and places the onus on the refugees’ own resourcefulness. with respect to in-country policies. In the case of the UK’s pluralistic picture. as we have seen. Thus policies of restriction and deterrence have: shifted the emphasis of reception from settlement to regulation. have sought to resist settlement in the determination stage. In this respect there is active debate about the whether the presence of state policy is always beneficial. notably in Germany and perhaps to a lesser extent in the Netherlands. A powerful case can be made for mainstreaming refugees in all aspects of social policy and provision in which diversity is managed to include refugees and other marginalised groups in the social and economic life of the host country and thus avoiding ghettoisation. state intervention may not achieve the intended objectives for integration. the instrumentality of formal procedures associated with an assimilationist stance. reception and determination stages. By formalising relationships. mediation by state intervention has been insignificant to emerging models of interaction and integration. These changes have significantly harmed the prospects for refugee integration. There is some evidence from Italy. top down measures to support their integration or by incorporation into the mainstream of policy for migrant and minority groups. Overregulation elsewhere in Europe can promote counterproductive outcomes. or whether the process involves a substantial degree of spontaneous interaction between refugees and the host community and civil society. integration can be portrayed as a negotiated process involving refugees and hosts with the state playing only a limited mediating role.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. by embodying an element of compulsion and by regulating expectations of conformity with the norms of membership which refugees are expected to display. networks and support systems. 143 . EUMS have increasingly conflated refugee and immigration policies by their political response to the escalating flow of asylum seekers. On the other hand. Oxford Brookes University De-linking the process and ‘politics’ of refugee migration and entry from the more general issue of immigration would improve the effectiveness of integration strategies and instruments. and consequently have accentuated the marginalisation of refugees.

Berlin Refugee Council Hamid Nowtari.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Berlin Joachim Rueffer. Berlin Steffen Angenendt. Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research. Psychosocial centre for refugees. Berlin Director and staff of Kormandalweg accommodation centre. Nürnberg Uta Saumweber-Meyer. Brandenburg Beate Danlowski. Berlin Director and staff at the Foreigner and Refugee Counselling centre. BAFl. Nürnberg The Offices of Diakonie. European Forum for Migration Studies. Nürnberg Georg Classen. Berlin Ingrid Luhr. Nürnberg Romi Bartels. Spandau. BAFl. Federal Commissioner for Foreigner’s Affairs. Berlin Wolfgang Meier. Commissioner for Foreigner’s Affairs. Brandenburg Almuth Berger. BAFl. Nürnberg Helge Margaret Knipping. BAFl. Berlin Thomas Schwarz. Bamberg Rathi Sugamar. accommodation centres. Brandenburg Daniela Spendla. Brandenburg Director and staff. Nürnberg Director and staff of Zirndorf reception centre. Berlin Director and staff of Motardstrasse reception centre. Nürnberg Alfred Schamberger. Berlin The Office of Barbara John. Nürnberg Frau Geger. Caritas. Berlin Staff at Diakonie. Iranian refugee association. the Refugee Council. Brandenburg 144 . Diakonisches Werk. Berlin Roland Schilling. BAFl. Tamil Association. near Nürnberg Director and staff. Red Cross. Berlin. Nürnberg Wolfgang Bosswick. Neukölln. Nürnberg Manfred Kohlmeier. Psychosocial centre for refugees. Berlin Director and staff at Al Muntada. German Association for Foreign Affairs. Cottbus. Oxford Brookes University APPENDIX 1: Individuals and organisations contacted for the research GERMANY Interviewees: Nürnberg. UNHCR. Potsdam. BAFl.

