Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children in Norway

Report

Working Together for Integration

28 November 2022

3. Assessing and building skills of immigrants in Norway

Abstract

This chapter focuses on building and assessing skills of immigrants in Norway. In a first part, it analyses the integration of refugees and their family members, in particular with regard to the recent changes to Norway’s Introduction Programme. A discussion of Norwegian language training follows, focusing on recent changes of target levels in international comparison and access to free language training for different immigrant groups. It concludes with a section on credential recognition and validation of skills.

This report was largely completed before the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Norway swiftly adapted its integration framework to accommodate for the specific challenges arising from the inflow of refugees from Ukraine. These measures are discussed in a separate chapter (Chapter 6).

The Introduction Programme

Newly arrived refugees, their families and others in need of protection face particular challenges to build a new life – in Norway as elsewhere. To ease integration of this group into society and boost its economic independence, Norway established the Norwegian Introduction Programme (NIP) in 2004. The NIP is designed as an individually adapted full-time and typically multi‑annual programme for refugees and their family members as well as for persons granted residence on other humanitarian grounds and their families.

In recent years, about 22% of adult immigrant arrivals to Norway participated in the Introduction Programme. The large majority of those eligible also take part in the programme. In 2019, 97% of refugees still present in Norwegian data, aged 18‑55 at arrival between 2014 and 2018, had been or still were in the programme. That figure was 67.5% for adult family migrants joining a refugee partner.1

The last decade has put Norway’s Introduction Programme for newly arrived refugees to the test

Humanitarian migrants between the age of 18 and 55 who are settled by an agreement between IMDi and a municipality and have lived in a municipality for less than two years have the right and obligation to participate in the NIP. This only applies to persons residing in the municipality in accordance with this agreement. All municipalities that settle refugees are obliged to offer the NIP, but if a refugee settles or moves to a municipality without an agreement, they may lose their right to participate in the NIP and their introduction benefit (see below). Thus, while in principle, a foreigner who has been granted a residence permit as a refugee or with humanitarian status may choose to settle wherever they want and enjoys full freedom of movement in Norway, they must settle in the assigned municipality to receive housing and financial support. Individuals are supposed to start the programme as soon as possible and within three months after they settle in a municipality. Other immigrant groups, including labour migrants and immigrants covered by the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, have no right to participate in the NIP.

Participants in the NIP are a diverse group of immigrants in terms of origin, educational background, work experience and skills. Against this background, the goal of the NIP is to provide every participant with fundamental skills to succeed on the labour market in Norway. By programme design, all participants are working age, and most still quite young: in 2020, 63% of participants were under 35 years old and one in four aged 25 or younger.

Over the last decade, the yearly number of participants in the NIP has grown steadily until 2017 when it peaked at close to 29 000 participants. Thereafter it declined strongly. The fluctuation was largely driven first by an increase and later decline in participants originating from Syria and Eritrea (Figure 3.1). While until 2015 an equal share of women and men participated, in 2016 and 2017 more than 60% of participants were male, and in 2020 a majority of about 56% were female.

The programme includes language training (Norwegian or Sami) and introduction into Norwegian society, access to formal education, as well as preparation and training for employment. Each participant develops an individual integration plan in collaboration with their contact person in the municipality, consisting of a programme goal (typically a type of job or education outcome) and a path via training and courses to achieve this goal. The determination as to what exact form of training and support an individual receives is, in theory, adapted to individual needs, but in practise often depends on what a municipality can offer (Djuve et al., 2017[1]; Hernes et al., 2019[2]; Tronstad, 2019[3]).

Figure 3.1. NIP participation numbers declined strongly after a rapid increase in previous years

In some respects, the NIP can be seen as the first “job” refugee arrivals and their family have in Norway, and each participant is entitled to an individual introduction benefit. The benefit amounts to twice the basic amount of the National Insurance Scheme. In 2020, this was approximately EUR 1 530 per month (taxable). Participants under 25 years of age receive two‑thirds of the benefit if they live by themselves and one‑third of the benefit if they are living with one or both parents (Norwegian Ministries, 2020[4]). The municipalities decide how and when payment is to take place based on registered attendance. In case of undocumented absences, the benefit can be deducted hour-by-hour. Approved leaves of absence, due to health or parental leave, can prolong the participation and benefit time.

Overall, Norway’s Introduction Programme (NIP) is most comparable to the introduction offers in Denmark and Sweden, two countries that run similar programmes and have readjusted them in recent years, corresponding to varying political priorities and outcomes of participants. In all three countries, goals of employment and self-sufficiency permeate the integration acts’ “raison d’être”. While the Danish introduction programme focuses on getting the participants any kind of job as rapidly as possible, the Swedish initiatives – at least for participants with relevant prior qualifications – are more focused on getting the participants a job as soon as possible that corresponds to their qualification level. Norway’s programmes as discussed in the following is set between these two schemes (Box 3.1).

The strong increase and the subsequent decrease of participants in the programme have put the Norway implemented several integration policy changes over the past years, among them a new Integration Act in force since January 2021. The following sections shortly discuss the outcomes of the NIP under the previous provisions, outlining how the main changes in 2021 address some of the identified challenges with the Integration Act and discussing outstanding issues that require attention going forward.

Box 3.1. The integration programmes’ raison d’être: rapid employment or investment in qualification to ensure long-term employment attachment?

The introduction offers in Denmark, Sweden and Norway differ in their balance between getting participants (any kind of) employment as fast as possible versus investing in qualifications during the initial years to ensure a more stable and long-term labour market integration.

Denmark focuses on rapid employment

In Denmark, the goal of rapid employment and self-sufficiency is explicitly highlighted in the New Act of 2016 so that newly arrived immigrants are to become self-sufficient through employment “as soon as possible”. Furthermore, although the Act opens up the possibility of employing qualification and different education measures, it is often explicitly stated that these measures should only be used if it is assessed that (rapid) employment is not deemed plausible for the participant in question. The new legislation explicitly prioritises job training – through work practice or subsidised employment – with the aim to get participants into employment more quickly. The law also emphasises that lacking language skills or educational qualifications – or that the person may only uphold unskilled jobs – is not sufficient reason to deprioritise employment measures aimed at rapid employment.

