Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants

7. How can different stakeholders interact to achieve the objective of migrant integration?

Why is this an issue?

A wide range of stakeholders – including migrants, local and national governments, and civil society – have an interest in the successful integration of migrants. There is, however, no consensus on how these stakeholders should interact to create a coherent integration system. Countries take a variety of approaches to organising the main responsibility for integration. There are practical reasons for this, related to the size of the government, budgets, or the legal division of responsibility across levels of government. Even the goals of government often diverge at different levels. National governments may be motivated by a philosophy of citizenship and the need to present the electorate with a coherent narrative of a functioning immigration system, whereas local governments tend to focus on the day-to-day practical needs of migrants and the smooth functioning of their locality (Gebhardt, 2015[14]). The goals a state chooses to emphasise may drive organisational choices. Because there are different ways of organising, there are also different co‑ordination concerns that need to be considered to avoid inefficiencies in service delivery.

An increasing number of countries emphasise placing responsibility for implementation of integration measures with local and regional authorities, civil society, and social partners. In some countries, such as Denmark and the United States, municipal-level management of introduction measures is longstanding. Recognising the fact that integration happens within the migrant’s community, and thus carrying out integration on a local level may be one way to improve migrant outcomes. Municipalities are well-placed to understand their local labour market and the characteristics of local programme participants. They have also proved capable of have achieving successful results with different strategies: some emphasise language training while others focus almost exclusively on on-the‑job training (Djuve et al., 2017[47]). Several countries have furthered the trend toward municipal (or regional) responsibility for integration efforts in recent years, even where the national government is the primary funding source. In Italy, the Ministry of Education funds more than 500 Provincial Adult Education Centres that have long been host to basic literacy and Italian courses. Since integration legislation in 2009 imposed a language requirement, the Ministry of Interior, which organises the language tests, has also provided support to these centres. In Spain, the national level is active only in state‑owned facilities and involved via state funding. Determinations as to provision of integration support lie with NGOs or regional governments. In Norway, municipalities design, deliver, and monitor the integration programme. Municipalities also have responsibility for co‑ordinating activities provided by other involved actors, including the county, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), private and non-profit organisations, and other public organisations.

Not every country agrees, however, that the local government should bear responsibility for integration. Cities may be best positioned to understand the needs of new arrivals, but local/municipal autonomy can create challenges, including major disparities in content and availability nationwide. Past reports in Norway highlighted the challenges some municipalities faced with implementation. For instance, despite having over a decade of experience, some municipalities are not able to meet a number of the core programme requirements. A recent survey from 33 municipalities suggests that about one out of ten refugees in the Norwegian Integration Programme did not have an individual integration plan as required by the law (Tronstad, 2019[48]).

Indeed, in certain countries, the trend has been rather one of increased central monitoring and organisation of introduction measures. The central government has a role to play in standard-setting and is often better placed to support the integration trajectory of migrants by protecting their rights and ensuring consistency of the integration offering throughout the country (Hernes, 2021[49]). National governments take the co‑ordination and implementation lead in Australia, Austria, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, and Slovenia, among others.

Further, while various levels of government have a role to play in integration, there may be situations where the government is not the most efficient actor. There may be issues of trust to overcome. There may also be areas in which the private sector or other non-traditional actors could operate more flexibly and creatively than the state. In Germany, Italy, and the United States, centres for adult education are active in the provision of language courses. Interactions within the community and with community organisations will affect how migrants internalise the message of civic integration. In Poland and Spain, civil society plays an important role. In late 2019, the Polish Foundation “Okno na Wschód” created a Centre for Supporting Foreigners, which, in addition to organising Polish language courses, also provides broader integration advice. This sector has also proved fruitful ground for encouraging migrants to voice concerns, share experiences, and work toward integration solutions. Measures taken to encourage the community to take an active role can create a sense of belonging and also affect the community’s view of migrants.