Refugee and Asylum seeker action research project. Birmingham Farhana Shiekh. Croydon Simko Brooska. London Nadine Walsh. Midlands Ethnic Albanian Association. Birmingham Sarah Giles. Employability Forum. Birmingham 145 . Birmingham David Barnes. Birmingham Staff and refugees of the Sudanese Midlands Refugee Community Association. Birmingham Staff and refugees of the Kurdish Development Foundation. London RCO Development Project. London Patrick Wintour. Haringay Kurdish Community Centre. London Newham Somali Association Haringay Refugee Consortium Newham Educational Services Somali Education and Employment Project. Home Office. Birmingham Juliet Olivo. Birmingham Adrian Randell. Coordinator’s Training and Support Scheme. Birmingham Staff and refugees of the Afghan Association. IND NASS. Queen Margaret University College. Oxford Brookes University UNITED KINGDOM Interviewees: London: Newham and Haringay. the Refugee Council. Refugee Council. Home Office. Haringay Refugee Education training advisory service (RETAS) Dritan Dema. Birmingham David Forbes.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Refugee Action. Birmingham Philip Williams. Newham College of North East London. London Alison Fenney. London Alaistair Ager. the Refugee Council. London Adrian Gray. Midlands Refugee Council. Refugee Council. Police Liason. West Midlands Consortium for asylum seekers and Refugees. Birmingham City Council. Haringay Kurdish Advice Centre. Housing Team. AAPD. Edinburgh Mulat Tadesse Haregot. West Midlands Consortium for asylum seekers and Refugees. Birmingham David Hudson. Refugee integration unit.

neuropsychiatrist. Associazione per i Diritti delle Minoranze (ADM). Ufficio Rifugiati. ex-Commissione per l’Integrazione degli Immigrati Prof. (Pro-Roma associations) . Rome Masomè.Naples Vaifra Palanca. Italian Refugee Council (CIR). Kurdish refugee and cultural mediator. reception centre manager. Florence. Com. B.Naples Manfred Bergman. Borgo San Lorenzo. Florence D. Masini’s camp. Medici Contro la Tortura. Medici Contro la Tortura .re. vice-mayor of Venice Rosanna Marcato.a. Paolo Bonetti. Tuscany Demir Mustafá. legal expert.. Masini’s camp. Rome Prof. Leonardo Piasere.. Italian Consortium of Solidarity (ICS) Annette Elkman. asylum caseworker. Venice Iole Pinto. Cecina Saleh Zaghloul. Florence Sale. assessore alle politiche sociali. University of Milan Bicocca Pierangelo Bertoli. volunteer. Rome Laura Boldrini. University of Florence Prof. UNHCR Beppe Caccia. B. PNA. Istituto Universitario Orientale . Oxford Brookes University ITALY Interviewees: Naples. ANCI Tuscany. Piano Nazionale Asilo (PNA). London School of Economics. Venice Reception centre’s manager and caseworkers. Ettore Zerbino.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Volterra Mr Hassan.Rome Daniela di Capua. Genoa Gianfranco Schiavone. Siena Piero Colacicchi. Rome Prof Marco Martiniello. Claudio Marta. University of Liege 146 . Naples Giovanni Zoppoli. Rome Stella Deiana. Iranian refugee. Florence A.Rome Prof. Rome Carlo Bracci. Venice City Council Gianfranco Bettin. Florence Liza Schuster. Rome Marilisa Fantacci. Psychiatrist Fatebenefratelli Hospital. Macedonia Roma refugee and cultural mediator. Kosovo Roma refugee. Casa dei Diritti Sociali . Kosovo Roma refugee. mediacal doctor. CGIL trade unionist. UNHCR. Venice Dr Enrica Rigo. Rome Jurgen Humburg. London Moreno Biaggioni.p. Rome.

147 .Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Italian Consortium of Solidarity. Italy Maria Silvia Olivieri. Oxford Brookes University Stefano Vincenzi. Rome. Ministry of Interior.

