Language Training for Adult Migrants

4. Consider affordability when developing financing models to ensure costs are not an obstacle

WHAT and WHY?

In order to be effective and equitable, language courses should be available to all immigrants in need who are expected to remain in the country – independent of their financial means. However, language schemes tend to be expensive, particularly at the top and bottom end of the skills scale. Training for illiterate adults is the costliest type of programme, which may pay off only in the long run when the children of illiterate participants benefit from their parents’ learning in terms of higher educational attainment. Not surprisingly then, some newcomers, low-income groups, and unemployed migrants cannot afford the high upfront costs for private language training. Most OECD countries have responded to this by introducing publicly funded language programmes with little or no fees for eligible participants to guarantee that costs do not prevent eligible learners from participating.

WHO?

Unemployed migrants often have access to financial support from the public employment service, enabling them to participate in language training. However, those in need who are not looking for a job and/or not eligible for benefits would also benefit from access to subsidised language programmes.

HOW?

Across the OECD, the extent to which language training is subsidised differs (see Table 4.1), and countries have experimented with various financing tools:

• Language course can be free of charge or a means-tested benefit

• Migrants can access courses through a deposit system

• Migrants can be offered loans to pay for language courses

• Results-based financing can be arranged with providers

There is no clear-cut answer as to whether courses should be free of charge, and in some cases, budgeting constraints make this impossible. Offering free courses may also lead to the perception that they do not have value. However, many OECD countries consider language training a public good, which should be free of charge for eligible learners. This approach is prevalent for instance in the Nordic countries, Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Portugal, and Slovenia (see Box 3.2). Some countries also reimburse participants’ transportation costs. Alternatively, language training can be seen as a means-tested opportunity where learners pay only what they can. This generally implies that fees are waived or symbolic for basic and intermediate courses for all unemployed and low-income learners. Any other fees are set at levels that are not dissuasive for learners who can pay. Fully or partly means-tested schemes are currently in place in the United Kingdom, Germany, Luxembourg, Estonia, Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic. In Australia, which has free English language training for most new arrivals in need, there is a higher visa fee (around AUD 5 000, depending on the category) for spouses and dependents lacking functional English. Similarly, in New Zealand, most visa applicants must meet minimum language requirements or pre‑purchase English tuition. The cost of tuition ranges from NZD 1 735 to 6 795, depending on initial English levels.

Requiring migrants to make some up-front investment in their language training may provide an incentive to complete a course. New Zealand has seen increased uptake year over year since implementing the prepayment policy. As of December 2018, 59% of migrants with Pre‑purchased English Language Tuition (PELT) entitlements ending in 2018 had used all or part of their English for Speakers of other Languages (ESOL) tuition (New Zealand Government, 2019). However, a deposit system may be a more effective way to promote migrant commitment to the programme while at the same time offering a public good. From 1995‑98, New Zealand had a language bond, requiring spouses and dependents to pay a certain amount that was reimbursed if they managed to acquire the required minimum level of English language within a year of arrival. Currently, Germany will reimburse 50% of costs if migrants pass the end-of-course examination within two years. Austria uses a similar incentive structure (see Lesson 3). Both Denmark and the Czech Republic (for some courses) experimented with a deposit that is returned upon completion of the course. The deposit for Czech courses may be forfeit in the case of unexcused absences. Denmark introduced its deposit scheme in 2017 before changing to a fee‑paying model for self-supporting migrants in 2018. As of July 2020, the country has returned to a deposit scheme for self-supporting migrants at a slightly higher monetary amount (DKK 2 000 per module compared to DKK 1 250 per module in 2017). Students receive vouchers that state the maximum timeframe in which to complete each module. Migrants in the integration programme do not have to pay a deposit to access free Danish classes.

In addition, some countries provide no‑interest or reduced-interest loans for individuals and businesses that engage in advanced trainings with high payoffs. In contrast to grants, loans are appropriate for programmes with an expected high financial return on investment for the migrant and are usually used by individuals with high socio‑economic potential or tertiary-level education. Although rarely applied in this context to date, loans could also be used to finance advanced occupation-specific language training for high-income professions, such as medicine and engineering. Wherever fees are charged, or loans are the only available option for prospective learners, it is important to monitor for signs of under-investment due to an unwillingness or inability to pay. An evaluation of Estonia’s integration programme revealed that only 5‑9% of migrants were willing or able to pay more than 80% of costs of language courses. Between 33‑39% of respondents were unwilling to pay anything at all. Evaluators determined that discontinuing state funding would undermine Estonia’s integration goals (Centar, 2018).