Regardless of where primary responsibility for integration is located, consultation and co‑ordination are important to ensure the effective implementation of the programmes designed to serve the migrant population. In many OECD and EU countries to date, while multiple stakeholders are involved in integration, there is often little to no co‑ordination between them, which may lead to overlap in certain areas and under-coverage in others. Often, different integration and employment actors fund, independently advertise, and develop their own criteria for their own courses. Complex parallel integration tracks for different categories of migrants also creates potential for confusion on the implementation side. The result is such that – even where appropriate courses exist – potential learners may not be informed or eligible.

An integration system that engages a wide array of stakeholders may increase expertise, but can increase co‑ordination challenges – particularly around clarity of responsibility and cohesiveness of integration objectives. This can be observed clearly in the realm of language learning. Whereas regular language training is often funded by municipalities or agencies under the auspices of the Ministry of Interior or Home Affairs, training that is geared to the labour market is commonly financed by the public employment service. Vocational training is frequently offered by a diffuse set of actors and funded by stakeholders with different objectives. These providers may lack accredited teachers and their own curricula. Language training providers, in turn, regularly lack expertise in relevant job sectors (Pöyhönen and Tarnanen, 2015[50]). Should responsibility or objectives become too fractured, integration measures risk falling short of their goals. In these cases, both over-provision and under-provision of integration services are potential outcomes. Effective co‑ordination mechanisms can reduce these inefficiencies.

How to approach it

Engage in whole‑of-government co‑ordination

Co‑ordinate across levels of government

Where a country has chosen to delegate responsibility for integration across multiple levels of government, transparent and regular co‑ordination will be required between the national, regional, and local level. Greater co‑operation helps to avoid overlap and gaps in programming, and to ensure common standards across the country. Good co‑ordination enables governments to emphasise the strengths of various actors at different governmental levels and to allocate resources more efficiently. This can have a direct impact on language and employment outcomes, as was recently observed in Finland (Sarvimäki and Hämäläinen, 2010[51])and Italy (OECD, 2014[52]).

In a decentralised system, national governments face the challenge of encouraging effective co‑operation of all municipalities where migrants are located, not only those with large concentrations of migrants. Smaller municipalities may have less funding and/or expertise in dealing with migrants. To help municipalities understand how to co‑ordinate programmes more effectively, Norway’s Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) and NAV developed a guide specifying ways to improve co‑operation, suggesting written co‑operation agreements and routines, interdisciplinary teams with clear division of responsibilities and interdepartmental meetings. It provides concrete examples of specific tasks where co‑operation is appropriate (IMDi and NAV, 2021[53]). In Switzerland, where cantons are the main implementers and key actors in integration policy, the federal government has taken a different approach to incentivise co‑operation with its national plan, creating a fund of money that can only be accessed if stakeholders sign onto the integration plan.1 This recognises the fiscal pressure placed on localities but reinforces the importance of the national vision for integration.

The Dutch state structure is strongly decentralised, and in the past, integration offerings were largely left to the competences of the private sector. However, there was recognition that integration was taking too long and discouraging individual migrants from achieving their potential, especially in language. With the 2021 Civic Integration Act, the government seeks to delineate municipal responsibility for the supervision of new arrivals more clearly. While the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment leads the governance of migrant integration, civic integration exams are co‑ordinated by the Institute for the Implementation of Education, and the Ministry of Education. Under the new Act, municipalities have taken on an even greater number of tasks, with responsibility for housing, asylum shelters, social assistance, employment services and education in addition to implementation of three civic integration (and language) paths. This represents a significant shift from the largely market-driven private sector integration offerings that have been previously available.

Box 7.1. Increasing capacity and co‑ordination in Colombia

In Colombia, Barranquilla’s Centro de Integración Local Para Migrantes and Centro de Oportunidades have co‑ordinated with the Grupo Interagencial sobre Flujos Migratorios Mixtos (Interagency Group on Mixed Migratory Flows) since 2016. In 2018, to meet the needs of an increased number of Venezuelan migrants, particularly those with health needs and expectant mothers, the federal government empowered the Gerencia de Frontera de Presidencia de la Republica (Border Management of the Presidency of the Republic) to intervene in areas where capacity had been exceeded. Migración Colombia, Border Management and the Barranquilla Integration Centre established a co‑ordination board (mesa de co‑ordinación migratoria) to improve services. The hope is to provide services from all relevant ministries, including Education and Culture, within this regional centres, of which Border Management now supports eight. Migratory co‑ordination boards bring together state entities at the national, regional, and local level, together with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and US Agency for International Development (USAID), to follow-up on the government’s response to increased migration flows. They address any integration challenges and identify necessary complementary actions to be taken.