Berlin Berlin Senate (2002) www. R. Nürnberg.). Africa Educational Trust Al-Rasheed.) Refugees: Perspectives on the experience of Forced Migration. in Al-Rasheed (ed. Westview -------------. Theory. Journal of Refugee Studies. Models and some new findings.) Refugees. 2002 Baubock. London.(1997) ‘Immigration. 13 (1): 11-28 Africa Educational Trust (1998) Refugee Education.(1994) ‘The Myth of Return: Iraqi Arab and Assyrian refugees in London’. Audit Commission Bade. A. in Integration statt Ausgrenzung. and G. Cassell Bloch. J. (2002) ‘Second generation attitude? African-Italians in Milan’. A. A. Riad El-Rayyes Books. Oxford Brookes University Bibliography Abiri. London. in Padilla. citizenship and social policy in Europe. J. and C. Diakonie. London. Cinar (****) Nationality Law and Naturalisation in Austria. (1980) ‘Acculturation as varieties of adaptation’. (ed. training and employment in Inner London. Dona (1999) ‘Refugee Acculturation and Re-acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 46 (1): 5-34 Berry. 28 (3): 389-407 Audit Commission (2000) Another Country: implementing dispersal under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Asylum statistics. A. Miteinander leben im Einwanderungsland Deutschland. ** Bavarian State Ministry for employment (1999) Auslanderintegration in Bayern: Bericht zur Situation der Auslanderinnen und Auslander in Bayern. Levy (eds.de Berry. (2001) ‘Migration und Integration von Zuwanderern in Deutschland – eine gesellschaftspolitixche Bestandsaufnamhe’.the German Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees. Frauen und Gesundheit Berlin Senate (2001) Erlänterungen zur Ausländerjahresstatistik 1999. (1991) ‘Invisible and divided communities: Arabs in Britain’.W. Newham. in Ager. May 2001 BAFl (2002) Bundesamtes für die Anerkennung ausländischer Fluchtlinge . London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Arabs in Britain. K.) Acculturation. One day conference on Arab communities in Britain: concerns and prospects. Stuttgart.1999 ------------(1999) ‘Refugees in the job market: a case of unused skills in the British economy’.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Familie. London Borough of Newham. ------------.bundesauslaenderbeauftragte. (1996) ‘Beating the Barriers: the employment and training needs of refugees’. Dec 1999. and D. (ed. E (2000) ‘The changing praxis of generosity: Swedish refugee policy during the 1990s’. J. Macmillan ------------(2000) ‘Refugee Settlement in Britain: the impact of policy on participation’. Acculturation and Adaptation. 148 . 7 (2/3): 199-219 Andall. London. M. in Bloch. Boulder CO. Journal of Refugee Studies.W. Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung.

(1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. C. Korac. 13 (1): 43-60 Brandenburg . S. 13 (1): 1-10 Bosswell. (ed. Brussels. February 2002 Bosswick . Castles. R. London: Pluto Press.. London COM 755 (2000) Communiciation from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status. Brandenburg.Ausländerbeauftragte des Landes Brandeburg (2000) Migration in Brandenburg: Ein Kurz-überblick.(2000) ‘Development of asylum policy in Germany’. (1994) Frontiers of Identity: the British and the Others. Oxford University Press Castles. Report of a Project carried out by the University of Oxford Centre for Migration and Policy Research and the Refugee Studies Centre contracted by the Home Office Immigration Research and Statistics Service (IRSS) Cohen. (2000) Ethnicity and Globalisation. H. London: British Refugee Council Brubaker.. and Kosack. S. European Commission. New Community. and S. T. Anglo-German Foundation for the study of industrial society ---------------. (1984) Here for Good: Western Europe’s New Ethnic Minorities.W. valid throughout the Union. London. Vasta. Utrecht University: ERCOMER. Duke.. New series No. K. Aldershot. and L. Sage Castles. and Wallace.2000 BRC (British Refugee Council) (1987) Settling for a Future: proposals for a British policy on Refugees. (2001) Integration: Mapping the Field. Journal of Refugee Studies. in Muus. P. J. S. S.2. 26 (1): 75-88 Bloch. V. Schuster (2000). S.) Exclusion and Inclusion of Refugees in Contemporary Europe..Booth. Briefing Paper. T. 21 (3): 293-308 Castles. and Marshall. Caritas (2002) Dossier Statistico Immigrazione 2002. M. Royal Institute of International Affairs. Roma: Caritas Castles.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning.(2002) ‘EU Immigration and Asylum Policy: From Tampere to Laeken and Beyond’. Gower Cohen. (2001) Spreading the costs of asylum seekers: a critical assessment of dispersal policies in Germany and the UK. A. Oxford Brookes University Journal of ethnic and migration studies. Harvard University Press Carey-Wood. ----------------. Galvin. S. (1995) ‘How nation-states respond to immigration and ethnic diversity’. R.2000 149 . T. London. (1973) Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. G. ‘Introduction’. 28. (1997) ‘Asylum Policy in Germany’. E. London. 28. for persons granted asylum.11..30. Karn. Longmans. (1995) The Settlement of Refugees In Britain (Home Office Research Study 141) London: HMSO. Journal of Refugee Studies. R.. . Vertovec. (1987) The New Helots: migrants in the international division of labour.

