Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants

6. How can governments ensure that migrants participate?

Why is this an issue?

In establishing an integration programme, a government is identifying the characteristics of its residents that it believes are important to the smooth functioning of society. It is also, in many cases, investing significant time and resources in programmes designed to develop these characteristics in its migrant population. A high participation rate is key to justifying this investment. Whether it is key to success in developing the identified characteristics is less clear, but rewards for or obligations to participate are predicated on the assumption that participation is clearly linked to the desired outcome. Without this, there is no reason for the government to care whether migrants take advantage of the benefit being offered or not.

The government has a policy role to play in ensuring that migrants participate. Migrants may have difficulties seeking out and consistently attending introduction courses on their own, and policy levers may be important motivators. Challenges related to access, motivation, and affordability of language training are compounded by the fact that many adult migrants face personal and/or work-related constraints to attend courses regularly at a fixed time of the day, in a particular location, or during a given period of the year. Indeed, according to a survey from 2012,1 lack of time is self-identified as the main obstacle preventing immigrants from learning the host-country language. Integration policy has to be designed to help migrants overcome these challenges (which can sometimes exist concurrently) and facilitate their ability to fit integration courses into their daily lives.

Countries’ attention to increasing participation suggests they have had difficulty with this issue. Inadequate or inappropriate policy levers can even decrease motivation, so governments need to carefully consider the design of such measures. Importantly, this should be done with the country’s integration goals in mind. A failure to integrate is often associated with labour market difficulties for the migrant and sometimes inadequate education and employment outcomes for their children. For the majority of countries, the goal is to improve these outcomes, both for the migrants who will likely stay and make a life in their country, and for later generations.

Specific measures are also needed to prevent the perpetuation of unequal outcomes when it comes to migrant integration and labour-market insertion. There is a gendered aspect to childcare and labour force participation rates that should not be forgotten when developing incentives or when considering whether to make participation in introduction measures obligatory. Migrant parents, and particularly immigrant mothers with small children, are likely to encounter specific barriers such as scheduling conflicts. Financial constraints and limited social and extended family networks in the country make them less likely to access childcare or babysitting options compared to the native‑born.

How to approach it

Provide the right mix of incentives for participation

While the benefit of participation in introduction measures may seem self-evident to the government, not all migrants will readily recognise the benefit in their own lives. A migrant’s time also has implicit costs – in participating in introduction measures, they may be sacrificing opportunities to earn an income and provide for their family, at least in the short term. Migrants who enter with a job offer may be more focused on getting to work than investing in host-country language proficiency. Particularly for refugees, short-term goals may be more focused on physical safety and comfort, in addition to security for their family. Further, motivation levels may be different for migrants for whom migration was forced, rather than planned, and policy approaches need to reflect this potential for difference. To encourage participation in introduction measures, governments must consider how to make these measures attractive, no matter the individual motivation. Migrants, like all other learners, are moved to participate in training when they are aware of the benefits for themselves and for the success of subsequent generations. Courses must also be designed in a way as to add value by providing migrants with relevant skills. This is one reason to evaluate introduction measures and obtain evidence of their effectiveness that can be shared with the migrant population.

In response to the challenge of participation, and with the view that migrants have not acquired sufficient host-country skills in the past, some countries have determined that obligatory participation in integration courses is necessary. Several European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway have adopted integration obligations. Participation is generally framed in terms of a formal signed contract between the receiving country and the immigrant. The policy rests on the assumption that, in the absence of a formal obligation, the investment might not be undertaken or not be sufficient, even if measures were provided free of charge by the host country. There is some evidence to support this – a certain proportion of past immigrants in fact do not possess minimal levels of language proficiency years after arrival.

Although compulsory measures can address past inadequate investment in host-country human capital of certain immigrants, notably language, they also imply that immigrant behaviour is at fault rather than policy or market failure. However, in many cases, the lack of past investment may not have been a consequence of unwillingness or reluctance, but rather of ignorance of the possibilities available, of inconvenient or insufficiently adapted offerings, or because such investment was not expected to yield a sufficient return. A recent investigation conducted for the Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration found municipalities and languages schools estimate between 50‑90% of refugee and family member non-attendance was for legitimate reasons, such as illness (Ankestyrelsen, 2020[38]). Additionally, some categories of migrants may find it more difficult to overcome doubts regarding the benefits of integration than others. This is particularly true for women with childcare obligations. Given that migrant women tend to have lower expected wages (Amo-Agyei, 2020[39]) and bear the burden of childcare, it may not be obvious that the financial incentives to learn or work and use childcare outweigh the barriers.