In 2021, the Colombian Government took steps to institutionalise co‑ordination through the creation of la Oficina para la Atención e Integración Socioeconómica de la Población Migrante (Office for the Attention and Socio-economic Integration of the Migrant Population). This new office is charged with co‑ordinating the competent authorities at the national and local levels in implementation of strategies and policies for the socio-economic and productive integration of migrants and their communities.

In some cases, integration begins organically at the local level, but as needs of migrants grow more complex, or as numbers increase, some national support, with the accompanying broader perspective, can prove indispensable (Box 7.1). The central government has distinct advantages as it has greater capacity for close co‑ordination and collaboration to address the challenges of access and gaps in programming (Hernes, 2021[49]). While the shift toward thinking about the needs of migrants on the ground is important, most countries with a comprehensive integration strategy have implemented national oversight. In Denmark, municipalities previously had considerable autonomy with respect to the actual content of the Introduction Programme. In response to large numbers of refugee arrivals, the government revised the scope, length and content of the existing integration programme in July 2016, including easing administrative obstacles for municipalities and strengthening the central subsidies to the municipalities. Sweden issued a set of changes to their integration system in 2010. The state, via the Swedish Employment Service, overtook the responsibility for the co‑ordination of introduction measures from the municipalities with the intention of clarifying agency responsibility and increasing transparency to speed integration. Further changes were made in 2018 to reduce detailed legal controls and make the introduction process more similar to that of other job seekers. Responsibility for the introduction benefit was transferred from the Employment Service to the Social Insurance Agency (Andersson, Lanninger and Sundström, 2018[54]; Riksrevisionen, 2020[55])_.

Supranational bodies may also participate in integration, supplementing the activities of national and local governments. In several Europe countries, the European Union has an important funding role, for instance through AMIF or the EU Cohesion Action Fund for Refugees in Europe (CARE), which was created to support integration of Ukrainian migrants. Implementation of the funds may be under shared management. While competence on integration lies primarily with the countries, the EU may establish measures to provide incentives and support for EU members to promote integration. The EU is particularly focused on fostering experience sharing on those issues being faced by many of its member states and on co‑ordinating actions where relevant. (Box 7.2).

Whatever the division of responsibility, authorities, service‑providers, and experts should meet regularly to inform each other about existing course formats, discuss possible synergies, and pool together all available financial and human resources to develop a more diverse, adaptable and transparent offer.

Box 7.2. European Union Support for Member States in Co‑ordinating Integration

On 24 November 2020, the European Commission came out with an action plan on integration and inclusion, built on the experience gained from the COVID‑19 pandemic and the 2020 EU pact on migration and asylum. The European Commission plays an important role in supporting integration through funding, developing guidance, and fostering partnerships, and this framework is intended to support member states seeking to benefit from the strengths and skills of migrants by helping them update and implement national strategies.

Unlike earlier plans, the EU Action Plan on the Integration and Inclusion (2021‑27) covers not only third country nationals, but also EU citizens with migrant background. Notably, however, there is no definitive statement regarding coverage for migrants without legal status. The action plan seeks to enhance migrants’ active participation in society via both short-term and long-term integration plans. Key priorities shaping the actions in the plan are inclusion for all, targeted support where needed, the mainstreaming of gender and anti-discrimination priorities, and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The increased use of digital tools is prioritised as a way to increase the reach of introduction measures, particularly given pandemic-related restrictive measures. The EU specifically emphasises co‑ordination as essential in the development of partnerships and aims to provide targeted funding and capacity building to promote such stakeholder co‑ordination.