An exception is made for young participants (18‑25) who do not have higher education. Those participants are obliged to pursue education if it is deemed plausible that they will be able to complete such an education on normal terms. The law still opened up possibilities for qualification and educational measures as part of the programme if the measures would increase the participant chances for labour-market integration. However, it is explicitly stated that a condition for providing long-term offers of guidance and upskilling is that there be no reasonable prospect for the participant to obtain ordinary employment during the regular programme period. Consequently, measures other than job-related activities should only be considered if it is deemed that the participant could not get (any kind of) job within one year.

Sweden focuses on relevant employment

The goal of the Swedish introduction programme is to “facilitate and accelerate the establishment of some newly arrived immigrants in working life and society”. Although some of the new Swedish initiatives focus on rapid employment, a common denominator of the Swedish initiatives is the focus on getting the participants to “relevant” jobs (that is, in accordance with the level of skills), particularly if they have prior qualifications that could be exploited in the Swedish labour market. A recent compulsory education initiative aimed at strengthening and improving immigrants’ chances to meet the demands at the labour market, as most jobs in Sweden require education and/or experience.

Norway is somewhat situated in between

With the new Introduction Act, and the resulting strengthened focus on ensuring formal qualifications and a stable labour-market attachment, Norway is more aligned in objective with the Swedish introduction programme. This is particularly the case for those with low education at start, who are encouraged and enabled with the changes to invest in their education first. Here Norway’s approach increasingly differs from the Danish. At the same time, changes in Norway with respect to the short programme time and limited educational offers for those with upper secondary education suggest that those with medium skill level, may have a shorter time to invest in further upskilling or tertiary education, despite the needs of the highly skilled labour market in the future.

Immediate labour market outcomes are favourable but long-term outcomes less clear

The share of former NIP participants in education or employment one year after ending the programme has remained largely constant at around 60% over the last decade. This falls 10 percentage points short of the self-identified labour market integration goal in 2010 (having 70% of former participants in paid employment or education one year after completing the NIP). However, this is a favourable outcome in international comparison. Only one year after the programme ends, 30‑40% are in employment and an additional share of 15% are combining education and work – this seems to be a much higher share than across the EU, where in the past, only 27% of refugees with less than five years of residence are employed (Dumont et al., 2016[5]).

With additional time in Norway, the labour market outcomes improve and among those who stopped the NIP five years earlier the share in employment or education ranges between 66% to 74% among men, and 53% and 58% among women in the years 2012‑20 (Statistics Norway, 2021[6]).

Overall, at the end of 2019, working-aged refugees who arrived as adults and attended the NIP were more likely employed than those who did not attend at 58% versus 53%, but gender and residence time in Norway play an important role (Table 3.1). These numbers have to be interpreted with caution however, as isolating and assessing the impact of NIP-participation is a key challenge (Box 3.2).

Register data suggests that refugee men who took part in the NIP integrated well in the short-term. 5‑9 years after their arrival, 70% are employed compared to a share of just 58% employed for refugee men who have been in Norway for the same amount of years but have not attended the NIP. However, for those with at least 10 years of residence, the differences are rather small. Notably, men who participated in the NIP and have been in Norway for 10 years or longer have a relatively low employment rate of only 59% – and, in fact, outperform their peers who never participated in the NIP only slightly by 4 percentage points. Refugee women who attended the NIP have higher employment rates in the years following their arrival in Norway. At 43% their employment rate is 7 percentage points higher than among those who did not participate (36%). Among women, the difference to those with at least 10 years residence in Norway remains at a similar 6 percentage points and their employment overall increases to 55% and 49% respectively. However, it should be noted that among the women refugees who arrived in the last 5‑9 years, only a small number of 270 individuals did not attend the NIP, which might drive these results.

	Refugee men		Refugee women
NIP attendance?	Yes	No	Yes	No
Arrived 5‑9 years earlier	70%	58%	43%	36%
Arrived 10 years or longer ago	59%	55%	55%	49%

Note: Shares only include people still present in the data at the end of 2019.

Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from Statistics Norway, (2021[6]).

Box 3.2. Assessing the impact of NIP-participation is difficult

Due to several limitations the impact of NIP participation is difficult to isolate. First, as a nation-wide programme with mandatory participation for all refugees from 2004 onwards, participants’ outcomes cannot be assessed against a randomly assigned control group. The about 3% of refugees who are present in register data and did not take part in the NIP are not a representative sample of the population, as they have specific though varying and in part unknown reasons for non-participation. While some might never have been able to start the NIP due to health limitations, very little is known about the group of refugees who are offered a municipality for settlement but decline this offer and thereby NIP participation. Indeed, the lack of data on this group suggests that many have left Norway, but this is not known. Second, a comparison over time, using the introduction of the NIP as a natural experiment has been done (see below) but broad conclusions are limited as different refugee cohorts and different labour market context at varying time intervals limit generalisability. What is more, refugees who arrived over 15 years ago in Norway also encountered a different Introduction Programme than the ones arriving today.

Finally, a group of interest to allow for an impact assessment of the NIP are family migrants who join a refugee partner in Norway. Participation is mandatory for those who join a refugee partner with less than five years of residence but optional for those who join a refugee with more than five years of residence (a particularity of the system which is further discussed below). For the latter group the municipality is free to decide to offer an NIP programme to these arrivals but not obliged to do so. At present, since its municipalities themselves who decide who can access the NIP after the five‑year limit Statistics Norway has no data on how many of those who come to a refugee with more than five years of residence are actually taking part in the Introduction Programme. There can be a great deal of variation between different municipalities limiting any outcome analysis.

