Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants

2. Who receives integration support?

Why is this an issue?

The question of which migrants should receive integration support is closely tied to the underlying rationale for a country’s integration programme or measures. If the rationale for an integration programme is to prepare migrants to enter the labour market as quickly as possible, introduction measures may be focused primarily on migrants of prime working age without employment. Naturally, some categories tend to be in greater need of support than others. While refugees have special needs due to their forced displacement, family migrants also often face barriers to be addressed.1 Some migrants are more in need of integration support than others, even within broad categories, such as labour, family, or humanitarian. This is the case, for instance, for migrants without prior exposure to the host-country language or that lack basic qualifications. Policy makers need to determine whether these migrants will receive integration support. The decision having been made, the level of support needs to be clearly communicated, and outreach and incentive policies can be targeted accordingly.

While migrants are individuals who may follow different paths and require different support, they are all likely to benefit from at least some early integration measures regardless of these differences. Recognising this fact will help policy makers adapt programming to the immigration realities of their countries. They can also assess these realities to identify ways in which a lack of supported integration will prevent them from gaining the potential benefits of migration.

At the same time, providing integration measures comes at a cost to the public purse which needs to be carefully weighed in the decision of whom to provide access. Migrants whose stay is temporary often do not want – or need – integration support. At the same time, the line between temporary and permanent is not always clear, and migration intention may change. Where immigrants – and new arrivals in particular – are ineligible to participate in publicly-funded job training or language programmes, they may find it difficult to identify adequate and affordable learning options in their area, which in turn may delay their integration. Even family migrants who have significant support from the principal migrant would benefit from an assessment or being pointed in the right direction for services. Moreover, denying certain groups the right to participate in publicly arranged and subsidised programmes may signal to those migrants that their integration into the host country is not desired. Recognising this, many publicly funded programmes in OECD and EU countries are gradually opening to a growing number of new arrivals, including asylum seekers and intra-EU migrants in some cases.

How to approach it

Make sure to identify and reach all migrants in need of integration support

Access to integration support is essential, and this is best provided by establishing a right to participate in introduction measures for all immigrant adults who are expected to remain in the country and have integration needs. Resettled refugees and their reunited family members are an important target group, and the vast majority of countries also provide the family of humanitarian migrants with the same integration support they provide the principal immigrant. This is less common for the family members of other types of migrants. In many cases, accompanying family of labour migrants would also benefit from support, especially where lacking basic skills. Integration plans benefit from identifying ways to reach long-term residents with limited language proficiency, independent of whether they are looking for a job and/or eligible to receive benefits. Introduction measures can also be adapted to reflect likelihood of stay – though this can be challenging to predict and may change over time – or be tied to the specific reasons for migration, even when temporary (Box 2.1). Access does not require that all measures be offered free of charge to all migrants, although consideration should be afforded to the level of burden imposed.

Box 2.1. Integration of beneficiaries of temporary protection, the case of Ukraine

On 3 March, EU countries activated the EU Temporary Protection Directive, which provides a regulatory framework to govern a mass influx of persons and provides for a specific number of rights, including basic reception and a right to the labour market. To mitigate the risk of social and economic exclusion of this group, many countries have provided additional supports, going beyond the list of harmonised rights to provide language courses, skills recognition, and job support (see (OECD, 2022[8]) for an overview).

The temporary nature of this arrangement, and indeed the uncertainty about the length of stay of those concerned, has led countries to make different decisions regarding the level of support. Germany announced that individuals fleeing Ukraine would be eligible for the same support as refugees. In Norway, recipients of temporary collective protection have a right (but not the obligation that other refugees settled by the government have) to participate in the full municipal introduction programme, which contemplates and individualised integration plan. Sweden, in contrast, made the decision not to offer the full Swedish for Immigrants programme to migrants from Ukraine. In most cases, people fleeing Ukraine are eligible for full integration support only if they seek asylum or other protection.