Coordinate within the national government

Even in countries that have maintained a centralised system for integration, implementation of large‑scale integration measures requires an identifiable chain of responsibility. Some countries have noted that when responsibility for different categories of migrants is designated to different ministries, no one actor is responsible for the integration of migrants as a whole, which can result in co‑ordination gaps. In the Slovak Republic, for instance, the Ministry of Interior has responsibility for refugee policy whereas family migrants fall within the remit of the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. Where new measures, such as integration-related amendments to the Act on Asylum adopted 12 January 2022, are implemented, they thus tend to reach only one specific group. Countries will ideally identify one institution to bring together and understand the actions of its stakeholders, with points of contact on the local level who are familiar with the individual migrants being served. A single co‑ordinator can identify any issues and help the various agencies work together to provide holistic services. In recognition of this, some OECD countries, such as Ireland, Estonia, and Lithuania, have made greater co‑ordination and a “whole of government response” part of their recent action plans on migrant integration. Japan has recently established the Immigration Services Agency under the Ministry of Justice to act as general co‑ordinator of ministries and agencies on support and inclusion of foreign residents.

In Germany, a comprehensive integration policy, co‑ordinated by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, exists at the federal level. The orientation course is standardised and is implemented by certified course providers that receive per-head payments from the state. Grants are also provided to third parties who provide approved integration counselling. Germany adopted this approach after observing that the pragmatic but fragmented approach of local provision was not enough to tackle its integration goals. Germany has also taken an innovative approach in tackling difficulties associated with co‑ordination, as the vocation-specific language training together with the integration course constitute the comprehensive programme (‘Gesamtprogramm Sprache’) that is administered by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and funded both by the Ministry of the Interior (integration courses) and the Ministry of Labour (vocation-specific courses).

Canada has taken a similar approach, with a national strategy and standards implemented through contracts with approved service providers. Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada enters into agreements with provinces or organisations and provides funding to over 500 organisations across Canada to deliver the Settlement Program. Built into the system is a strategy of performance measurement. Service providers are expected to deliver appropriate results to maintain the contracts.

Involve a broad range of stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector

By expanding the number of players involved in providing introduction measures, governments can expand opportunities for individual migrants to acquire the tools required to fully participate in the host country’s economy and society. New private‑, public-, and social-sector partners may bring not only innovation and interdisciplinary expertise, but also cost savings to governments. Charitable organisations and foundations have the potential to fill funding gaps, enabling countries to reach a greater number of migrants. Increasingly, countries have recognised that a multi-sectoral, “whole of society” approach that involves non-traditional stakeholders can simultaneously boost language and civic integration by creating deeper linkages with the native‑born. The Czech Republic, France, Italy, Lithuania, and Sweden are among the countries that have developed (or are developing) and are implementing systematic national and whole‑of-society approaches with multi-stakeholder strategies. Austria established an Advisory Committee on Integration in 2010 to bring together non-profits, social partners, and various levels of government. The European Commission’s EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion has similarly emphasised the importance of such partnerships.

Box 7.3. A business- and migrant-friendly environment in Solna, Sweden

Along with the Swedish Employment and Skills Office, the City of Solna, Sweden has developed an effective model for the labour market integration of newly arrived refugees and migrants. The “Solna Model,” launched in 2017, takes a systematic, relationship-based approach to support unemployed refugees and migrants in entering employment or education. The model is based on close collaboration between the job seekers, the Public Employment Services (PES), the City of Solna’s Employment and Skills Office and local and regional employers (public and private). The PES funds two full-time Business Development Co‑ordinators who focus on employment/education of migrants and refugees. The Co‑ordinators are employed by and placed in the city. Collaboration with local businesses is a major component of the model. The PES offers migrants a two‑year establishment programme and then refers these migrants to the City. Migrants benefit from dialogue, skills mapping, and coaching. Over the years, the City has encouraged and maintained a positive business climate with measures to improve economic growth. In return, businesses are also expected to give back and support the local community, including by providing suitable jobs to people in need of employment. In 2018, 71.4 percent of participants found a job or started an educational course. The unemployment rate for foreign-born citizens in April 2019 was 7.9 percent, compared to 12.8 percent in Stockholm County and 18.8 percent in Sweden as a whole.