Financing models can also be used to apply incentives for performance by providers. Denmark has used a results-based financing system in which providers are paid half the money prior to the course and half after the individual migrant has passed the course exam. An evaluation showed that financial incentives encourage service providers to contribute to more efficient and individually oriented tuition (Ramboll, 2007b). To ensure that slower learners are not lost in such a system, funders should consider a sliding scale of financial incentives according to the knowledge acquisition level of migrants (i.e. higher reimbursements for cases that require more investment).

To implement incentive structures, evaluations need to be included, and the capacity to manage bonuses and reimbursements must be matched to administrative systems. A centrally organised support function is needed to provide help and information regarding the benchmarking. Even though national budgets may not reflect the whole landscape given the role of municipal or state/provincial governments in funding programmes in some countries, it is clear that overall, language training represents the bulk of government expenditures on immigrant integration in most OECD countries. To reduce budgetary burden, multiple public and private stakeholders should be encouraged to contribute. Employers can be asked to subsidise language training costs for sponsored labour migrants and on-the‑job trainings, and professional bodies, vocational training programmes, and private higher education institutions can contribute to financing advanced and occupation-specific language training.

Box 4.1. Subsidies for language programmes

Israel’s Absorption Basket (Sal Klita) offers financial assistance for Jewish newcomers covering their expenses during six months of Hebrew courses (ulpan) and their rent for the first year. The benefit can be combined with an additional income support for the unemployed or vocational training students. An online calculator allows users to calculate the size of their benefit, which depends on their age and family situation.

In Finland, Norway, and Sweden, in the broader framework of the introduction programmes of which language training is a key component, language learners receive financial assistance that is conditional upon course attendance and complementary with paid work. In Sweden, participants in the introduction plan are entitled to an individual introduction benefit covering their expenses for up to two years. Based on the learner’s introduction plan, the public employment service determines the size of the benefit (approx. EUR 35 per day) and costs related to children and housing. The amount is not affected by the income of other household members in order to create stronger incentives for both spouses to learn Swedish and prepare for work. As with study grants, the benefit can be lost due to non-attendance, but can be combined with work at a reduced rate for six months. The requirements are similar in Finland, where means-tested assistance (approx. EUR 33 per day, paid five days per week including holidays) covers the expenses for participants in the introduction plan for up to five years. The amount equates to (and replaces) the unemployment benefits for the unemployed. In Norway, refugee learners and family migrants are entitled to an introduction benefit for the duration of their introduction programme, subject to attendance. The amount of the benefit is taxable and equivalent to twice the level of national insurance. The benefit can be combined with (i.e. does not replace) other benefits (e.g. unemployment, sickness/disability, maternity/child benefits) or with work outside of the programme.

Table 4.1. Costs for publicly financed language programmes in OECD countries, latest available year