Countries not bound by the EU Directive have also introduced temporary protection schemes, and in some cases, recognising the need for integration supports regardless of the uncertainty of duration of stay, have opened up their integration systems to arrivals from Ukraine. In Canada, Ukrainian beneficiaries of temporary protection are eligible for the full Settlement Program for a period of one year. Australia also provides access to its Humanitarian Settlement Program and Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP).

The demonstration in this case of a collective understanding of the importance of providing at least some integration measures to new arrivals, even those who intend to return to their home country when able, can not only provide an important roadmap for future crises, but also prompt a rethink about eligibility for integration more broadly.

To date, most countries grant legal access to at least some public introduction measures to all legally resident foreigners (Annex Table 2.A.1). This is most common in the realm of language training, which comprises the bulk of public expenditure on integration in OECD and EU countries. Most programmes in Western European countries, with some exceptions such as France and Spain, are now open to both EU and non-EU citizens, although not always free of charge. Online language courses are typically available to all migrants. EU migrants were previously ineligible for publicly-funded language education in Norway. As of 2021, a new voucher scheme (Klippekort) gives all immigrants, regardless of how long they have been in Norway, the opportunity to register for language training worth up to NOK 10 000 (about EUR 1 000).2 In the Czech Republic, EU migrants have access to the same social and legal counselling programmes as non-EU migrants. In Latvia, EU citizens may access active employment measures, including language training and upskilling programmes. When it comes to other types of integration support, however, many countries have limited measures to those with the most obvious integration challenges, typically humanitarian migrants. In some countries, large‑scale regularisation has enabled countries to provide mainstream employment and social services to their vulnerable migrant population (Box 2.2).

Mainstreaming integration by fully integrating support for migrants into other training programmes, such as Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs), is a way to make sure that such measures are proposed to all eligible immigrant adults, facilitating their participation. This has been particularly effective for identifying those in need of language training. Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway are among the countries that have established dedicated policies aimed at including language training in mainstream services to immigrants, albeit to varying degrees.

Encourage participation in introduction measures by the entire family

Joining or accompanying a family member has long been the single most important motive for migration in OECD countries, accounting for 42% of permanent inflows in 2019 (OECD, 2021[1]).3 Family migrants face substantial integration challenges – they are less likely to have past exposure to the host country language and more likely to have care obligations. As family migrants typically arrive in the host country without a pre‑existing labour-market connection, they also lack the networks that may come from the workplace.

Some countries have enacted policies that reflect the fact that each member of the family has distinct integration needs and that the entire family will be impacted if the needs of the individual remain unmet. This first requires an evaluation of what measures would benefit each individual, but also an understanding of family context. Croatia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and New Zealand offer both family and individual integration guidance. Family plans are rare but have been used in Finland. Belgium (Flanders) and Croatia offer individual guidance, but data on family members are linked together. The United States Office of Refugee Resettlement has recently undertaken to change how data on refugee families is collected to better understand what the integration needs of each family member may be.4

Box 2.2. Large‑scale regularisation as a pathway to integration in for vulnerable migrants

Regularisation is frequently carried out in countries facing acute migration pressures. Greece, Italy, Spain, and the United States are among those countries with a history of enacting periodic regularisations, but regularisation initiatives are not at all rare, having been carried out in the majority of OECD and EU countries. Ireland announced a new regularisation scheme in 2021 that is expected to affect up to 17 000 undocumented immigrants. The scheme will accept applications from 31 January 2022 until 31 July 2022. For certain countries, specifically those that have not traditionally been countries of immigration but have large populations of unregulated or transitory migrants, regularisation has been a key component of their fledgling integration policies. This approach reduces strain on asylum systems and acknowledges the challenges inherent in conducting large‑scale removals. Regularisation is an important first step in the integration process, as migrants benefit from increased certainty regarding duration of stay and are thus more likely to invest in their future. Regularisation also reduces migrants’ vulnerability in a number of domains and provides them access to more mainstream services.