The private sector may be mobilised for service provision in a way that brings significant efficiencies. Many countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, benefit from mobilisation of private sector actors in adult language learning, approving specific course providers as partners in their integration programmes or offering vouchers for migrants to use to pay for a course of their choosing. Denmark has designed financial incentives to encourage service providers to contribute to more efficient and individually oriented tuition (Ramboll, 2017[56]). Fewer countries have fully leveraged the private sector’s capacity for agility and experimentation to design innovative integration programmes, but given the rapidly evolving technology sector and tight government budgets, such partnerships may yield important results. In France, the language provider, CAVILAM – Alliance Française, developed a freely available language learning application with support of subsidies from the French Ministry of Culture (GDLFLF).

The private sector – notably on the employer side – has an additional advantage of helping countries make the business case for integration, as mentorship and skills matching programmes can help both migrants and private companies get what they need out of labour-market integration (Box 7.3). The OECD and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) developed an action plan for engaging with employers in the hiring of refugees, in consultation with key stakeholders, to help host countries benefit from investing in refugee integration (OECD and UNHCR, 2018[57]).

Employers have an interest in expanding the availability of sector-specific on-the‑job and vocational training offers as well. Employers can be encouraged in information sessions or in one‑on-one meetings to cover or reduce the organisational costs associated with training, for example by providing classroom space or allowing employees to participate in language learning during working hours. Training can be organised independently by employers, trade unions, or structurally through state‑sponsored language programmes. Foundations such as the Tent Partnership for Refugees in New York, United States can leverage private partnerships. The Tent Partnership works with 200 large companies that have pledged to hire 39 000 refugees. This coalition seeks to support refugees as potential entrepreneurs and consumers, tailoring their products for refugee customers. In December 2020, Tent launched an LGBTQ Refugees Mentorship Initiative, under which major companies collectively committed to professionally mentor more than 1 250 LGBTQ refugees over a period of three years.

Non-profit organisations are uniquely positioned to experiment and often benefit from a robust network of volunteers. Countries with a history of large in-migration (including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States) typically have an extensive role for non-profits. Most OECD and EU countries rely on non-profit organisations that provide conversation groups and “language buddy” mentoring, enhancing language exposure through low-pressure social and cultural exchange. In Ireland, the Third Age Foundation runs the Fáilte Isteach project, which supports weekly conversation groups involving 1 200 elderly Irish volunteers and 3 200 immigrant learners through 104 branches across the country. Non-profit organisations may also fill a co‑ordination function in countries with decentralised programmes, but they require resources to remain viable. If they are to build and sustain programmes, non-profits need stable, long-term funding. Partnerships with the government are a solution to this challenge. Countries need to consider the best way to recruit and retain volunteers across regions and programmes, perhaps through a centralised information management system. Government-sponsored peer matching, one‑on-one mentorship, and volunteer tutor programmes, such as those pursued by Australia and Sweden as well as municipalities, such as Wroclaw in Poland,2 can also increase community engagement.

Though increasing the number of actors involved in increasing migrant integration makes oversight and standard setting all the more important (Chapter 8. ), the addition of diverse perspectives can enrich a country’s offering. In the United States, academic partners and adult education researchers, frequently at the community college level, are often engaged directly in provision of language education to migrants. In Germany, the University of Hildesheim and the Bosch Foundation operate the programme Land.Zuhause.Zukunft, which provides implementation assistance for local (and particularly rural) integration ideas, and expands successful ideas through its network. The Canadian province of Quebec has developed partnerships with unions in addition to institutional actors and the community to strengthen on-the‑job training to meet the needs of migrant employees. The key concern in involving stakeholders across all sectors is not to over-delegate responsibility for integration across this diffuse network. Policy makers have to be prepared to take full advantage of the skills and perspectives of non-traditional stakeholders, but also understand potential for complication and inconsistency. Having previously left integration to municipalities and the Icelandic Red Cross, in 2021, Iceland launched the pilot project “New in Iceland,” a counselling centre to provide advice and support to new arrivals in eight languages. Funded by the Ministry of Social Affairs, the centre is a co‑operative platform between municipal and state run institutions, unions, and other associations, along with the Multicultural and Information Centre and the Icelandic Human Rights Centre. The centre, designed to be a “first stop shop,” provides in-person, phone, and web chat counselling.