Previous national assessments of the NIP, while offering key insights into the programme including important policy recommendations, come to similarly mixed conclusions about its effectiveness (Djuve et al., 2017[1]; Djuve and Kavli, 2018[7]; Tronstad, 2019[3]). An evaluation focusing on medium and long-term outcomes of the introduction of the NIP, shows that treated refugees and family-reunited immigrants have a significantly higher probability of both short-term and long-term employment compared to non-treated refugees and family-reunited immigrants. In contrast, the study did not find such an effect on refugees’ and family-reunited immigrants’ earnings prospects (Ugreninov and Turner, 2021[8]).

Compared to Denmark and Sweden, two countries with similar extensive introduction programmes, outcomes in Norway five years after settlement – or about three years after the two‑year programme ends – are slightly ahead in Norway. For the 2008‑13 cohort, about 70% of men are in employment or education in Norway, well above the respective number for participants of the introduction programmes in Sweden (58%) and Denmark (55%). For women, the difference is also large. In Norway, 49% were in employment or work, while in Sweden this share was 41% and in Denmark, it was only 29% (Hernes et al., 2019[2]). In general, for both one observes relatively favourable progress in terms of employment rates in the early years after arrival for the target groups which nevertheless seems to come to a halt after about 5‑6 years for men and 7 years for women (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. The labour market integration comes to a halt after several years in Norway

This finding has also been confirmed in econometric studies. After an initial post-admission period for refugees and family immigrants from low‐income source countries, labour market integration weakens or even goes into reverse with widening immigrant-native employment differentials and increasing rates of immigrant social insurance dependency evident after just 5‐10 years (Bratsberg, Raaum and Røed, 2017[9]). A similar development has not been detected in other Scandinavian countries.

Likewise, in Canada, labour market outcomes of different groups of refugees (privately sponsored and refugee claimants who eventually became permanent residents) converge over time but do not decline like in Norway. However, in Switzerland, a recent study on labour market outcomes of refugees finds similarly that after an initial period of successful labour market integration, refugees have declining outcomes (Müller, Pannatier and Viarengo, 2022[10]). Recent research suggests that part of the reason could be associated with differing investments into human capital (Lu, Gure and Frenette, 2020[11]). Indeed, in a labour market with few low-skilled employment options and the risk of unemployment/inactivity traps such as in Norway, upskilling rather than rapid employment seems to be a promising strategy. Norway has been going along this route in recent years, with a focus on upskilling formal education levels of refugees to at least upper secondary level.

As a result, in recent years, an increasing number of immigrants attend education or combine education and employment upon ending the NIP. In fact, among the cohort that finished the NIP in 2020, more than one‑third was in at least part-time education a year later, while among the cohort that finished in 2009 only about 22% did the same (Figure 3.3). The increase in attending full-time education one year after completion is especially visible among women, where in 2020 more than one in five (22%) was in education up from just 13% in 2019. By contrast, men were more likely to combine education and work than they are to pursue pure education.

Figure 3.3. One year after completion, 70% of men but only 50% of women are in education or work

Not surprisingly, differences in outcomes vary by individual background characteristics. As expected, immigrants with at most at lower-secondary education level have the lowest success rate. This group includes the large and growing share of migrants that do not have any qualification registered (Box 3.3). For instance, 28% of the 2017‑finishing-cohort have an unspecified formal education level and among them, only 48% are in employment or education one year after completing the NIP. This is a much lower outcome than for those how have registered at least basic qualification. Interestingly, for those for whom education is specified, the success rate increases with levels of formal education but not strongly. 73% of former participants with at most lower secondary education are in education or employment one year after ending the programme; this share is 76% for those with upper secondary and equally 76% for those with higher education. This suggests that potential gains from ensuring that all new arrivals get at least lower secondary education are large.

Box 3.3. The education level of NIP participants is increasingly specified as “unknown”

In the context of new NIP programme goals that are established according to previous education, a record of the educational level of current and former NIP participants is important. Despite the generally excellent administrative data structure of Norway, the education level for about 20% of participants who finished the NIP is recorded as “unspecified” one year after finishing the programme. This share is higher in recent years than previously, reaching 29% in 2018 for the cohort that finished in 2017.

There are several reasons for this lack of data. Some relate to the process of data entry, others to data coding. For data entry, municipalities might specify the educational level of (former) NIP participants as “unknown” when they are still in the process of credential recognition. Where this is the case, the share coded as “unspecified” should diminish 5 years after completing the NIP, and indeed looking at the cohort from 2013 as an example, this share of unspecified is somewhat lower 5 years after completion (decreasing from 11% to 7%). In addition, caseworkers in the municipalities might not know how an individual’s education level corresponds to the Norwegian equivalent, in which case clearer guidance is needed. For data coding, participants who are currently attending education or are in the process of getting their education recognised are sometimes coded with “unknown” education status. SSB notes that where an individual migrant has several education entries, the education at the highest level is selected for the statistics, but it is not clear which share of immigrants still attending education are coded with their latest education entry and which share is coded as “unspecified”. Finally, some NIP participants might not want to communicate their education level with their caseworker.

The difference between men and women is larger among the lower educated, with 74% of men against 55% of women in employment or education one year after finishing in 2017 with an education level of ISCED 0‑2. Among the higher educated, gender differences remain nevertheless non-negligible: the success rate among the 2017‑finishing-cohort who had an education of at least upper secondary schooling (ISCED 3+) was 79% among men and 66% among women. In terms of variation among the main origin countries, among those finishing in 2017, Eritreans (72%) and Ethiopians (69%) had a significantly higher success rate than Somalis (48%) or Afghans (51%). Syrians were at the average (64%) and Iranians slightly above (66%). Among the three largest finishing groups in that year, Syrians, Eritreans and Somalis, gender differences were smallest among Eritreans (77% among men vs 62% among women) and largest among Somalis (65% among men vs 33% among women), while Syria was again close (2 percentage points below for each) to the overall average at 70% for men and 46% for women. Part of the reason for the differences in outcomes by origin are fertility patterns, as will be explored in more detail below.

Completing secondary education for those without this qualification is a challenge

Given the large increase in employment with at least secondary education, it is worrisome that a large part of new refugee arrivals fall below this threshold. For the cohort of 2017 for example, over three‑quarters had no more than lower secondary education (77%).