In Colombia, following the large, irregular inflow of migrants from neighbouring Venezuela, regularisation has been a cornerstone of the reception policy. Having determined that they will likely be allowed to remain in the country for some time, Colombia provides Venezuelan migrants with a status that permits them to access mainstream social measures, such as access to employment services. In the face of a rapid increase in migrant inflows, the Colombian Government recently established a Temporary Protection Status for the Venezuelan migrant population (TPSV) and has sought to establish principles and guidelines for the regulation and orientation of a State Integral Migration Policy, dedicated to regularisation, promotion of employment, and financial inclusion.

In Türkiye, individuals arriving from Syria fall under the group-based designation of Temporary Protection. They do not undergo individual status determinations. The majority of this population lives in Turkish towns and cities, rather than in refugee camps or centres. Those Syrians who seek protection under this temporary status are eligible to access general health care, social assistance, education, and the labour market.

While regularisation is an important policy lever that brings to light issues facing migrants, it is important to consider how to build upon these measures, addressing gaps, migrant-specific needs and vulnerabilities, and reducing discrimination. To meet this challenge, the Colombian Government has recently sought to increase co‑ordination with local governments and actors. In Türkiye, under a pilot commenced in 2019, Temporary Protection status holders receive a skills assessment within six months of registration and are referred to the Turkish Employment Agency (ISKUR) for training or language programmes.

Family migrants will benefit from eligibility for services and access to the labour market, but eligibility alone may be insufficient. The role of family migrants in managing the household may prevent them from taking time for their own integration. They are more likely to be isolated from the native community and face barriers to accessing information about integration possibilities. Specific supports are often needed to encourage newly arrived family migrants to participate in introduction measures.

Considering integration as a whole‑of-family process is also an important way to consider the specific needs of migrant women and to conduct outreach accordingly. To avoid a disproportionate gender impact, family members can be incentivised to participate in introduction measures, particularly those focused on labour-market insertion. Approximately one‑third of migrant women in Europe arrive via family migration. In 2019, the share of women among family migrants was particularly high in Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia, and Switzerland (Figure 2.1). Because they are more often family migrants, women tend to receive less integration support overall. The consequences of this are clear: migrant women face a persistent disadvantage in the labour market. They are more likely to be stuck in part-time work or excluded from the labour market entirely. They also face a disproportionate penalty for having young children and are less likely to use childcare than the native born (OECD, 2020[6]). Indeed, a notable priority for Germany’s new “Integration Course with Children: Building Blocks for the Future” is to help parents gain experience with institutional day care and to make integration more feasible and attractive for those with children too young to attend school.

Figure 2.1. Share of women among family migrants in selected European countries, by host country, 2019

Note: Among first permits.

Source: Data from Eurostat (migr_resfas).

Financial incentives may play an influential role. In Latvia, a per couple integration benefit is available, although it is not equivalent to the benefit provided to two separate individuals. The couple must decide how to allocate the funds and declare this in their application.5 Norway and Sweden have moved from providing a per-family integration benefit to an individual integration benefit for each partner. Evaluation of their integration programmes revealed that when household income was no longer the determinant of eligibility for the benefit, the participation of women in the programmes increased (Hernes and Tronstad, 2014[18]). To enrol in Greece’s HELIOS programme, each member of the nuclear family must sign a Declaration of Participation. Germany has noted the importance of partnership-based guidance, counselling partners together so that all family members understand the advantages of a professional path for the accompanying partner. Such policies have specific benefits for women, particularly those with childrearing responsibilities, as they are designed to help families reduce the tensions caused by settlement into a new community (BMFSFJ, 2021[17]). Flexibility is another important component to consider. Childbirth and maternity leave are generally seen as a viable reason to pause participation in integration courses to prevent migrant women from dropping out during this phase in their lives (Annex Table 2.A.2).