While there are good reasons to incentivise migrants to learn the host-country language or engage in education or up-skilling, forcing them to attend courses by imposing penalties or sanctions may result in resentment or anxiety and weaken migrants’ intrinsic motivation to learn. There is a balance to strike between designing policies that render participation important and acknowledging the importance of freedom of choice for motivation. Rather than assuming that nonparticipation indicates an unwillingness to integrate, countries benefit from seeking to understand the reasoning behind the choice. Moreover, compulsory measures may unintentionally communicate a negative message to the native‑born population about migrants, i.e. that if migrants are left to themselves, they will choose not to integrate. This risks encouraging certain attitudes among the native population that may themselves affect the integration motivation of migrants, as well as their labour market outcomes.

Similar challenges exist in the context of integration examinations. Policies punishing the failure to pass a test with the loss of a residence permit, the refusal of authorisation to enter a country for the purpose of family reunification, or a fine may be perceived as posing insurmountable obstacles, cause stress, and crowd out migrants’ motivation and chances of success (Krumm and Plutzar, 2008[40]). Where sanctions are imposed, countries need to consider how to mitigate the unintended negative effects where possible. In recognition of the barriers some individuals may face to achieving these targets, Austria, Italy, and the Netherlands offer extensions or exemptions from sanction in certain situations.

Rather than turning toward obligatory measures at the outset of programme design, countries could consider what other incentives they have available in their toolkit. If optional programmes are attractive and well attended, imposing the obligation will often prove unnecessary. Positive, incentive‑based policies aimed at enhancing their intrinsic motivation to learn are particularly important where migrants may not otherwise independently take necessary steps to integrate through formal programmes. Even where introduction measures are obligatory, measures to raise awareness with a positive focus on the value added will increase migrants’ participation and their investment in successful completion. Awareness campaigns illustrating the merits that integration entails for migrants’ prospects on the job market and in society at large are an important tool to communicate this message. Beyond educating migrants regarding the benefits of integration, countries that wish to increase participation must consider which incentives are most effective based on the needs of the population. Migrants with low income and recent arrivals may find it particularly difficult to participate in language programmes that prevent them from pursuing a regular job, as they often require a fixed income to support their family, secure residence rights, and obtain permission for family reunification.

Some countries, most notably in Scandinavia, have taken the approach of providing an individual or family-based “introduction benefit,” or financial incentive to prioritise integration as a “first job.” This benefit can be combined with obligatory or voluntary measures, or participation may only be obligatory in certain situations (i.e. for job seekers). Making access to financial or social benefits conditional upon regular attendance of language or vocational training may prove effective if the objectives of such training are based on individual needs and are perceived as transparent and manageable by migrants. However, such conditionality should take into account the individual or family situation of the migrant.

Box 6.1. Incentivising participation – the Korean Example

The Korea Immigration and Integration Program (KIIP) was developed to help migrants acquire basic knowledge and information about life in Korea. While an initial law and society orientation course is obligatory for work visa holders, all other components are voluntary. It is free of charge for registered foreigners with legal status to stay in Korea. Migrants who complete the KIIP, which comprises five levels of language in addition to 50 hours of Understanding Korean Society, receive additional points when applying for a points-system-based residential status. Additionally, long-term residents, certain working visit and non-professional employment visa holders, and spouses of Korean citizens applying for permanent resident receive an exemption from the requirement of proving Korean fluency. When applying for naturalisation, participation in the KIIP programme permits an exemption from the naturalisation written test and interview. Those migrants who complete the intensive course are eligible for reduced waiting time for a naturalisation evaluation. Success in the course is evaluated by an examination, but there are no sanctions for failure to pass. Participation in the KIIP has increased steadily since 2009, reaching 41 500 migrants in 2017.

Additionally, Korea offers an International Marriage Guidance Program for Korean nationals with a foreign spouse. After arrival, foreign spouses may attend an Initial Adjustment Support Program (IASP) to receive basic knowledge on Korean law and living information. It is recommended that Korean spouses also attend. There is no legal requirement to attend IASP, yet the couple is given incentives for attending before registering the spouse as a foreigner in Korea. In FY 2019, 51 354 migrants participated in the programme. The number was 6 620 in 2020, before the programme was suspended due to COVID‑19.