(2001) Country Report: Denmark ECRI (2002) 2nd Report on Italy adopted the 22nd June 2001. Canada.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. P. (1999) Non-persone. Antwerp.(1999a) Country Reports http://www. (2000) ‘The evolution of asylum in France’. The State of Refugee Integration in the European Union. 25-27 November 1999 European Council on Refugees and Exile (ECRE) (1998). 12-14 November 1998. (1991) ‘Refugee Adaptation and Community Structure: the Indochinese in Quebec City’. International Migration Review. (1999) Immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain. ‘Boundaries of welfare states: immigrants and social rights on the national and supranational level’ in Joly.shmtl ----------------. L. London. European Commission. (2001) The Language of New Labour.(2000b) Good Practice on Refugee Integration in Europe ----------------. Copenhagen 4-5 July 2002 Danish Refugee Council (Liebault. Cohen. 22. London.(2000a) Synthesis of the ECRE Country Reports for 2000 ----------------.11.ecre. Report of the Third European Conference in the Integration of Refugees. Strasbourg: ECRI Fairclough. L’esclusione dei migranti in una società globale. J. K.2000 Dal Lago.org/publications/5integration. Brussels.J. (1997) ‘The resettlement experiences of refugees in the UK. Danish Refugee Council Delouvin. Routledge Faist. European Council on Refugees and Exiles Dorais. New Community. Background paper for the Conference on the Integration of Refugees in Europe.) op cit: 177-195 Favell. R (eds. 22 (3): 176-190 East London and City Health Authority (ELCHA) (1999) Refugee Health in London: key issues for public health. Macmillan 150 . Journal of Refugee Studies. 13 (1): 61-73 Dent. xxv (3): 537-551 Duke. The Integration of Foreigners in the Danish Society: The Think Tank on Integration in Denmark Danish Ministry of Refugee Immigration and Integration Affairs (2002). Report of the European Conference on Successful Integration on the Labour Market. main findings from an interview study’. ECRE Task Force on Integration ----------------.(1999b) Position on the Integration of Refugees in Europe ----------------. N. (*** ) Research Paper on the Social and Economic Rights of Non-Nationals in Europe. Milano: Feltrinelli Danish Ministry of Refugee Immigration and Integration Affairs (2001). Belgium. F. Oxford Brookes University COM 757 (2000) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Immigration Policy.) (2000) Legal and Social Conditions for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Western European Countries. A. D. A. Thomas (1989). London: ELCHA European Commission.