Integrate children to integrate adults and vice versa

At least partially in recognition of the fact that care obligations may prevent adults with young children from accessing the labour market, countries have increasingly enabled access to early schooling for all children, regardless of migration background. With some exceptions, such as Israel and New Zealand, the vast majority of participants in national integration measures are adults of working age (Annex Table 2.A.3), and few countries provide specific support to migrant children outside the realm of language learning, preferring to mainstream their integration through the school system. Norway has recently shifted the lower boundary age of its integration programme from 16 to 18 years of age to reduce ambiguity and establish a national preference that all migrant youth achieve an education. At the same time, young people face specific integration issues, and countries have taken a variety of measures to meet these challenges.6 Increased attention is needed to understand how these integration challenges may affect their parents.

Parents play a significant role, not only as caregivers for young children, but also in helping their children succeed in the school system and adapt socially over the long term. Regarding contact with the school system, native parents have a significant advantage over migrant parents (OECD, 2012[19]). Lack of familiarity with the education system or inability to help children with homework in the host-country language are challenges that can prevent migrant parents from meeting the needs of their family. Policy measures that could help migrant parents overcome these barriers include teacher training on the needs of multicultural families, programmes to offer homework help, or parent-advocate programmes that help parents navigate the host-country school system. Across the OECD and EU, these measures remain rare, and where they are provided, are typically not yet available systematically across the country. The French Ministry of Interior and Ministry of National Education have partnered to develop the programme “Open the School to Parents for the Success of Children” (OEPRE), which offers French courses at the school where the migrant’s child is enrolled, including a module on understanding the school’s needs and expectations for its students and parents. In its first year (school year 2017‑18), the 460 workshops were offered for around 17 parents each. 84% of participating parents were women. In Heilbronn, Germany, the district has conducted outreach to identify volunteers or paid parent mentors, individuals who speak both German and another language, who are then sent to schools and kindergartens to inform migrant parents about the school system. The project is funded by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration.

Introduction measures may also include loans, grants, or scholarship schemes to enable the children of migrants to access higher education. To date, such efforts have generally been left to individual universities. Policy makers could further consider how promoting access to higher education for the children of migrants, regardless of category, could further integration of the whole family. Such supports, which demonstrate the state’s investment in the successful integration of the principal migrant’s family members, may also increase the attractiveness of the country as a destination, notably for high-skilled workers.