Another positive way to enhance migrants’ motivation to participate is to link completion of integration programmes or the obtention of a certain language level to tangible incentives or rewards, such as more rapid access to residence or citizenship, as is the case in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland. Korea offers additional points on residency applications (Box 6.1). Some countries, such as Sweden and Denmark have experimented with performance‑based rewards in the form of bonus payments to successful learners and/or their municipalities.2 While the Danish scheme is fairly recent and has not been evaluated, an assessment of the Swedish bonus scheme suggested that the latter had only a limited effect on student performance outside of metropolitan areas (Åslund and Engdahl, 2012[41]), and it was discontinued. In Israel, seniority can be earned in public sector positions upon completion of Hebrew courses (Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, 2019[42]).

Once enrolled in training, incentives must be set to keep learners motivated. Some countries offer reimbursement of course costs if a certain level is reached within a specified time. For example, Austria reimburses 50% of course costs for migrants able to certify A2‑level German within 18 months. These types of incentives also recognise the trade‑off migrants are making when committing to courses. Immigrants who are enrolled in full-time language programmes have often no time to work or look for a job. As a consequence, labour market integration is delayed and lock-in effects are likely, as employers tend to penalise candidates with long absences from the labour market. “Socially useful work” schemes like that in Denmark, have been implemented as one way to help individuals gain work experience while building other skills. These may appear to be attractive solutions in the short term, as migrants are able to perform, according to their ability, volunteer or socially useful work in exchange for social benefits. However, they may have the unintended consequence of delaying real integration, as migrants working in these schemes may have less opportunity to invest in upskilling and language learning. Finding a balance is essential to help migrants succeed.

Take steps to achieve equal opportunity for migrants with concurrent obligations, particularly women with childcare responsibilities

Like native‑born adults, adult new arrivals have a wide range of responsibilities. Recognising that integration, even when an obligation, is but one of many demands on a migrant’s time allows policy makers to prioritise flexibility and fairness to help migrants meet their goals. Policy makers should also understand that a break in participation may not reflect an unwillingness to integrate, but rather be tied to a concurrent obligation or challenge, such as child or elderly care, illness, or the need to support a family.

In order to be effective, programme designers must anticipate, monitor, and respond to a wide range of potential obstacles. Some migrant groups are particularly affected by rigid training schedules and inaccessible locations. The setting of courses needs to be chosen carefully. Preferably, the location is well known by learners, easily accessible, and well equipped for learning. Options include community centres, libraries, immigrant associations, or the school of learners’ children. While vocational and higher education institutions may be attractive locations for students and labour migrants, they may not necessarily be the most accessible and inviting locations for some family migrants and low-income learners. Canada has introduced place‑based learning in certain circumstances (i.e. learning can be organised at home if migrants feel more comfortable).

Migrants pursuing educational opportunities may benefit most from part-time, evening, or weekend language courses, but ‘on-the‑job’ training is usually the most attractive option for working migrants. Wherever ‘on-the‑job’ training is not available, language programmes should be sufficiently flexible to allow immigrants to work on the side. If full-time formats are the only available option, courses should not surpass a critical number of hours beyond which there is no additional impact on the employment prospects of immigrants. To supplement course hours in a flexible way, several countries have recently boosted their online offerings for introduction measures, particularly civics and language courses. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)-based learning programmes typically target young people and the tertiary educated, who tend to be more digitally literate, but can reach other groups if the tools are simple and straightforward (OECD, 2021[10]). Although some countries have expressed hesitancy toward replacing in-person courses with online programmes, this transition was hastened by the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic. ICT tools are not without downsides, particularly for migrants with low digital literacy and access, but online programmes are likely to become a permanent offering in many OECD and EU countries, as these tools have proven to be an attractive option for large groups of migrants (see Box 6.2).

To facilitate migrants’ ability to reconcile integration courses with daily life constraints, countries ideally offer a multitude of different learning formats (Annex Table 6.A.1). Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer a flexible set of language training options, usually including part-time, evening, and weekend courses, as well as distance and ICT-based learning, one‑on-one tutoring, free child-care, transportation subsidies, and continuous intake to avoid long waiting lists. Migrants who cannot attend classroom-based formats (e.g. because of shift work, illness or lack of local courses, transportation, or child-care) are offered free one‑on-one lessons for a few hours per week with a trained instructor or community volunteer.

