Once these skills, needs, and goals have been assessed, they should be accounted for in assigning migrants to programmes. Across the OECD and EU, most countries personalise integration to some extent by providing separate tracks for specific categories of migrants. Most state‑sponsored language programmes have a separate ‘literacy’ track, involving ‘pre‑courses’ in literacy and/or additional hours of instruction (Annex Table 4.A.1). Germany has two separate tracks, one for migrants who are literate in non-Latin writing systems and another for those with no literacy in any writing system. Still, concerns have been raised that there are insufficient options for transitioning these migrants to regular language courses after the alphabetisation course is completed (Wienberg et al., 2019[29]). Tracking by education level is slightly less common, although pre‑courses or additional hours are sometimes also extended to low-educated learners. Tracks for the tertiary educated are more ad hoc (e.g. for international students or workers in certain professions), although there is an increasing trend to account for tertiary education in “fast track” or intensive programmes. Where possible, in addition to tracking, the impact of assigned introduction measures can be greatly enhanced if they are linked to form a coherent path for meeting the migrant’s goals. Vocation-specific language courses could be connected to vocational training, for instance.
Depending on the size of the migrant population or the resources available, greater differentiation may be impractical. However, individualised approaches have the advantage of increasing flexibility, which is particularly important as situations arise that place stress on known migrant vulnerabilities (e.g. the disproportionate impact on women, particularly those with children, observed during the COVID‑19 pandemic). Where possible, an individual language learning ‘trajectory’ –or tailor-made learning plan – should be developed in co‑operation with each migrant. Based on learners’ schedules and experiences, a case manager can identify the most appropriate introduction measures available in the area and estimate the adequate number of hours of instruction and learning speed, given the structure of the course and the migrant’s educational background and language repertoire. The plan may envision a programme lasting a few months or a several years, depending on individual needs. It should also be flexible in case these needs change. This first step allows learners to set realistic expectations and prevents ‘course blocking’ – which occurs when low-educated adult learners cannot progress onto a higher level, despite regular course attendance and high levels of motivation. Australia’s Adult Migrant English Programme (AMEP) uses individual pathway guidance at the start and end of each programme to maximise learners’ outcomes. New learners receive an Individual Pathway Guide (IPG) that documents their learning goals and explains their rights and responsibilities as learners. The IPG also facilitates the monitoring of learners’ outcomes during the programme. Once migrants have concluded the programme, they are interviewed about further learning needs and provided with a clearly delineated pathway to further language training, job search support, and education or vocational training opportunities. Canada provides an IRCC-funded assessment of needs and strengths, a personalised settlement plan, and referrals to services. Guidance includes information sessions, workshops, and one‑on-one conversations.
To date, while a majority of countries have specialised staff for counselling migrants, this is rarely outside the humanitarian context and often not systematic. Ideally, a single caseworker meets with each new arrival on a one‑on-one basis to find out about learning objectives and motivation, skills in other languages, education level, professional background, and language needs in migrants’ daily life. This individual can act as a mentor and encourage migrants to undertake training where necessary. This may require some upfront investment, but it shows migrants that countries understand and want to address their needs and interests, which, in turn, increases migrants’ motivation to participate and succeed in training.
Personalisation of pathways means looking at more than just jobseekers. Norway’s integration programme provides for an individual plan, but the country also sponsors specific measures for target groups. The “Job Opportunities” programme targets migrants who lack a link to the labour market. There is a specific focus on reaching immigrant women who are not dependent on social welfare and, thus, may never have been offered any services. One specific offering within the programme is “job club” conversation groups to improve language proficiency. The programme is divided into three different schemes. Part A-scheme is for immigrant women. In 2019, 75% of participants who had completed the programme in Part A had moved into employment or further education. Switzerland offers courses targeting the social integration of those migrants who are unlikely to pursue a professional project for age or health reasons. Canada also provides programming and guidance for seniors. Particularly where integration benefits are provided on a family rather than an individual basis, it is important to ensure that the needs of the entire family are being met.
Beyond counselling, continued case management can be used to ensure that migrants are receiving the support they need to continue in the programme. To ensure continuity, this should ideally be the same counsellor who performed the initial assessment, or if this is not possible, a team member who has access to the same information on the migrant. A caseworker (or a team of workers) should be monitoring the migrant’s progress in the relevant programmes. Periodic caseworker check-ins, like those contemplated in Australia, maintain a link to the migrant and help them pursue programmes to completion (Annex Table 4.A.2). They provide the added benefit of creating a connection and a trusted relationship, giving the migrant a specific point of contact should they experience barriers to access.
One alternative to an individualised pathway is to provide well-known, accessible locations where migrants can go to obtain personalised advice as needed. Germany’s Migration Advice Service for Adult Immigrants is provided at 1 473 centres across Germany or online. While financed by the Ministry of the Interior, individualised advice and referrals are offered independent of state authorities and can be anonymous if desired.3