Annex 2.A. Additional information on access to measures

Annex Table 2.A.1. Categories of migrants who can access standard introduction measures

	Asylum seekers	For EU countries only, newly arrived EU nationals	Family	Labour
Australia	In exceptional cases	n/a	Yes	Yes
Austria	Yes (for language courses if high probability of recognition)	No	Yes	Yes
Belgium (Flanders)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Canada	Yes (after a determination of eligibility for protection)	n/a	Yes	Yes
Chile	Yes	n/a	Mainstream measures	Mainstream measures
Colombia	No	n/a	Mainstream measures	Mainstream measures
Croatia	Yes	No	Returnees of Croatian origin	No
Czech Republic	No	EU nationals may access available counselling	Yes	Yes
Denmark	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Estonia	Yes (language and orientation cafes)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Finland	Yes (only the Finnish society course until permit granted)	Yes	Yes	Yes
France	No	No	Yes	Yes
Germany	Yes (those with a good prospect to stay)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Greece	Yes (in reception centres)	No	No	Mainstream measures
Iceland	Need-based welfare services (municipal level)	No	Mainstream measures	Mainstream measures
Ireland
Israel	No	n/a	Yes	No
Italy	Yes (but not for job counselling or training)	No	Yes	Yes
Japan	No	n/a	No	No
Korea	No	n/a	Yes	Yes
Latvia	Yes	Yes (specifically toward labour market integration)	Yes	Yes
Lithuania*	Yes (for minors)	No	Yes (residents)	No
Luxembourg	Yes (Accompanied Integration Pathway (PIA/SIV))	Yes (CAI)	Yes (CAI)	Yes (CAI)
Malta	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mexico	Yes (needs recognition interview)	n/a	Mainstream measures (residents)	Mainstream measures (residents)
Netherlands	Yes	Yes (loan-based)	Yes (loan-based)	Yes (loan-based)
New Zealand	Yes (some limited benefits, including language)	n/a	Yes	Yes
Norway	Yes (asylum seekers have an obligation to attend a limited number of Norwegian language training (175 hours) and social studies (25 hours)	No	Yes	Yes
Poland	Yes (language and cultural orientation in centres)	No	No	No
Portugal	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Romania	Yes (reception measures for those with no material support)	Yes (counselling and orientation; language is fee based)	Yes	Yes
Slovak Republic	Yes (in reception centres and 6 months after start of asylum procedure)	No	Mainstream measures	Mainstream measures
Slovenia	Yes (language, education, psychosocial and health care)	No	Yes	Mainstream measures
Spain	Yes (but not for job counselling or training)	No	Local measures	Local measures
Sweden	No access to formal programme (although some early measures exist)	Yes (only Swedish for Immigrants) + local measures	Yes (Swedish for Immigrants and civics only) + local measures	Yes (only Swedish for Immigrants) + local measures
Switzerland	No	Canton-level measures	Canton-level measures	Canton-level measures
Türkiye	No	n/a	No	No
United Kingdom	No	n/a	No	No
United States	Yes (Unaccompanied Children and those enrolled in the Survivors of Torture Program)	n/a	Mainstream measures	Mainstream measures