Many countries are specifically concerned with increasing participation of immigrant women, particularly those with childcare responsibilities.3 Studies have found that not only do women bear a greater childcare burden than men, but they are also less likely to develop the networks with host-country natives who might help them look for work or assist with child care (e.g. (Brücker et al., 2020[43]). In response, several countries now provide courses targeted toward women or mothers. The benefit of gender homogenous courses is subject to debate, particularly when considering social integration. A number of countries avoid such courses out of concern that they send a negative signal regarding gender equality. Other countries have taken the opposite stance based on the view, for which there is some evidence, that this approach increases female participation.4 Finland, Greece, and Italy offer a number of courses only for women, but these cover only a small share of the total. Germany provides a Women’s course in which the curriculum is also taught exclusively by women. Canada launched the Racialised Newcomer Women Pilot in 2018 to deliver targeted settlement services and improve employment outcomes by addressing the barriers faced by this group. France has launched an action plan to mobilise integration actors at both the national and local level to improve the participation of women through greater dissemination of information and accompaniment in employment procedures.

Box 6.2. Adaptive measures in response to COVID‑19 can be expected to be made permanent

Pausing courses can have significant downsides for learners, causing backsliding in the learning trajectory and further delaying integration in the workforce. For this reason, during initial lockdowns due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, countries sought to adapt to ensure continuity of integration. Online programmes, while not suitable for every migrant, proved an attractive solution, enabling countries to mitigate delays in service provision while keeping both students and teachers safe.

Digital tools for language were already in place in a majority of countries, to some extent. Portugal offers an online Platform for Learning Portuguese, and France has collected a variety of online courses and applications. Finland used digital classrooms to reach migrants in sparsely populated areas. In Canada, learners may follow an online or correspondence course, Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Home Study/Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC) en ligne. Canada has since extended and supplemented online offerings, including through a Moodle (Avenue.ca). Many other countries took action during 2020 to intensify digital offerings and increase availability. Australia provided online orientation content and remote access support for its humanitarian programme and increased flexible delivery modes for AMEP tuition (including online courses, self-paced learning and mailing of paper-based materials). Belgium (Flanders) and Croatia brought their civic integration courses online, and Germany’s Migration Advice Service for Adult Immigrants (MBE) expanded use of a migration counselling app (mbeon). Italy and the UK created digital classrooms, and Latvia moved social worker services and mentor communications to WhatsApp, Facebook and Zoom.

Beyond enabling online programmes, other countries introduced adapted measures that allowed some in-person interaction. The Swiss “COVID‑19 Special Situation Ordinance” prohibited face‑to-face courses beginning 2 November 2020, but an exception was made for courses up to Level A2 for those learners unable to participate in online education due to very low language level or lack of digital literacy or connectivity. Group sizes were limited to 15 people. Additional innovations, such as Cours de français au parc (French language teaching in the park) in Geneva, emerged as ways to maintain social engagement and language training for the vulnerable while adhering to safety protocols. At the same time, financing was adapted to allow cantons to use federal funding to acquire computer equipment that could be lent to learners studying remotely.

The duration of COVID‑19‑related restrictions has led to a substantial amount of uncertainty. Programmes that were introduced as stopgap measures have in many cases already lasted longer than initially foreseen. Further extensions may be necessary. In addition, in many countries, online measures implemented due to the pandemic have proven popular among migrants. Countries have found that these programmes often cost less than in-person offerings, though progress may be slower. Korea has indicated a preference for face‑to-face courses for language education, and previously allowed exceptions only in the case of unavoidable circumstances or restrictions. However, KIIP courses were brought online during the pandemic for all participants, and Korea is considering a hybrid model in the future. Israel will keep the digital services they developed online after the pandemic. Belgium (Flanders) has also included online offerings in renewed integration regulations to be implemented in 2022. Poland will maintain online and phone counselling services. Latvia will use remote communications in the future for migrants who are hospitalised or in quarantine. In the United States, many agencies noted the effectiveness of online offerings at reaching an increased number of migrant women and will likely continue these programmes.