Recognise that integration is a two‑way street and involve migrants in design

Community engagement and informal introduction measures can lead to greater trust between new arrivals and their host countries, which in turn can bring about more durable integration. Formalised cross-cultural exchange is an important way to signal that integration does not mean that migrants cannot retain their own identity and experiences. It also increases native‑born exposure to the migrant community, potentially increasing acceptance. Such programmes also may have the added benefit of encouraging broader social inclusion in the host community.3 The Portuguese High Commission for Migration promotes Non-Formal Educational Actions in recognition of the importance of these diverse learning opportunities. Some countries have expressly incorporated community engagement into integration programmes. Canada’s Settlement Program includes services that focus on building connections and promoting social cohesion. A wide variety of activities support informal language learning for newcomers, such as conversation circles, peer support through recreation activities, community events, and matching opportunities for cross-cultural exchange with Indigenous peoples and broader host communities. Directgovernment involvement reduces the potential for dilution of responsibility that that may occur with the addition of multiple stakeholders. Australia has recently prioritised extension of interaction with faith communities. Spain’s Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration (MISSM) is piloting community sponsorship for reception of refugees in host municipalities. Pilot participants are encouraged to participate in consensus decision-making regarding integration objectives, and the programme contemplates holding municipal meetings to share experiences within the community. The collaboration is supported by the Valencian Catholic church. Immigration New Zealand supports the “Welcoming Communities” programme, which brings migrants together with native‑born members of their local communities to build connections for better social and economic participation. Similar initiatives exist in Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United States (Box 7.4).

Box 7.4. Networks can connect local actors and communities for experience sharing

Welcoming International is a coalition of initiatives designed to connect organisations and governments to advance inclusion at the local level. An expansion of the non-profit Welcoming America, the organisation aims to help members create national standards and frameworks, including through piloting multi-sector projects for eventual scaling. In several countries, the founding members are non-governmental, but in Canada and New Zealand, national immigration bodies have taken on this role. National members create Welcoming Standards to be used in certification programmes that designate communities as welcoming. The Welcoming Community designation must be reviewed and re‑designated after 3 years, requiring a recommitment to the programme that increases its durability. Support of cities officials is identified as crucial to the success of the programmes. Pittsburgh, in the United States, used this support to create a housing network, “Renting to Refugees,” lessons from which are being spread across the U.S. In the United Kingdom, the City Council of Peterborough also set up a housing task force to partner with landlords for resettlement. Additionally, Welcoming America supports the Rural Welcoming Initiative, which seeks to create connections with locations that are not yet a part of the Welcoming Community. Membership for selected rural areas (population less than 50 000 that is not considered a suburb of a metropolitan area) will include technical assistance, access to learning opportunities, and connection to peer communities.

In Japan, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) revised the “Intercultural Cohesion Promotion Plan at the Local Level” in September 2020, increasing efforts to promote actions and measures of local governments. However, these initiatives across the country remain uneven. Some local governments have joined the Intercultural Cities programme (ICC), an initiative of the Council of Europe, which allows them to review their own initiatives from an international perspective and learn from the experiences of partner cities around the world. The ICC Index provides an assessment of city activities across a variety of categories (including education, language, governance, and labour), upon which recommendations for improvement can be formulated.