	Fully or partially subsidised language courses (incl. e‑learning)		Total budgeted expenditures	Overall per participant per hour costs paid to provider (in Euros)	Fee paid by participant per hour (in Euros)
Australia	Yes		AUS 225 698 000 (approx. EUR 143.2 million) incl. tuition cost, childcare and counselling fees (FY 2018/19)	n.a.	Free of charge
Austria	Yes (and e‑learning)		Federal Chancellery: EUR 32 million (01/2019 – 03/2021) PES: EUR 61.3 million (2019) and EUR 67.8 million (2020)	n.a.	Courses organised by the Austrian Integration Fund and PES are free of charge. Integration agreement: Generally, participants pay course costs, yet can apply for partial reimbursement of the obligatory Module 1 (up to 50% of the costs) if they successfully pass Module 1 within the first 18 months of their stay
Belgium	Yes (e‑learning for family migrants coming to Flanders/Brussels)		EUR 8 386 460 in Wallonia EUR 8 000 000 for francophone Brussels EUR 300 000 for integration programme courses in the German-speaking community (2020)	n.a.	Free of charge for participants involved in an integration programme (sometimes annual enrolment fees of EUR 15‑42 for course material), except in Flemish Region, where fees are EUR 1.5 per lesson (EUR 180 maximum for lessons and test)
Canada	Yes (remote placement assessments and online/distance training options also available at no cost to the client; Quebec reimburses costs for language course abroad)		CAD 261.4 million (approx. EUR 178 million) federal funding for language assessment and training (FY2019‑20) In Quebec, CAD 170.3 million (approx. EUR 116.5) (FY2019‑20)	n.a.	Free of charge for permanent residents and refugees (federal level) In Quebec, financial assistance is available (CAD 188 per week for full-time courses and CAD 15 per day for part-time courses).
Chile	No		/	/	/
Colombia	/		/	/	/
Czech Republic	Yes		n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Denmark	Yes		Approx. EUR 170 million (2018)	n.a.	Free of charge for persons covered by the Integration Act. Workers and students must pay a refundable DKK 2 000 deposit to start training.
Estonia	Yes		EUR 6 789 200 for total Welcoming Programme (until 2023)	EUR 5.6 + VAT (EUR 450 + VAT in total per participant)	Free of charge
Finland	Yes (e‑learning is not systematic, but available through Helsinki City, infofinland.fi, others)		EUR 51 million (2019)	EUR 35 (per student per day in 2019)	Free of charge
France		Yes	EUR 247.9 million for integration contract activities including language training + 53.91 million for longer-term (2020)	n.a.	Free of charge
Germany		Yes	Approx. EUR 1 billion (integration courses and vocational courses)	EUR 3.90 (integration course); EUR 4.14 (vocational course) (2020) Beginning 2021: EUR 4.40 (integration course); EUR 4.64 (vocational course)	EUR 2.20 (2021), except for certain exempt migrants. May be reimbursed 50% upon successful completion within 2 years EUR 2.62 (2021) for vocational language courses. Free for persons without employment
Greece		No (except reception centres)	Approx. EUR 150 000 (2018); Approx. EUR 210 000 (2019). For courses in 4 Migrant Integration Centres – ESF	n.a.	Free of charge
Hungary		Yes (e‑learning and face‑to-face courses in Serbia)	EUR 173 675 (01/2014‑06/2015)	EUR 2.70 (2015)	Free of charge
Iceland		Yes	/	/	/
Ireland		Yes	/	/	/
Israel		Yes (Israeli teachers teach Hebrew and provide information about Israel in Jewish schools and the local Jewish communities abroad)	/	/	/
Italy		Yes	EUR 18 973 862 (05/2014‑06/2015)	n.a.	Free of charge
Japan		Yes	EUR 4 074 444 (FY 2015)	n.a.	Free of charge
Korea		Yes (e‑learning and face‑to-face classes through the King Sejong Institutes)	EUR 5 164 670 (FY 2019)	n.a.	Free of charge
Latvia		Yes	EUR 1 427 666,62 (2019)	The sum of the voucher not exceeding EUR 360	Free of charge for eligible participants at Public Employment Service and in asylum-seeker accommodation centres
Lithuania		Yes	EUR 800 000 (2019)	/	/
Luxembourg		Yes	EUR 1.5 million (2012‑15)	EUR 4	EUR 0.20 per course (reduced cost); EUR 3 per cost (regular cost)
Mexico		No (but e‑learning options available)	/	/	Refugees pay a lower rate
Netherlands		Yes (e‑learning/self-learning package)	EUR 61 million	n.a.	Loan-based but humanitarian migrants who pass the exam within the established period do not have to pay back the loan
New Zealand		Yes	EUR 21.9 million (2014)	n.a.	Cost is dependent on level
Norway		Yes (and e‑learning)	EUR 99.8 million (2021)	EUR 177 (2019)	Participation fee varies
Poland		Yes	/	/	/
Portugal		Yes (and e‑learning)	EUR 263 093 (2017‑18)	EUR 3.00 (2017‑18)	Free of charge
Slovak Republic		No (but e‑learning options)	/	/	/
Slovenia		Yes	EUR 416 900 (FY2014)	EUR 2.9	Free of charge
Spain		No	EUR 1 397 407 for total integration programme (2014)	/	Free of charge
Sweden		Yes (with residence permit)	SEK 3 793 887 (approx. EUR 358 366) for sfi (2019)	SEK 51 900 (approx. EUR 4 902) per year	Free of charge
Switzerland		Yes (not e‑learning)	EUR 64 million (2018)	/	5 CHF per lesson in some cantons, free in others
Turkey		Yes	/	/	/
United Kingdom		Yes	/	/	Free for unemployed immigrants receiving benefits
United States		Yes (and e‑learning)	On federal level: USD 657 million (approx. EUR 560,4 million) for appropriations under AEFLA (Adult Education and Family Literacy Act), plus additional funding for refugee programmesi (FY2020)	n.a.	Government subsidises classes (and other resettlement services) through grants to specifically identified partner organisations and centres for adult education

Note: n.a. = information not available; / = not applicable; See Table 1.1.

a. In the United States., language provision for refugees is funded separately under Refugee Support Services. This USD 270 million appropriation includes employment related services and specialised programmes in addition to English as a Second Language.

Source: OECD questionnaire on language training for adult migrants 2017.