In practice, where they exist, courses specifically for women are still the exception rather than the rule. Some countries have innovated by organising language training at childcare facilities, or by allowing mothers and children to learn together, which also solves the issue of free and accessible childcare during the course. Austria, Estonia, Germany, Iceland, and Italy are among the countries that have introduced integration activities for mothers to participate alongside their children. The City of Vienna, Austria reported that over 8 000 women participated in its “Mom Learns German” programme between 2006 and 2017. One promising alternative to gender-specific courses are courses that target the barriers faced disproportionally by women. Courses such as Germany’s courses for parents, designed to accommodate for childcare obligations and inform about child-specific issues, are one such example. While most participants are women (90% in 2019) and gender-specific needs may be addressed, they are not framed as gender-separated courses. Croatia’s New Neighbors project assesses the needs of parents and organises events accordingly, encouraging socialisation and providing counselling on topics relevant to school and childcare. Most participants are women.

In several countries, migrants have access to the same public preschool options as the native born. This is the case for migrants in Denmark, Greece, and Lithuania who are no longer residing in reception centres. In Norway, children of immigrants also have the same rights to child care and public education as other residents. Children of migrants access public schooling in Israel beginning at age three. Migrants also access the same measures as the native‑born in Luxembourg and in certain cantons of Switzerland. Countries should not overlook the need to inform migrants of the availability of this childcare. Children of immigrants are underrepresented in early childhood education and care, although this participation gap is decreasing (OECD, 2021[44]). Access to mainstream care programmes for migrant children both relieves the burden on parents and can create community and learning links to the host country for the children.

While childcare is particularly important for increased participation, it may also be that family obligations necessitate breaks in participation. Many migrant families have children in the first year after arrival. Refugees in particular tend to have high fertility after arrival (Liebig and Tronstad, 2018[20]), partly as a result of delayed or catch-up fertility due to the chronically precarious lives before obtention of the refugee status. Countries must take steps to ensure that it is easy to return to learning after pauses such as parental leave, so that migrants do not abandon their integration goals. This will likely require counselling prior to the leave period, as well as some periodic communication with the migrant before the end of leave. Models for such parental leave “off-ramping” and “on-ramping” are plentiful in the private sector, which has dedicated substantial attention to retention of women with children in corporate careers and noted the importance of forward planning, check-ins, and flexibility.5

Ensure physical integration needs are not a barrier to successful economic and social integration

Particularly for vulnerable populations, including refugees, housing and health-related measures frequently take priority on the integration pathway. Prioritisation of basic needs before civic integration is a sound investment on the part of governments, because meeting these needs removes the barriers to integration erected by poor health, housing insecurity, or an inability to access basic services.

Housing and dispersal policies

It is widely understood that stays in reception centres should be minimised for humanitarian migrants to increase stability and security. But humanitarian migrants are often unable to transition overnight to housing independence on an equal footing to natives and thus require additional supports. For all migrants, affordable housing options are essential, as housing costs have risen consistently in OECD countries since 2010. New arrivals tend to, where given choice, move to areas with a high concentration of individuals from the same origin country. There are certain initial advantages to this choice, including in some cases more rapid employment. Disadvantages include delayed familiarity with the host-country language and its institutions.

To avoid segregation and crowding, policy makers need to carefully consider the location of housing choices. Additionally, in the European Union, migrants are more likely to live in an overcrowded household, and around 25% of non-EU migrants struggle to meet housing expenses (compared to 19% of migrants from EU member states and 9 percent for the native born) (Eurostat, 2020[45]). The urban-rural gap, already wide, is an increasing issue. For urban households at risk of poverty, approximately 40% of disposable income is now going to housing expenses. At the same time, dispersal has proved a challenging strategy. Two-thirds of OECD countries have dispersal policies in place for certain humanitarian migrants (asylees or refugees, and occasionally both), but few have specific policies for economic migrants. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all give incentives to economic migrants who will live outside large urban centres. Korea has eased restrictions on the maximum share of foreign workers for manufacturing companies located outside metropolitan areas. Accommodation away from urban areas can be made more attractive, but may be infeasible for other reasons. To create economies of scale, many countries concentrate integration courses in urban areas. This, combined with greater job opportunities and the location of existing migrant communities, decreases possibilities for migrants who may otherwise relocate to less expensive residential areas and small towns.