Even before the major legislative changes of 2021, over the period 2009 to 2017, a larger share of former programme participants continued with education after completing the NIP. This development was likely supported by previous policy changes, such as the formal possibility to participate in secondary education full-time while still being enrolled in the NIP that was instituted from 2016 onwards (Djuve and Kavli, 2018[7]). Among the cohort who finished the NIP in 2009, only about one in five (22%) participated in education (or education and work) one year later. Among the cohort of 2017, one in three (33%) did so. Men are now more likely to combine education and work: 19% did so one year after ending the NIP among the cohort from 2017, up from 9% among the cohort of 2009. Among women, this share has remained at about 9% over the same period. Looking ahead – three years after completing the NIP – women are more likely to remain in full-time education than men, who are much more likely to combine work and education than to pursue a pure education option.

Overall, one would expect that those with lower levels of education are more likely to continue their educational path upon finishing the NIP. However, investing in education seems to be more common among those who were already secondary educated (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4. Few NIP participants with low or unspecified education level continued their education

That share was particularly large for migrants with at most primary education. By contrast, those with lower secondary education were the group most likely to be in education, with most being only in education.

Data from earlier cohorts also suggest that few immigrants who do not possess upper secondary education one year after the NIP acquire this formal qualification in the following years. Among the finishing cohort of 2011, 2012 and 2013, between 25‑30% were educated to at most upper secondary level one year after completing the NIP. Five years after completion of the NIP, this share had increased by about 10 percentage points and by 2018, 41% of the participants that had finished the NIP in 2009, 2010 or 2011 had upper secondary education (Statistics Norway, 2021[6]).

Municipalities have large discretion in the design and delivery of integration policy

In Norway, municipalities design, deliver and monitor the NIP in large autonomy. 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. Municipalities also decide where the responsibility for the Introduction Programme resides and how it is organised in practice. It is normally either located in the local NAV office, the Adult Education office, or a specialised refugee office. These varying organisational forms require different forms of co‑operation depending on which office has the main responsibility.

The autonomy municipalities have in designing their NIP has led to major disparities in its organisation and content. While this diversity in municipalities’ offers and methods makes it difficult to quantify and identify success factors, earlier evaluations have pointed out that municipalities have achieved successful results with different strategies, with both a strong focus on language and a focus on on-the‑job training producing relatively promising outcomes (Djuve et al., 2017[1]). Given the different characteristics of NIP participants, different local labour market situations and different implementation strategies, it is no surprise that outcomes such as employment rates one year after completion vary greatly between municipalities. For instance, over 80% of those completing the NIP in 2017 were in work or education in the municipality of Steinkjer and Sogndal in November 2018, while the share in Porsgrunn and Vadsø was below 40% (Lunde and Lysen, 2020[12]).

Past reports highlighted the challenges some municipalities faced with the NIP implementation in practice. For instance, they point to the challenge that despite over a decade of experience some municipalities are not able to meet a number of the core programme requirements. In a recent survey from 33 municipalities, about one out of ten refugees in the NIP did not have an individual integration plan as required by the law (Tronstad, 2019[3]). Similarly, in a 2017 study, over 20% of municipalities did not meet the requirement to offer a full-time programme to participants, and over 15% did not meet the requirement for a year-round programme (Djuve et al., 2017[1]).

Beyond the mandatory training in Norwegian Language Training and Social Studies (NLTSS), which all municipalities must offer including to other target groups (see Chapter 2 and the next section of this chapter) municipalities can decide independently what other courses and training they offer their participants. These offers must be recorded in individually adapted integration plans, but as visible below are often not further registered in detail in the national statistics. Over the last decade an increasing share of measures offered by the municipalities in the NIP is coded as unspecified (Figure 3.5), adding an additional layer of challenge to understanding the capabilities of municipalities to meet the needs of migrants.

Figure 3.5. Beyond language training, available measures in the Introduction Programme vary

The Norwegian set-up stands out in that fact, among countries with a national integration policy or strategy, little oversight exists. In Denmark, municipalities also 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. This included 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. The purpose was to speed up the introduction to working and social life, clarify the responsibilities between agencies and make the process more transparent (Joona Andersson, Wennemo Lanninger and Sundström, 2015[13]). Further changes were made in 2018 to make the introduction process more similar to that of other job seekers. Regulations were also introduced to make the process more efficient by reducing detailed legal controls and relieving some of the workload from the Employment Service. The responsibility for the introduction benefit was transferred from the Employment Service to the Social Insurance Agency (Riksrevisionen, 2020[14]). In Norway, employment and social insurance is already under the same public welfare agency: the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), which however does not steer integration work during the NIP, but only upon its end and for those without access to the programme (see Chapter 4).

Other OECD countries with a strong focus on municipal responsibility in integration efforts are the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. In the Netherlands, while the national government is responsible for the initial reception procedures of immigrants, municipalities play an important role in the long-term integration of migrants through their responsibility for housing, asylum shelters, social assistance, employment services and education. It is only the organisation of the compulsory integration exam and the language courses that lie at the national level and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. However, unlike in Norway, there is no national integration strategy and the national government does not have any fiscal and legislative means to monitor and regulate the local authorities work in the integration field. In Spain, the national level is active only in state‑owned facilities and involved via state funding. Determining the integration offers lies with NGOs or regional governments. In Switzerland, cantons are the main implementers and key actors in integration policy. The federal government’s competence is largely limited to legislation and co‑ordinating the cantons integration efforts. While the cantons discretionary power allows them to adapt policies to the local context it has also led to a great variety of integration practices and outcome differences between the cantons (D’Amato and Kurt, 2021[15]). This has particularly been the case concerning immigrants’ access to language courses, welfare services and decisions on naturalisation (Mexi, Moreno Russi and Guzman, 2021[16]). Several revisions have been introduced to increase the harmonisation of integration measures between cantons and from 2020 the language requirements for a residence permit are the same across all cantons.

In contrast, in other countries, the trend has been rather one of increased central monitoring and organisation of integration measures. In Germany, for example, 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. 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.