Additionally, established migrants have a role to play in outreach to new arrivals. Countries can benefit from recognising and supporting these migrant communities and spokespeople, rewarding their expertise. This can be done by prioritising funding for service providers that are headed by or employ large numbers of migrants, such as MOSAIC British Columbia, which received support through the Canadian Work Experience Pilot Project. At MOSAIC, staff are able to help new arrivals with work placements and mentorship in over 80 languages and exploit their own lived experience as migrants. Numerous such organisations exist throughout the OECD and EU, and they will benefit from sustained government support. The Portuguese Government has provided technical and financial assistance to immigrant associations since 2004, helping them welcome new arrivals and promoting the association of different immigrant groups. Drawing on the experience of those who have lived through the same introduction measures does more than just increase trust by building connections between longer-term migrants and newcomers. These migrants also serve as an important part of the feedback loop that is needed to improve programmes and ensure integration is happening effectively. In Luxembourg, active civic participation of immigrants is particularly important. The Conseil National pour Etrangers (National Council for Foreigners), has operated since 2008 as a review body, examining projects and policies that purport to be beneficial for newcomer integration. Of the Council’s 34 members, 22 are nominated from the immigrant community. Incorporating the migrant voice helps to make policies more effective and bettered tailored to needs on the ground. Keeping migrant stakeholders actively involved can help innovation to succeed. However, it also needs to be considered that these individuals, while nominated by certain organisations that serve immigrants, are not elected representatives for the entire immigrant community. Austria’s Integration Ambassadors (whose role it is to participate in workshops, motivate schoolchildren, and share experiences in the community), are, for example, chosen by the government. These migrant voices are important, but they cannot be interpreted to speak for all new arrivals. Countries also need to take care not to emphasise immigrants from any particular origin country over those of any other, lest such projects become exclusionary.

Box 7.5. Formal engagement in the New Scots integration strategy

The New Scots refugee integration strategy (2018‑22) is an example of a multi-governance framework for integration that is the result of collaboration between the government, local authorities, civil society organisations, refugees, academia and other stakeholders. (2018‑22). The New Scots strategy actively encourages refugees and asylum seekers to be involved in helping to shape the strategy and its delivery. In 2017, over 700 refugees and asylum seekers participated in the engagement process to inform the development of this strategy. Scotland relied on their lived experience to identify key issues and actions which could support integration. Refugees and asylum seekers also engage directly with a range of services and activities run by New Scots partners, helping to build the knowledge and experience that these stakeholders bring to the strategy. The strategy outlines further opportunities for refugees, asylum seekers, and their communities to engage during implementation. The British Red Cross was to establish an advisory group of people with lived experience to complement existing refugee forums, supported by the Scottish Refugee Council.

One way to do this is to make engagement with migrant community representatives a formal part of the integration measure design process to ensure these voices are heard (Box 7.5). Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have established a formal mechanism for engaging with migrant community representatives regarding integration of new arrivals. In May 2022, New Zealand launched a Refugee Advisory Panel with the specific aim of advising on development of new refugee policies and programmes. Panel members will be selected for service beginning in July 2022 by a committee comprised of government representatives, refugee leaders, academics, refugee‑led organisations and mana whenua (indigenous peoples). In other countries, such mechanisms may exist on a local level, and migrant-led organisations remain key partners. In the Czech Republic, the migrant-led non-profit, Slovo 21, is charged with designing the methodology of the Adaptation and Integration Courses. In the Netherlands, migrants are provided with information on their right to participate in civic activities. City-level programmes exist as well, such as Berlin’s State Advisory Board on Migration and Integration and the Migrant Integration Council of Athens. The European Commission’s Expert Group on the Views of Migrants in the Field of Migration, Asylum, and Integration, established in 2020, notes the importance of actively involving migrants in policy design and implementation. The group itself is composed of expert migrants along with interested NGOs and associations. In the United States, the Refugee Congress, a refugee‑founded and led non-profit organisation with members in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, engages in community consultations for public education and advises policy makers at the local, state, and national level.

Notes

← 1.  Similar strategies may also be used to incentivise mainstream service providers, such as the public employment service, to enrol migrants in their programmes even though they are viewed as more challenging cases that use greater resources. Compensating such services only when a specific result is achieved or based on the number of clients served does not recognise that some individuals may require extensive intervention. Job-seeker classification instruments, such as those used in Australia’s Jobactive programme, help employment services offices identify individuals in need of additional assessment or supports and to design activities to assist them.

← 2.  The municipality of Wroclaw introduced a volunteer-based “Tongues of the World” programme to encourage more migrants to access language courses and participate in intercultural communication. See https://www.wnjs.pl/en/about-the-project/.

← 3.  Various studies have concluded that language is a means to transmit culture. Language is shaped by culture because it is the primary means of communication within a culture. Thus, it is recognised that cultural proficiency can enhance language learning and vice versa. (Crawford-Lange and Singerman, 1990[81]); (Nguyen, 2017[82]).