in Joly. Immigration and European Integration. J (1997) ‘Integrationpolitik im europäischen Verglich’. Palgrave Griffiths. Sage Greek Embassy in the UK (2002). Towards Fortress Europe? Manchester University Press.J. in Angenendt.) Towards a European Nationality: Citizenship. (1984) Staying Power: the history of Black people in Britain. (2001) Citizenship and immigration in Post-war Britain. Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung. Pluto Press Fullbrook. T.A. 19. (2000). et al (2001) Integrationsmassnahmen der Wohlfaahrtsverbände. Federal Ministry of the Interior. Routledge Geddes. (eds.). (1992). L. J. Immigration and Nationality Law in the EU. London. S. Aldershot. C. (ed) Migration unde Flucht Aufgaben und Strategien für Deutschland. P.8. C. and Ranci. 151 . (2002) Somali and Kurdish Refugees in London: new identities in the diaspora. Europe of strangers: integration policy in a comparative perspective. Citizenship. S. ‘Arson. Europa und die internationale Gemeinschaft. R.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Roma: CSER: 9-64 Federal Ministry of the Interior (2000) Policy and Law concerning Foreigners in Germany. HO research study 87. (1998) ‘Integration Policy in Italy’.01 Heckman. ‘The Swedish refugee reception project’. (eds. (2001) ‘Citizenship Policy in Germany: the Case of Ethnicity over Residence’. D. Copenhagen: Danish Refugee Council Hellman. D. and Byrne. Manchester and New York Gold. Refugee Communities: a Comparative Field Study. Nationality and Migration in Europe. R. Secondo rapporto sul volontariato sociale italiano. and R. European Policy Research Unit Series. D. G. P. Basingstoke. (1997) ‘Immigrant “space” in Italy: when an immigrant sending country becomes an immigrant receiving society’. S. abuse and stone throwing: Ireland’s welcome for refugees’. Oxford Brookes University Favero. Report on the Fourth European Conference on the Integration of Refugees. Athens 1-2 December 2000 Green. March 2001 Hein. (1999) Le dimensioni della solidarietà. Bonn Frisano. and Tassello. Modern Italy. F. G. Roma: Fondazione italiana per il volontariato Fryer. A. Europaisches forum für migrationsstudien (efms). August 2000 Fijalkowski. and Fulbrook. Lange (1989). Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Naturalisation Greek Refugee Council (2000). Cesarani. London. R. The Observer. and Weil. in Hansen. 2 (1-2): 34-51 Home Office (1985) Resettling refugees: the lessons of research. (1996) ‘Germany for the Germans? Citizenship and nationality in a divided nation. Bamberg. and A. Un secolo di emigrazione italiana: 1876-1976. M. M.) op cit: 195-208 Hansen. (1978) ‘Cent’anni di emigrazione italiana (1876-1976)’ in Rosoli. London: Haringey Council Harris. Oxford University Press Haringey Council (1997) Refugees and Asylum seekers in Haringey: research project report. London. N. Cohen (eds. (ed). Ashgate Hammar. S.

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

London, HMSO
---------------- (1998) Asylum statistics in the United Kingdom, London, Home Office
---------------- (1999) Asylum statistics in the United Kingdom, London, Home Office
---------------- (2000) Asylum statistics in the United Kingdom, London, Home Office
---------------- (2001) Asylum statistics in the United Kingdom, London, Home Office
---------------- (1999a) Full and Equal Citizens: a policy and implementation model for the
integration of refugees into UK society, London, Home Office
---------------- (1999b) A consultation paper on the integration of recognised refugees in the
UK, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Asylum support project team, London,
Home Office
---------------- (2000a) Full and equal citizens: a strategy for the integration of refugees into
the United Kingdom, Refugee Integration Section, NASS, Home Office, London
Home Office (2001a) Migration: an economic and social and analysis, RDS Occasional
Paper No 67, London, Home Office
Home Office (2001b) International Migration and the United Kingdom: recent patterns and
trends, RDS Occasional Paper No 75
Home Office (2002) Secure borders, safe haven: integration with diversity in modern Britain,
London, Home Office
Home Office (2003 forthcoming) Dispersal: evaluating effectiveness and efficiency, Oxford
Brookes University, a study commissioned by the UK Home Office
Home Office (2003a forthcoming) The Impact of asylum policies in Europe: a feasibility
study, Oxford Brookes University, a study commissioned by the UK Home Office
Home Office (2003b forthcoming) Asylum Policy and Process: an in-depth analysis of
current reception practices for asylum seekers, Oxford Brookes University, research study
commissioned by the UK Home Office
ICS (2000) Dossier Nausicaa: Un primo quadro sulla tutela del diritto di asilo in Italia.
Roma: ICS
IGC (2000) Handbook on Asylum Data: Overview of the Evolution Of Asylum Data Over a
Decade in IGC participating states, Switzerland: IGC Secretariat
International Organization for Migration (2001), Public Perceptions towards Refugees,
Asylum Seekers and People in Need of Protection, Country Reports (Belgium, Netherlands,
Finland)
James, W., and C. Harris (eds.), (1993) Inside Babylon: the Caribbean diaspora in Britain,
London, Verso
Joly, D. (1996) Haven or Hell: asylum policies in Europe, London, Macmillan
Joly, D. (1999) ‘A new asylum regime in Europe’, in Nichols, F. and P. Twomey, (eds.)
Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts and Regimes, Cambridge
University Press