Recent changes including a new Integration Act address a number of challenges

Participants in the NIP who have been granted a residence permit and arrived in Norway before 1.1.2021 are covered by the old Introduction Act, while those who received a residence permit or arrived in Norway on or after 1.1.2021 are covered by the provisions of the new Integration Act. As a result of the duration of the NIP of up to several years, the different provisions will run in parallel for some time. The following sections discuss some of the main changes due to the new Integration Act.

In addition to the legislative changes via the new Act, the COVID‑19 pandemic introduced a new context for integration policy. Much of the early results of the new Integration Act thus have to be considered in light of the emergency measures implemented during the pandemic (Box 3.4).

Box 3.4. Norway’s integration relief packages: A response to the pandemic

Special support measures to counteract the negative consequences

In March 2020, as elsewhere, much of Norwegian society went into lockdown as a response to the COVID‑19 pandemic, creating an immediate need for both legal and financial measures related to the Introduction Act. The Norwegian Government introduced temporary legislation with adaptations to the Introduction Act and several financial integration relief packages. These measures aimed to mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic on the integration process and to tackle practical challenges to implementation of existing integration measures during the pandemic (e.g. providing language courses, educational and employment measures etc.).

The first response from the Norwegian Government was a directive that tackled acute challenges in meeting existing rights and obligations for both municipalities and programme participants under the Introduction Act. The directive ensured that Introduction Programme participants still received the introduction benefit even when they were unable to participate in programme activities and provided the municipalities with exceptions to the requirement to offer full-time programmes. Further, during spring 2020, the government released a financial integration relief package (called the “integration package I”) of approximately 45 million Euros (456 MNOK), which included targeted measures to “mitigate the negative consequences of the pandemic”. As the pandemic continued, most of the measures introduced in integration package I were prolonged with “integration package II” in March 2021 (approximately 32 million Euros), and “integration package III” in June 2021 (approximately 9 million Euros).

The main measures included the possibility for NIP participants to access extended programme time, a reinforced programme with programme objectives and career counselling, and extended Norwegian language training for certain groups of immigrants. The packages also included extra funding for other measures, such as digital resources, COVID‑19 information campaigns directed at the immigrant population, and extra funding to “Jobbsjansen” – an existing employment programme targeting immigrant women.

Evaluation of integration packages

At the request of the Ministry of Education and Research, the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR) evaluated integration package I (Hernes, Staver and Tronstad, 2021[17]). The report investigates whether there was a change during the pandemic regarding what Introduction Programme measures the participants received and the any change in main post-programme activity for participants who completed the Introduction Programme. It finds that fewer Introduction Programme participants participated in employment measures, thus entailing that the participants are placed in ordinary workplaces, including work practice, language practice and ordinary employment.

Norwegian language training and education measures remained stable compared to the previous year. In many places, teaching was brought (partly) online, and this constituted a particular challenge for participants with low digital competence. The evaluation also includes an analysis of how the participants that ended the programme during 2020 fared after programme termination. It finds that fewer participants transitioned to employment, but that more transitioned to education, and thus that there was only a minimal increase in participants who transitioned to social benefits and social security.

The integration package I allowed Introduction Programme participants who were in the final stage of the programme to have their programme time extended. This measure was need-tested and allowed for an extension of the programme of up to six months. The programme period for participants increased by an average of 2.4 months compared to previous years, and the municipalities emphasised that this was a welcomed measure that allowed them to grant extensions they would not normally have provided.

Unlike extended programme time, extended Norwegian language training was not needs-tested, but an entitlement. However, not all municipalities fulfilled this entitlement because they had not grasped the distinction between extended programme times as a needs-tested right and extended Norwegian language training as an entitlement.

In the continuing work with integration packages II and III, IMDi has actively informed the municipalities of this distinction. The report emphasises the importance of ensuring that the target group of extended language training sees their rights fulfilled. Given the requirement to a pass a Norwegian language test to seek permanent residency, poor learning outcomes from Norwegian language training during the pandemic – and possibly missed opportunities to complete the Norwegian test – may have consequences for impacted individuals.

In contrast to extended programme time and Norwegian language training, which were an extension of existing measures, career counselling and the possibility of introducing programme objectives (sluttmål) meant that the municipalities and county authorities had to implement new elements with which most had no previous experience. The evaluation concludes that relevant actors had challenges with rapidly introducing new measures during the pandemic, and these measures have been used to a lesser extent than extended programme time and Norwegian language training. Further, the evaluation finds that several subordinated actors (municipalities, counties, county governors, career guidance centres) stated that there was either lacking or inadequate information from the responsible national actors. More guidance from national actors was requested, as well as concrete examples and tools for implementation.

Source: Vilde Hernes and Hernes, Staver and Tronstad (2021[17]), NIBR-rapport 2021:14. Evaluering av integreringspakke I og midlertidig lov.

The new Integration Act reinforces the objective of an individual tailor-made programme

A key goal – but also challenge – of the NIP is to adjust its scope and content to individual skills and needs. While an individual-level differentiation has always been the goal of the programme, the number of months individuals receive the introduction benefits (as a proxy for how long they participated in the programme) shows little variation of programme duration by education level for the analysed period (2013‑18). Most participants received introduction benefits for exactly 24 or 25 months. While in principle the programme can end in case of an earlier successful labour market placement or transition to full-time education, the data suggests that this was rarely the case in the past, not even for tertiary-educated immigrants.

Figure 3.6. Participants’ formal education level had association with NIP duration

It is against this backdrop that the new Integration Act aims to reinforce the adaptation of an individual integration plan and the adjustment of the programme’s content and duration to prior formal education levels. Under the new provisions, the NIP may last from three months to four years. The duration will vary depending on the participants’ educational background and competencies, and the participants’ individual participation goal as outlined in Table 3.2. For example, participants who have the programme goal of completing upper secondary education can extend the NIP to last for up to four years. Participants with minimum upper secondary education shall have a shorter programme period. For this category, the programme may last between three and six months and may be extended to up to one year. As a general rule, the NIP ends when the final goal or duration is reached. Approved leave is added to the duration, but the NIP can only be extended if there is reason to expect that the participant will achieve their final goal with an extension.