Note: n/a = information is not applicable; *Lithuania is developing a set of national measures to be made available to all migrants.

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

Annex Table 2.A.2. Limitations on eligibility for introduction measures other than migrant’s status

	Duration of Residence and Timing of Access	Age range	Ability to pause courses without penalty
Australia	For clients who were in Australia on or before 1 October 2020, there are no time limits on registration, commencement and completion of AMEP tuition. For clients who arrived in Australia after 1 October 2020, the following time limits and age restrictions apply: - For clients 18 years and over – register within six months. - For clients under 18 years of age – register within 12 months. - All clients commence tuition within 12 months. - All clients complete tuition within five years of their visa commencement date.	>18	Yes
Austria	No	beginning at age 15	Yes
Belgium (Flanders)	Integration courses: hold residence permit valid at least 3 months; Dutch courses: no restriction	18‑64 (after 64 becomes voluntary)	Yes (for validated reasons)
Canada	Permanent residents and protected persons are eligible for support until acquisition of Canadian citizenship. For refugees, essential services are provided for 6 weeks and income support is provided for one year (2 in exceptional cases)	Defined by province or territory (legal age to leave school)	Yes
Chile	Regular migration situation	None	n/a
Colombia	n/a	None	n/a
Croatia	No	None	Yes
Czech Republic	No	15‑61	Yes
Denmark	Employment measures last for one year but can be extended 4 times (total of 5 years) I-course participants may receive 5 years of language training S-course participants may receive 3.5 years of language within a 5‑year period	>18, though unaccompanied minors may access certain measures and language may be accessed at 16‑17 if no other option is available	Yes
Estonia	Foreign nationals who have lived in Estonia less than 5 years	beginning at age 15	Yes
Finland	The normal validity period of an integration plan is three years, though it can be extended to 5; employer-specific permit holders do not access employment office integration services.	No, though employment offices are open to 18‑63	Yes (disease, maternity leave, etc.)
France	The Republican Integration Programme lasts 5 years; the contract is in place the first year after arrival, though language programmes may continue after	>18	Yes (health, maternity leave, etc.)
Germany	No limit for most programmes, according to availability. Relocated migrants must begin within 3 years of residing in Germany.	Counselling for adult migrants: >27 Language, eligibility begins at the end of compulsory schooling	Yes
Greece	Beneficiaries of international protection recognised after 1 January 2018	17‑65 (after 65 becomes voluntary)	Yes (though restarting may be necessary in some cases of reenrolment)
Iceland	Quota refugees receive language courses for 6 months and financial support for 12 months	–	–
Ireland
Israel	Varies by service, but normal eligibility lasts 10 years (15 years for new immigrants from Ethiopia)	Varies by programme	Yes
Italy	Typically must seek a residence permit with a duration of at least one year	16‑65	Yes
Japan	No	None	No
Korea	Various requirements exist, but KIIP programmes are intended for migrants who intend to stay long-term	None	Yes (childbirth, treatment, or other significant reasons)
Latvia	Social worker and social mentor services are limited to humanitarian migrants and asylum seekers.	None, except for public employment services	Yes
Lithuania	If humanitarian migrants depart Lithuania for more than one month, services may be terminated	None	Yes
Luxembourg	Regular migration situation	16+ (integration contract); 18‑16 for Accompanied Integration Pathway	Yes (may be extended one year)
Malta	No	16+	Yes
Mexico	No	None	n/a
Netherlands	Services should be provided for three years (prior to 2022, civic integration test must be passed within 3 years for loan refunds)	18‑65	n/a
New Zealand	Access may only be available after certain residency duration is met (waived for refugees)	None (though some programmes target working‑age former refugees)	Yes (childbirth, etc.)
Norway	Must start the NIP within the first two years after settlement	18‑55	Yes
Poland	Participants must apply within 60 days from the date international protection is granted. Programmes last up to 12 months.	None	No
Portugal	No	None	Yes
Romania	Refugees must enrol within 3 months after obtaining international protection	None	Yes (for 3 months)
Slovak Republic	No	None	Yes
Slovenia	No	None	Yes (for health reasons)
Spain	No	None	Yes
Sweden	No	20‑64 (introduction programme); Swedish for Immigrants can begin at age 16	Yes
Switzerland	No	None	Yes
Türkiye	For Conditional refugees, International Protection Applicants and Temporary Protection status holders, access begins six months after their status registration approval	age 15+	Yes
United Kingdom	Resettled refugees should be given access to 8 hours/week of English language training within one month of arrival. This is provided for 12 months or until reaching Entry Level 3, whichever is sooner	None	n/a
United States	Office of Refugee Resettlement services are generally available for up to five years. Cash and medical assistance is limited to the first eight months	Varies by programme	n/a

Note: n/a = information is not applicable.

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

Annex Table 2.A.3. Participation in introduction measures by age, gender, and nationality