152

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

Joly, D. and R. Cohen (1989), (eds.) Reluctant Hosts: Europe and its Refugees,
Avebury/Gower Publishing Group, Research in Ethnic Relations Series, Aldershot, UK
Jopke, C. (1998) ‘Asylum and state sovereignty: a comparison of the United States, Germany
and Britain’, in Jopke, C. (ed.) Challenge to the Nation-state: immigration in western
Europe and the United States, Oxford University Press
Jordana, Maria Cruz and Pardo, Lorenzo Sanchez (1989), ‘Spanish resettlement programmes’
in Joly, D. and Cohen, R. (eds.) op cit: 175-183
King, R. and Andall, J. (1999) ‘The Geography and Economic Sociology of Recent
Immigration to Italy’, Modern Italy, 4 (2): 135-158
Korac, M. (2001) Dilemmas of Integration: two policy contexts and refugee strategies for
integration. Available at: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/dilemmasofintegrationrep.htm
------------- (2001a) Refugees from Former Yugoslavia in Italy and the Netherlands:
Experiences of Integration, unpublished
Kulhman, T. (1991) ‘The economic Integration of Refugees in Developing Countries: a
Research Model’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 4 (1): 1-20
Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural citizenship, Oxford University Press
Lambert, H. (1989) ‘Asylum seekers, refugees and the European Union: case studies of
France and the UK’ in Joly, D. and Cohen, R. (eds.) op cit:112-131
Lorenz. W. (1999) ‘Social work and cultural politics: the paradox of German Social
Pedagogy’, in Chamberlayne, P. et al (eds.) Welfare and culture in Europe: towards a new
paradigm in social policy, London, Kingsley
Levy, C. (1999) ‘European asylum and refugee policy after the Treaty of Amsterdam: the
birth of a new regime?’, in Bloch, A. and C. Levy (eds.) Refugees, Citizenship and Social
policy in Europe, London: Macmillan
Macioti, M. I. and Pugliese, E. (1993) Gli immigrati in Italia. Roma-Bari: Laterza
Maile, S. and Hoggett, P.(2001) ‘Best value and the politics of pragmatism’, Policy and
Politics 29 (4): 509-519
Marshall, B. (2000) The New Germany and Migration in Europe, Manchester University
Press
Mason, D. (2000) Race and ethnicity in Modern Britain, Oxford University Press
Medical Foundation (1997) Past misery, present muddle, London, Medical Foundation
Miles, R. (1993) Racism after 'race' relations, London, Routledge
Miles, R. and P. Cleary (1993) ‘Migration to Britain: Racism, state regulation and
employment’, in Robinson, V. (ed.) The international refugee crisis: British and Canadian
responses, London, Macmillan
Miles, R. and Thränhardt, D. (1995) Migration and European Integration: The dynamics of
inclusion and exclusion, Pinter Publishers, London and Fairleigh Dickinson University
Press, New Jersey, US
Modood, T., et al. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain, London, Policy Studies Institute