Across the OECD, there are wide differences in the functioning of the housing market and the scale and scope for policy action. Humanitarian migrants are most likely to receive subsidies and targeted advice, often when part of a reception programme that assists in a transition from a reception centre to independent housing. The Netherlands runs “facilitation days” to provide housing counselling, and Belgium provides legal, financial, and linguistic assistance in addition to help with the housing search. About a dozen OECD and EU countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway and Slovenia) have specific loan or financial support schemes for refugees. However, programmes providing temporary, targeted housing support remain the exception to the rule. Housing measures that extend into the longer term are even rarer, but exist in the Netherlands (where housing is assigned), Poland, and Sweden. In Italy and Romania, humanitarian migrants have access to the same rights as citizens once granted protection.

Where housing shortages prevail, governments, and in some cases non-profits, have created social housing and inclusionary zoning solutions.6 France has implemented a social housing minimum quota of 20% in every municipality in urban areas. Failure to comply results in a fine. Likewise, some German cities have a social quota in place for land use allocation. An alternative approach is providing financial support for migrants in need to access the private housing market. This can be done through housing allowance schemes (including voucher-based systems such as those for low-income households in the United States) and other financial support systems for disadvantaged groups. Most OECD countries have supports for low-income households for which immigrant households are generally eligible.

In the majority of OECD countries, permanent residents tend to have the same formal access to public housing as the native‑born. However, there are obstacles for immigrants to get into social housing shortly after arrival. Measures specifically targeting non-humanitarian migrants are rare, though providing such support could prove a worthwhile investment where migrants are likely to stay over the long term. Some countries have long waiting lists (e.g. Belgium, Canada) or require applicants to have lived a minimum amount of time in the region or country (e.g. New Zealand, some municipalities in Norway). Immigrants also face difficulties meeting other requirements such the need for language skills as in Belgium (Flanders). Studies indicate a higher risk of social exclusion and deprivation compared to the rest of the population due to insufficient housing supply, landlord and realtor discrimination, and high levels of informality. Even loan conditions for recent arrivals tend to be less favourable as they lack a credit history. Only a few countries have specific policies or monitoring mechanisms to combat housing discrimination, an issue that can particularly affect migrants and that appears to be particularly under-evaluated in Europe. In the United States, the Fair Housing Act guarantees legal protection to specific groups that are at risk of discrimination (including due to national origin). To enforce the act, “Fair Housing Testers” gather information about discriminatory housing practices across the United States.

Overall, better data collection is needed on migrants and housing, in part so that countries can also examine more carefully the important – and largely unanswered – question of how long the transition from assisted to independent housing should take, using true, durable self-sufficiency (defined as being not dependent on social transfers) as the goal.

Transportation

Another physical barrier to participation in introduction measures may be both longer-lasting and impact a greater number of migrants: transportation to the integration classroom. This is especially relevant where migrants live in geographically diffuse regions, or where courses are only held in a limited number of locations. Countries might consider transportation subsidies for those migrants who are not able to access online courses but have distance‑related challenges. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Romania, and Sweden have systematically enacted such a measure. Examples of programmes that noted the importance of transportation subsidies to increase participation include the Calgary Immigrant Women’s Association in Canada, funded by IRCC as well as Canada’s Skills Link programme and Employment and Social Development Canada, which provides settlement services and links refugee and immigrant women to employment opportunities. In the United States, transportation is an allowable expense for resettlement agencies working with refugees. Because resettlement funding is given as a lump sum, some organisations have undertaken special arrangements with the private sector to offset transportation expenses. In Tennessee (US), the Refugee Congress collaborates with Enterprise Rental Cars to help refugees travel to language classes, medical appointments, and getting to work. Germany provides subsidies directly to migrants for those who qualify for fee exemptions for its language courses. In Norway, municipalities will cover the costs of Norwegian drivers’ licenses (approximately NOK 30 000 or EUR 2 963) for migrants in its integration programme. Other countries may reduce this barrier through other means; for example, public transportation is free of charge to everyone in Luxembourg (Annex Table 6.A.1).

Physical and Mental Health

Another major physical barrier to integration is the need for health care. Migrants who have experienced trauma, especially refugees, may need psychosocial care to deal with that trauma. Research from Australia indicates that low mental health7 reduces the probably of employment in refugees by 14%. Migrants with poor mental health are also more likely to work low-quality jobs (reduced labour income by 27%) (Dang, Trinh and Verme, 2021[46]). In addition, there is evidence of negative externalities on the family, including school performance of the migrant’s children. The effects are weaker for migrants who receive government benefits, indicating that government support programmes are helping.