Country	Total	Female	Male	Age of participants	Main countries of origin
Australia	48 408	66%	34%	<18: 1% 18‑64: 93% >65: 6%	Iraq, Syria, Myanmar
Austria	4 414 (values and orientation courses) 11 787 (language courses)	38% (orientation) 56% (language)	62% (orientation) 44% (language)	–	Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq
Belgium (Flanders)	18 137	55%	45%	18‑39: 78% 40‑59: 21% >60: 1%	–
Canada	547 785 (FY19)	56% (FY19)	44% (FY19)	<18: 20% >18: 80% (FY19)	India, China, Philippines, Syria, Iran
Chile	105	60%	40%	<20: 21% 21‑60: 75% >60: 4%	Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba
Croatia	133	59%	41%	–	Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan
Czech Republic	Approx. 1 500	Mostly women	–	–	Ukraine
Denmark	10 350 (FY21)	54% (FY21)	46% (FY21)	18‑24: 11% 25‑39: 64% 40‑64: 24% (1 January 2021)	Syria, Iran, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iraq
Estonia	1 798	49%	51%	<18: 2% 18‑64: 97% >65: 1%	Russia, Ukraine, Nigeria
Finland	27 166	55%	45%	<18: 9% 18‑64: 90% >65: 1%	Iraq, Syria, Russia
France	78 764	46%	54%	16‑18: 3% 19‑60: 95% >60: 2%	Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria
Germany	105 965 (Integration courses) 113 202 (Vocational Language course)	59% (integration) 53% (vocational language)	41% (integration) 47% (vocational language)	<25: 13% 25‑54: 83% >55: 4%	Syria, Romania, Türkiye, Afghanistan, Bulgaria
Greece	18 779 (FY 2020)	46% (FY 2021)	54% (FY 2021)	0‑20: Second largest group 20‑40: Main beneficiaries >40: Smallest group	Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq
Israel	21 764	–	–	≤18: 53% 19‑65: 41% >66: 6%	Russia, Ukraine, France, USA, Ethiopia
Italy	81 155	–	–	–	–
Korea	6 620	–	–	–	–
Latvia	117	29%	71%	<18: 25% 18‑65: 75%	Belarus, Syria, Azerbaijan
Lithuania	283	48%	52%	<18: 43% 18‑64: 56% >65: 1%	Russia, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus
Luxembourg	120 (PIA/SIV programme for asylum seekers and refugees) 370 (CAI programme for EU and third-country nationals)	42% (PIA/SIV) 59% (CAI)	58% (PIA/SIV) 41% (CAI)	PIA/SIV programme: 18‑64: 100% CAI programme: 16‑24: 3% 25‑64: 96% >65: 1%	Portugal, India, France, Brazil, Italy
New Zealand	327 refugees in integration reception programmes	48%	52%	<18: 46% 18‑64: 53% >65: 1%	Myanmar, Syria, Colombia, Eritrea, Afghanistan
Norway	13 897	53%	47%	18‑35: 67% 36‑55: 33% (FY19)*	Syria, Eritrea, Congo, Türkiye, Afghanistan
Romania	1 003	–	–	Most are aged 18‑64	Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia
Slovak Republic	282 (asylum seekers)	–	–	–	Afghanistan
Slovenia	132 (beneficiaries of international protection)	–	–	–	Türkiye, Syria
Spain	71 000 (asylum seekers or beneficiaries of international protection) (FY19)	–	–	–	–
Sweden	39 832	60%	40%	Open to individuals aged 20‑64	–
Switzerland	71 447	–	–	–	–
Türkiye	5 546 (beneficiaries of skills and job programmes through international projects)	–	–	–	–
United Kingdom	4 968	–	–	–	–
United States	211 917	54%	46%	<18: 24% 18‑64: 75% >65: 1%	Afghanistan, Cuba, Congo, Burma, Ukraine

Note: Data is provided for Fiscal Year 2020 unless otherwise specified. **The Norwegian Integration Programme (NIP) is open only to individuals aged 18‑55.

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

Notes

← 1.  Dedicated publications in this series deal with the specific challenges and integration measures for humanitarian migrants (OECD, 2016[88]) and family migrants (OECD, 2017[22]).

← 2.  Norway’s voucher allows for self-purchasing of around 80 hours of language training and can be used for both online classes and in-person training.

← 3.  This percentage includes both the Accompanying Family and Family categories. Family migration was particularly hard-hit by COVID‑19 in 2020, declining by 35%. In 2020, free movements made up 32% of permanent migration to OECD countries, compared to 31% for family (accompanying family remained stable, at 6%) (OECD, 2021[1]). It is likely, however, that this is a temporary drop due to the pandemic, rather than a trend.

← 4.  For information about how the Annual Survey of Refugees is changing, see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/blog/2021/03/introducing-new-annual-survey-refugees-asr-2020.

← 5.  For the support payment for humanitarian migrants, a single adult person receives EUR 278, and a minor receives EUR 194. A husband and wife are eligible for EUR 278 + EUR 194 (EUR 472). The monthly benefit is EUR 139 per adult and EUR 97 for a minor. A couple may receive EUR 193 + EUR 97 (290) (https://www.pmlp.gov.lv/en/media/1645/download).

← 6.  These are addressed in detail in another volume of the OECD Making Integration Work Series, Young People with Migrant Parents (OECD, 2021[44]).