153

Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration

School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University

MORI Social Research (2000) Asylum seekers and refugees in Ealing: research conducted for
London Borough of Ealing, London: MORI
Morris, L. (1997) ‘A Cluster of Contradictions: the Politics of Migration in the European
Union’, Sociology, 31 (2): 241-259
Norsk Organisasjon for Asylsøkere (2002), The Situation in Greece http://www.noas.org
Overbeek, H (1996) ‘Towards a new international migration regime: globalisation migration
and the internationalisation of the state’, in Miles and Thranhardt op. cit.
Parekh, B (1994) ***
------------ (2000) Runnymede Trust, Commission on the Future of multi-ethnic Britain, the
Parekh report, London, Profile books
Pastore, F. (2001) ‘Nationality law and international migration: the Italian case’ in Hansen, R.
and P. Weil (eds) Towards a European Nationality. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 95-118
Penninx, R. (2000) Integration of immigrants in Europe: policies of diversity and diversity of
policies, Bern, Switzerland, metropolis web site http://www.international.metropolis.net/.
-------------- (1999) Political participation and integration of immigrants in European cities
http://www.international.metropolis.net
-------------- (2000a) Integration of immigrants in Europe: policies of diversity and
diversity of policies, Toronto, Canada, http://www.international.metropolis.net/.
Phillips, Alan (2000), ‘Employment as a key to settlement’ in Joly & Cohen
Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (2001) Exploring mechanisms for the integration of asylum
seekers and refugees into the labour market in Wolverhampton, report for Wolverhamption
Connects by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, the University of Birmingham,
October 2001
Refugee Council (1997) The development of a refugee settlement policy in the UK, Working
Paper No1: Addendum, London: Refugee Council
---------------- (2000) Information for Refugees, London, Refugee Council
---------------- (2001) Refugee Employment in Europe, March 2001
RefugeeNet, EU Networks on Integration, http://www.refugeenet.org/integration_activities/
Richmond, A. (1994) Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism and the New World Order, Oxford
University Press
Roberts, A. (1998) ‘More Refugees, less asylum: a regime in transformation’, Journal of
Refugee studies, 11 (4): 375-395
Robinson, V. (1985) ‘The Vietnamese Reception and Resettlement Programme in the UK:
Rhetoric and Reality’, Ethnic Groups, No.6, pp.305-330.
---------------- (1993) ‘Marching into the middle classes? The long-term resettlement of East
African Asians in the UK’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 6 (3): 230-248
---------------- (1993a) ‘British policy towards the settlement patterns of ethnic groups: an
empirical evaluation of the Vietnamese programme 1979-89’, in Robinson, V. (ed.) The

154

‘Modern Greek asylum policy and practice in the context of the 155 . 34. (1996) ‘Social and Economic Integration of Foreigners in Germany’. D. Coleman (2000) ‘Lessons Learned? A critical review of the UK government’s programme to resettle Bosnian quota refugees’ International Migration Review. Harvester Wheatsheaf Salinas.(1998) ‘The importance of information for the resettlement of refugees in the UK. World University Service Sayers. Macmillan Press Seifert. (2003) ‘How can a ‘nomad’ be a ‘refugee’? Kosovo Roma and labelling policy in Italy’. Robinson. Warwick. Brussels: European Council on Refugees and Exiles. EU-CARE Synthesis Report on the Position of Refugees in SelfEmployment in Different Members States of the European Union. Basingstoke. -------------. and J. Rotte. D. Macmillan.. (1998) Refugee Engineers in the UK.13 (1): 118-132 Schuster. in Schuck. Solomos (1999) ‘The politics of refugee and asylum policies in Britain: historical patterns and contemporary realities’. (2000) ‘A comparative analysis of the asylum policy of seven European governments’. ‘Resettling refugees: the Dutch model’ in Joly. The Netherlands. (1992) 'Race' and politics in Britain. London: Macmillan. Cohen (eds. S. and R. (2000). and Levy. A. 319-55. Basingstoke. Cohen (eds. Proceedings of ECRE International conference on Integration of Refugees in Europe. and R. and R.) Refugees. A. Sociology.) op cit: 19-39 Schönwälder. C (eds. Home Office Research Paper. in Joly. N.) op cit: 171-174 Sitavopoulos. P.) Refugees. (2000) ‘Immigration control in United Germany: toward a broader scope of National policies’. (1989). L. Journal of Refugee Studies. The Hague. N. V. W. V. Levy (eds. London Robinson. Münz (eds. 1217-1244. (1999) ‘Person Persecuted on Political Grounds Shall Enjoy the Right to Asylum – but Not in Our Country’: Asylum Policy and Debates about Refugees in the Federal Republic of Germany’.(1998a) ‘Defining and measuring successful refugee integration’. and S.H. in Bloch. ‘The reception and resettlement of refugees in Portugal’. M. Antwerp November 1998. R. November 2000 Sigona. Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations. Berghahn Books SEON Foundation (2000). Schuster. ------------. and C. Robert (1989).34 (2): 357-389 Saggar. A. London. Citizenship and social policy in Europe. Oxford Brookes University International Refugee Crisis: British and Canadian Responses. Citizenship and Social Policy in Europe. Oxford. Hale (1989) The Geography of Vietnamese Secondary Migration in the UK.(2002) The secondary migration of dispersed asylum seekers in the UK. 11 (2): 146-160 ------------. International Migration Review.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Journal of Refugee Studies. 37 (1): 65-75 Silva.) Paths to Inclusion: the integration of migrants in the United States and Germany. Stationery Office. and C. in Bloch. K. L. C.