Health integration measures may particularly benefit migrants receiving humanitarian protection, but other categories of migrants should not be ignored. All migrants need access to preventative care to lead healthy lives, and many will face psychosocial challenges associated with migration. Where the right to health care exists, barriers to attainment should be reduced. Integration policy makers need to work to ensure that this right is clearly explained to the migrant population and to the health care professionals with whom they will interact. Few countries, among them France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden, provide information about migrant-specific entitlements to health care providers. Lithuania proposed the addition of intercultural training for health care professionals in its 2018‑20 Action Plan on the Integration of Foreigners into Lithuanian Society. Factors such as whether migrants can receive time off from work or courses to access care are relevant, in addition to whether migrants receive information about how to access screening and treatment in the host country. In the European Union, a minority of countries systematically provide refugees with information about entitlements and use of services. Only Finland, France, Spain, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Romania provide for individualised face‑to-face information on a systematic basis. In Sweden, health communicators exist in most regions. Services are sometimes provided face‑to-face and in the migrant’s native language, though this is not available in every region. Additionally, the booklet, “About Sweden,” includes a chapter on entitlements and the use of health services. A similar chapter exists in “Handbook Germany,” which explains the differences in health care entitlement based on migration status and duration of stay. Portugal published a technical guide to help migrants access health care as part of its response to COVID‑19.

Translation and Interpretation

Connected to the issue of communication about rights (and responsibilities) is the question of language access. For those who have not yet reached host-country language provision, explanation of services, benefits, and integration obligations should wherever possible be available in the mother tongue so that migrants may access them as efficiently as possible. Communication in a migrant’s first language builds trust and reduces the possibility for miscommunication regarding requirements. Most OECD and EU countries provide translation and interpretation within the context of their introduction measures, but such a service should ideally be systematic to minimise gaps that may erect barriers to integration. In the United States, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and follow-on executive orders mandate language access for anyone receiving federal support, even indirectly. Australia has similar requirements for interpretation services. In 2022, Norway implemented a new Interpreting Act to regulate the provision of qualified interpretation by all public bodies and to impose a duty to use an interpreter when needed. However, at the moment, interpretation is only consistently offered at the initial screening, which may not adequately meet the needs of migrants within the career guidance programme. Portugal provides a telephone translation service freely available throughout the country that can be used by public entities and individuals for simultaneous interpretation in 60 languages.

Annex 6.A. Additional information on fringe support

Annex Table 6.A.1. Supports for migrants participating in introduction measures

	Childcare Provided	Evening/Weekend Courses	Online Offerings	Translation/ Interpretation Services	Transportation Subsidies
Australia	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Austria	Yes (for language courses)	Yes	Yes	Yes	–
Belgium (Flanders)	No*	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Canada	Yes	Yes, for language courses. Service providers are generally encouraged to offer flexible delivery models.	Yes	Yes	Yes
Chile	No	No	No	No	No
Colombia	Yes	No	Yes	n/a	No
Croatia	Mainstream public child care services available	Yes	Yes (initiated due to COVID‑19)	Yes	No
Czech Republic	Yes	Yes	Yes (not for obligatory Adaptation and Integration Course)	No	No
Denmark	Yes, in reception centres. In municipalities, migrants access ordinary Danish childcare	Yes, for language courses	Yes	Yes	Yes (municipal level)
Estonia	Yes	Yes	Yes (language)	Responsibility of service provider	Yes
Finland	Not systematically	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
France	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	–
Germany	Yes, though migrants in vocational language courses should apply for local services first	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, if eligible for payment exemptions for courses
Greece	Yes, in reception centres. In municipalities, children attend ordinary nursery school	No	No	Yes	No
Iceland	Children of migrants access public kindergarten	No	No	Not systematically	No
Ireland
Israel	Children of migrants access public school beginning at age 3	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, in some cases
Italy	Yes, on local level	Yes, on local level	Yes (initiated due to COVID‑19)	Yes, if in reception centre	Yes, if in reception centre
Japan	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Korea	No	Yes (weekend options)	Yes (with justification)	No	No
Latvia	Yes	Yes	Yes (initiated due to COVID‑19)	Yes	No
Lithuania	Yes, in reception centres. In municipalities, children attend ordinary nursery school	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Luxembourg	Migrants can access the same measures as all residents.	Yes	Yes	Yes, but not systematically	Public transportation is free of charge in Luxembourg
Mexico	No*	No	No	Yes	No
Netherlands	Reimbursement of costs allowed	Varies by municipality	Yes	Varies by municipality	Varies by municipality
New Zealand	Yes (onsite during reception programme)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Norway	Yes, on local level	Yes, on local level	Yes, on local level	Yes	Yes, on local level
Poland	No	Not systematically (local options)	No	No	No
Portugal	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	–
Romania	Yes	Yes (evening options)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Slovak Republic	No	No	Yes	No	No
Slovenia	Yes	No	Yes, in specific cases	No	No
Spain	No	Yes, but not systematically	No	Yes	Not systematically
Sweden	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Switzerland	Varies by canton	Varies by canton	Varies by canton, though federal support exists	Varies by canton	Varies by canton
Türkiye	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
United Kingdom	Yes for refugees and under English for Integration Fund courses	Yes for EFIF, possible on local level	Yes (initiated due to COVID‑19)	Yes, but not systematically	No
United States	Yes, for migrants receiving Office of Refugee Resettlement assistance	Yes	Yes, on local level	Yes	Yes, for migrants receiving Office of Refugee Resettlement assistance