Groups of participants	Participation Goal	Programme duration	Responsible actor for the NIP
Participants with at least upper secondary education	Qualify for higher education or work	3 months – 6 months + 6 months	municipality
Participants with the goal of completing upper secondary education (includes as a general rule all individuals under the age of 25 without upper secondary education)	Complete upper secondary education	3 months – 3 years + 1 year	municipality ( + county for training in Norwegian and social studies for participants who attend full-time upper secondary education)
All other participants	Work or complete parts of or the complete primary school or parts of upper secondary education	3 months – 2 years + 1 year (same as under Introduction Act)	municipality

Groups of participants

Participation Goal

Programme duration

Responsible actor for the NIP

Participants with at least upper secondary education

Qualify for higher education or work

3 months – 6 months + 6 months

municipality

Participants with the goal of completing upper secondary education (includes as a general rule all individuals under the age of 25 without upper secondary education)

Complete upper secondary education

3 months – 3 years + 1 year

municipality ( + county for training in Norwegian and social studies for participants who attend full-time upper secondary education)

All other participants

Work or complete parts of or the complete primary school or parts of upper secondary education

3 months – 2 years + 1 year

(same as under Introduction Act)

municipality

Source: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2021.

The extent to which other countries regulate different integration paths or measures based on the participant’s education levels at arrival varies. The Danish Integration Act does not directly do so, but regulations in Sweden address participants’ educational background. In Sweden, persons who do not have education at upper secondary level or higher are subjected to ‘compulsory education’. The compulsory education applies to those who participate in the introduction programme, have lower or no education, and who are considered by the Employment Agency to not be able to get a job within the timeframe of the introduction programme due to insufficient prior qualifications. In 2021, a new initiative in the integration programme, the intensive year, was introduced to further facilitate a rapid entry into the labour market. It is voluntary for participants to take part in this initiative, which targets participants that are motivated for an intensified integration programme, have prerequisites for fulltime participation, and who are considered to be able to complete the full duration of the initiative. The end-goal of this intensive year is for the participant to achieve a job based on their previous education and work experience. The new Civic Integration Act to be implemented in 2022 in the Netherlands will introduce learning pathways, including an Education Pathway for migrants who have demonstrated a high aptitude for learning and will likely pursue additional vocational or university education. A Self-Reliance Pathway has been created to allow those expected to struggle learning Dutch (principally those with little or no education in their countries of origin) to reach a minimum level to function independently in Dutch society (the lower target of Level A1).

The new adjustment in Norway should provide more incentives to create flexible and tailor-made integration plans and encourage individuals who already have some form of higher education to enter the Norwegian labour market – or higher education system – without delay. It should be noted however that over 2013‑18, even among those with tertiary education (ISCED 6‑8), only 3% finished the NIP in 6 months or less and only 9% within one year. In the new regulations, the speed-up for the group with at least upper secondary education is envisioned without additional resources to municipalities or major changes to the measures, classes and training schemes offered to individuals. That notwithstanding, other key modifications might support the individual level adaptation, notably the changes in focusing on a Norwegian language goal instead of hours of attended language training as well as the larger involvement of county governments in providing upper secondary education, both discussed subsequently.

Recent changes support the goal of accessing and completing upper secondary education

The new Integration Act renewed the focus on access to formal, in particular upper secondary, education for those without this qualification. To do so, it addresses several shortcomings from previous regulations. While in theory NIP participants have had a right to attend full-time secondary education since 2016, in practice this has been difficult due to both individual and organisational challenges. First, many NIP participants lacked primary education or had insufficient Norwegian skills to follow a non-adjusted upper-secondary course programme. Further, programme advisors were reluctant to enrol participants in a programme that was longer than their designated time in the NIP, as this would risk that their income support (the introduction benefit) would run out before finishing school (Andersson Joona, 2019[18]; Djuve and Kavli, 2018[7]). This has been addressed with the latest changes, as now the NIP and the tied support are available for the period needed to complete upper secondary education of up to four years.

Another key obstacle for providing tailored secondary education to newly arrived refugees was the division of responsibility between local and regional levels of governance. In Norway, county governments are the responsible governance level for upper secondary education, but under the previous Act, they had no formal role in the NIP, which was managed by municipalities. This set-up depended on successful co‑operation between the municipality and the county for each migrant who wanted to attend or complete upper secondary education. To address this, the new Integration Act regulates different responsibilities for the municipality and the county. The county is now responsible (among other tasks) for providing Norwegian language training for participants who attend upper secondary education in accordance with the Education Act on a full-time basis. This formal involvement is likely to address co‑ordination problems especially for those under the age of 25 without upper secondary education, who under the new regulations as a general goal will have to complete upper secondary education during their NIP. However, how the counties and municipalities should co‑ordinate their efforts is not regulated further in detail.

Due to changes implemented with the new Integration Act, individuals can no longer grow into or out of the target group of the NIP by turning 18 or 56 years old as was previously the case. For the youth cohort, this change ensures that an obligation to start the NIP does not interrupt their potentially ongoing participation in full-time regular education. At the same time, as compulsory education ends with age 16 in Norway, it is unclear whether and which systematic support offers are available for those who get settled at age 17.

The age limitation for the cohort of new arrivals over 55 restricts their participation in the NIP. Arrivals beyond that age limit must still participate in Norwegian language and social studies (discussed in the next section), but have no right to participate in the NIP. The age at which eligibility for Norway’s integration programme ends places it at the young end of the spectrum in international comparison. In most OECD countries, if a cut-off age exists at all, this tends to be in the mid‑60s. For example, Belgium (Flanders) requires participation until the age of 64, after which participation becomes voluntary. Other countries with upper threshold ages include Czech Republic (61); Finland (63); Italy (65); and Sweden (64). It should be noted however that a municipality in Norway has the possibility to offer the NIP to older residents and receive integration grants for those over 55 years of age. While this concerns only a small group, about 3% of eligible admissions between 2017 and 2019 were aged 56 to 65, it should be investigated whether a right but no obligation to participate in the NIP could be implemented. This would be similar to what was the case for refugees aged 55 to 67 regarding the Norwegian language training and social studies scheme until 2016.