13 (1): 91-105 Vine Management Consulting (2001) Synthesis of seven IRSS/NASS integration research projects. London Soysal. Journal of Ethnic and 156 . ‘Community Work and Exile Politics: Kurdish Refugee Associations in London’. No2: 151-163 Zetter.) Immigration into Western Societies: problems and policies. 11 (3): 215-230 ---------------. ‘Asylum in the Netherlands: A Hazy Shade of Purple’. J.org Valtonen. Y. (1991) ‘Asylum as a relationship of Otherness: a study of Asylum Holders in Nuremberg. J. 25 (3): 469-491 Van Selm. and L.M. (1999) ‘Die Empfehlungen des Rates für Migration’.refugees. London. E. Refugees and Access to Social Housing.4. Journal of Refugee Studies. Puchala (eds. 13 (1): 105-117 Solomos. Ö. IPPR/Rivers Press Süssmuth Commission (2001) Structuring Immigration: Fostering Integration. E. Back (1996) Racism and Society. London. Journal of Refugee Studies. M. 13 (1): 74-90 Vincenzi. Macmillan Solomos..Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. K. Berg 1999 Ucarer. Evelyn Oldfield Unit. Oxford Brookes University relevant European developments’. (1994) Limits of Citizenship: migrants and postnational membership in Europe. (2000) ‘Italy: a Newcomer with a Positive Attitude”. Berlin. London. report by the Independent Commission on Migration to Germany. D. June 2001 Wahlbeck. (1998). London. M. Germany’. Advisory Commission on Migration in Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik: 252-260 Wong.(2000) Kurdish Diasporas. M (1999) Managing to Survive – Asylum Seekers. Journal of Refugee Studies. IRSS research seminar. Bristol. and D. Journal of Refugee Studies. J (1998) ‘Race’ and racism in Britain. University of Chicago Spencer. in Mechanisms of Immigration control: a comparative analysis of European regulation policies. (2000). D. Roma:UNHCR US Committee for Refugees (2002) Worldwide Refugee Information: Country Reports. (1999) ‘The societal participation of Vietnamese refugees: case studies in Finland and Canada’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Policy Press -------------------. 2nd edition. Pinter UNHCR (2002) Statistiche sull’Italia. (1999) ‘Germanys immigration policies and politics’. vol. S. (1994) Strangers and Citizens: a positive approach to migrants and refugees. a comparative study of Kurdish refugee communities. London. (1997) ‘Europe’s search for policy: the harmonisation of asylum policy and European integration’. Journal of Refugee Studies.(2000) ‘The Minority within the Minority: Refugee Community-based Organisations in the UK and the Impact of Restrictionism’. Macmillan Somali Conference (1998) Somali Conference Report. 4th July 2001 Thranhardt. J. http://www. unpublished paper. in Ucarer. R and Pearl. Macmillam Wollenschläger. S.

Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis. Commentary series. K (1999) Ethnic German Migration after 1989 – Balance and Perspectives. 26 (4): 675-697 Zimmerman. Bologna: il Mulino 157 . July 1999 Zincone (2000) (ed) Primo Rapporto sull’Integrazione degli Immigrati in Italia.Survey on policy and practice related to refugee integration School of Planning. Oxford Brookes University Migration Studies. Vancouver Centre of Excellence.