Note: n/a = information is not applicable. A measure in Belgium (Flanders) to help pay for child care and transportation ended on 01 January 2022.

In Mexico, childcare spaces are available in the offices of COMAR for children accompanying applicants initiating recognition procedures.

Source: OECD questionnaire on introduction measures for new arrivals 2021.

Notes

← 1.  The Immigrant Citizens Survey asked immigrants to assess their needs for integration and evaluated how effective policies were in meeting these needs. A pilot took place over 2011 and 2012 in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. See http://www.immigrantsurvey.org/about.html.

← 2.  A tax-free “Danish language bonus” of DKK 6 242 (in 2019) is available to refugees and family reunited with refugees who do not receive social benefits and have passed a Danish language course Level 2 or higher. Municipalities receive subsidies when a refugee or family member obtains employment, starts education, or passes a final test in Danish. For each eligible migrant to pass a final test in the Danish language, the municipality receives a subsidy of DKK 33 959 (in 2019).

← 3.  Language acquisition is critical for refugee women in particular. Research shows that refugee women who become proficient in their host country’s language are 40 percentage points more likely to be employed (Liebig and Tronstad, 2018[20]).

← 4.  Integration agencies in several countries have noted women may not be able to participate in regular courses for “family or cultural reasons,” but may be more likely to access programming if classes are homogenous or if they are clearly informed of their rights alongside their husbands (OECD, 2017[79]). Moreover, research into academic performance of women and girls suggests that outcomes and attitudes may be slightly improved in gender-homogenous learning environments (Dustmann, Ku and Kwak, 2018[80])

← 5.  Women in the Workplace 2017, a study by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company, noted the importance of programmes to ease employees’ transition to and from extended leave (though only a minority of companies provided them in 2017) (Krivkovich et al., 2017[85]). Such policies can be impactful for women, particularly for those with partners who are in full-time employment. See also, Rebecca Knight, How to Return to Work after Taking Parental Leave, Harvard Business Review, 2 August 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/08/how-to-return-to-work-after-taking-parental-leave.

← 6.  The lever of social housing measures depends on the size of the social housing market in the overall housing market. The share of social housing is above 10% in eight OECD countries: the Netherlands (38%), Austria (24%), Denmark (22%), the United Kingdom (17%), France (14%), Ireland (13%) and Iceland and Finland (11%) (OECD, 2021[86]). There are also wide differences in the functioning of the social housing market, including the parameters that govern access and distribution. Inclusionary zoning, throughout which private developments are required or incentivised to provide affordable housing, can increase supply available to migrants. On the other hand, radical urban renewal projects such as large‑scale demolitions and rebuilds, designed to improve housing and reduce disadvantage in some neighbourhoods, appear to have the unintended consequence of making housing more expensive, exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing and leading to displacements (OECD, 2021[1]).

← 7.  Worse mental health is defined as one standard deviation increase in the Kessler Mental Health Score. On the Kessler‑10 depression scale, low scores indicate low levels of psychological distress (0‑15 indicates that the individual is likely to be well), and high scores indicate high levels of psychological distress (30‑50 means there is a high risk of anxiety or depression).