Career guidance is a promising tool, which can allow for better targeting and follow-up

Under Norway’s new Integration Act, the county is responsible, among other things, for providing career guidance to all NIP participants, preparing plans for the qualification of immigrants and overviewing the regional integration work. In Norway, public career centres organised at the county level offer free career guidance services to everyone regardless of age or place of birth, to provide high-quality support for various transitions a person faces throughout their work life. Career guidance is thus a service, which allows for regional demand and supply considerations as well as co‑ordination with other regional plans, offers and programmes for individuals. Extending this service to participants in the NIP thus mostly requires co‑ordination with the municipality as well as translation services. In a context where the ultimate goal of the NIP should be filling gaps between what competences participants already have, what they want to do, and what is required in the local Norwegian labour market, provision of career guidance is a promising tool.

Under the new regulations, each NIP participant has a mandatory career guidance session, which includes enhanced skills mapping, within the first three months of their settlement. This allows for a stronger participant involvement and might also positively respond to participants’ satisfaction issues. In a recent study evaluating survey data from approximately 1 100 refugees in 33 different municipalities across the country, one‑third of participants reported that they have limited opportunity to influence the aim and content in the NIP – a major (and, notably, one of the only) sources of dissatisfaction among participants (Tronstad, 2019[3]). Another in-depth study of participants’ and teachers’ experiences in the NIP shows that what is offered to participants often depends on the skills, resources and involvement of their assigned programme advisor (Lillevik and Tyldum, 2018[19]) indicating that mainstreaming career guidance into the NIP could reduce gaps and disparities in service provision.

Career guidance should contribute to the individual being able to make informed choices about work and education and to play a role in adapting the NIP to their needs. It is thus evident why the new regulations stress that the career guidance should take place at an early stage to allow for use of this assessment in the adjustment of the Introduction Programme. However, municipalities and career centres themselves note the fact that, especially for groups that arrived in Norway after long waits and traumatizing experiences, reflecting on their future, skills and interests to best contribute in Norway during career guidance may be occurring too early in the process. Many newcomers are just settling into a new environment and may find it difficult to open up to a new and unknown career advisor without sufficient time to reflect and to build sufficient trust in the government institutions of their new host country.

In this context, one solution could be to offer career guidance at the beginning, to adjust the NIP, and to reach those who can benefit from it, but then to repeat career guidance more regularly and not only during the settling-in phase. The municipality is encouraged but not obliged to consider offering career guidance later in the programme as well. In this context career guidance, which maps skills and competencies, can also serve as a tool to monitor and follow-up on the quality of municipalities’ training outcomes. A more regular engagement at the county-level throughout the NIP, for example, twice a year, could better allow programme administrators to target and re‑adjust goals and programmes. What is more, an independent evaluation of the work of career centres and their offers will aid in identifying the factors which best support refugees and other newcomers.

In requiring career guidance as part of the NIP, Norway is ahead of most other OECD countries in ensuring that humanitarian migrants have access to personalised information and planning regarding their career goals and opportunities. While many countries provide migrants access to public employment services, the majority only do so for registered job seekers. The initiation of measures targeted at migrants can prevent certain groups of migrants, who may have difficulty accessing information or be more isolated, from falling through the cracks when it comes to understanding their career potential. A similar approach has been taken in Latvia, where refugees and their families are evaluated to determine whether social mentorship and other case management from a social worker is needed. The assigned social worker then helps the family liaise with the public employment service to obtain employment measures, including skills assessments and career counselling, as needed.

All inhabitants can receive career guidance free of charge. However, it is unclear if this service reaches all immigrants, as it is only mandatory to participants in the NIP. There are no figures on the uptake of the measure among other groups. If career guidance is effective, this targeted tool should be extended to other migrant groups. Mandatory guidance could include both new arrivals currently not part of the NIP and longstanding migrants who lack understanding of their career options.

Standardised elements and new online resources support municipalities

In addition to the previously discussed changes with the introduction of the new integration law, a number of other initiatives aim to respond to identified challenges. While the core elements in the NIP to achieve economic independence (Norwegian Language Training and Social Studies as well as work- or education-oriented measures) remain, new mandatory and optional course elements have been developed to support local implementation.

First, the Integration Act made two new course elements mandatory: a life skills course and a parental guidance course. Since 2021, every participant is obliged to participate in a group and dialogue‑based life skills course that covers two main themes. Ten hours on “migration, health and diversity” provide knowledge about physical and mental health, the day-to-day life in Norway, and the right to live a free and independent life. Fifteen hours on “career competencies” offer knowledge on opportunities and limitations in Norwegian education, work and society and should contribute to building individuals’ competence, values and interests. As a second mandatory element, parents are obliged to participate in a parental guidance course. This course informs about the parental role in a Norwegian context in about eight to 12 group or five to eight individual guidance sessions. It covers topics such as adaptation of care to the child’s needs, positive development of emotional relationships, the interaction between the caregiver and the child, boundary-setting, negative social control, honour-related violence, violence in close relationships, forced marriage and female genital mutilation, as well as the health risk of having children with closely related persons. Even before the parental guidance course became a mandatory element of the NIP in 2021, almost 60% of municipalities offered parental guidance during their introductory programmes. Most commonly, the courses used the International Child Development Program based on culture‑oriented development psychology as a method for parental guidance with a specific version developed for minority migrant parents (IMDI, 2020[20]). Earlier evaluations stressed that participants found these offers helpful and supportive. Incorporating a mandatory programme element now ensures everyone is offered this course. At the same time, it seems important to communicate the mandatory elements predominantly as an offering obligation rather than a participation obligation. In practice, the result is the same for NIP participants as they are expected to follow the NIP offered to them in its entirety. However, framing it as a participation obligation sends the signal that immigrants otherwise would not participate, which does not seem to be the case.

Figure 3.7. The Introduction Programme combines mandatory and optional courses

As part of the new integration reform, Norway has developed new online resources for the municipalities, including a guide to qualification paths for adult immigrants and a knowledge portal for the Introduction Programme. These online resources provide information and concrete tips on how to plan and implement different mandatory and optional elements in the NIP. For most activities, there is a specific topic called “organisation and co‑ordination”, which briefly states which actors may, or should, be involved in the planning and implementation of the activity.

IMDi and (former) Skills Norway have developed and are in the process of expanding a digital course catalogue with so-called standardised voluntary course elements. Standardised elements are professional recommendations for content in the NIP to help municipalities put together high-quality and individually-tailored Introduction Programmes. The standardised elements shall supplement other compulsory and individual content not as a “ready-made course”, but as a resource catalogue that allows municipalities to select those elements, they find most useful when they design the individual integration plan. Examples of standardised elements are internships, training in digital competence or personal finance as well as industry-specific courses. Hurtigsporet, Norway’s fast track programme for primarily those with minimum upper secondary education from abroad, can also be a standardised element. Part-time work and entrepreneurship are other examples.

The current programme supports but also demands the inclusion of mothers

Women tend to have longer programme durations in the NIP. Between 2013 and 2018, women were twice as likely to stay in the NIP for longer than 37 months than men. Those women with lowest education levels were more likely to stay longest. While this was also the case among the men, the pattern was less extreme. It is not possible to identify mothers in this duration data but earlier research has shown that refugee women in Norway show a peak in fertility one year after arrival (Østby, 2002[21]), suggesting that part of this longer duration of women in the programme can be explained by childbirth.

In Norway, participants in the NIP are entitled to 10 months of parental leave during the child’s first year. Before the 2021 changes, mothers participating in the NIP faced the challenge that the overall duration of the right to free language training and social studies was not automatically extended for those on parental leave. This led to cases where the obligation of the municipality to provide free training ended before participants could reach their class goal, disproportionally affecting women, who are more likely to go on parental leave. The Ombudsman ruled the absolute time limit for municipalities to provide free training as discriminatory under the Equality Act (The Ombudsman, 2014[22]). Under the current Act, approved leave such as parental leave is now added to the programme duration.

Mothers are further entitled to 20 days off from the NIP after childbirth while keeping their introduction benefit. To ensure that mothers’ progress in the programme is not disrupted due to childbirth, the municipalities are obliged under the new Integration Act to offer Norwegian language training and social studies after four months of parental leave. The offer shall be adapted to and decided in consultation with the individual participant and is not included in the calculation of completed hours, but rather offered as a supplement. The offer may contain different measures such as part-time training in adult education or attending Norwegian practise in an open kindergarten, but there are no conditions on the scope of these offers. Given the novelty of the new Act, results remain to be seen, but certainly both support offered and expectations on newly arrived parents will likely be higher than for those who arrived under the old regulations.

The introduction benefit is designed as an individual benefit, independent of the household’s overall income, which is intended to incentivise to women to participate in the programme. This is also the case in Sweden. In contrast, Danish participants receive means-tested integration benefits if the family is not self-supporting. This mean-tested integration benefit (or self-sufficiency and repatriation benefit) is lower than the social benefits available to the majority population. Additionally, while participation in the introduction programme is obligatory in Denmark, participation in employment measures is obligatory only for persons who receive financial assistance. These policies imply that if the husband is able to provide for the family, the wife is not obliged to participate in employment measures, nor is she financially incentivised to do so (Hernes and Tronstad, 2014[23]).

Future policy should focus on fine‑tuning and follow-up

In light of the many recent and ongoing integration policy changes in Norway, including temporary COVID‑19 provisions, it is too early to assess the outcomes of the new policies. However, there are some issues that are likely to create challenges due to the new actors and responsibilities. The following section discusses such points, which require attention going forward.

The increased number of actors requires effective communication and co‑ordination

Municipalities have the overall responsibility for the NIP and the responsibility to co‑ordinate measures provided by other actors, including the county, Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), private and non-profit organisations, and other public organisations.

As discussed, under the new Integration Act, the county is now responsible for providing career guidance (within three months after settlement) and Norwegian training for participants who will be enrolled full-time in secondary education as part of the NIP. While the clear delineation of tasks and shared responsibility is expected to improve co‑ordination between municipalities and counties, methods for co‑ordination of efforts have not yet been regulated in detail.

Since 2003, the government has provided guidance to the municipalities and responsible actors on how to ensure co‑operation in the integration process (rundskriv), specifically on issues regarding the Introduction Programme. Still, exchanges with actors suggest that co‑ordination has been difficult, risking duplications of efforts. New guidance from April 2021, developed jointly by IMDi and NAV, provides advice for the municipality and NAV on how to ensure better co‑operation for NIP participants (IMDi and NAV, 2021[24]). The guide specifies ways for co‑operation between the municipality and NAV and suggests written co‑operation agreements and/or routines, yearly interdepartmental meetings for top-level managers, and collaboration in interdisciplinary teams with a view of ensuring a clear division of responsibilities, avoiding double work and contributing to an effective and tailored introductory programme. It provides concrete examples on specific tasks where NAV should contribute with their knowledge and network, for example by supplementing the municipal competence mapping (see below), in the development of the individual integration plan, and with providing programme measures such as the “fast track” (Hurtigsporet) and “life skills” (livsmestring). Throughout, the guide emphasises an early involvement of NAV in the planning process, and continuous involvement to ensure a smooth transition for participants who will need extra assistance after the Introduction Programme ends. Indeed, such transition will be crucial to ensure that labour market integration continues. The guide also specifies the responsibilities of NAVs regional offices, including providing support for the local NAV office in the preparation of co‑operation agreements or routines and facilitating knowledge sharing.

In addition to collaboration with public entities such as the county governments and NAV, the municipality can engage private or non-profit actors to carry out tasks in accordance with the Integration Act, for instance, to offer all or part of training in Norwegian and social studies or other elements of the introductory programme. If they do so, the municipality must ensure that participants receive their entitlements.

Despite challenges to successful co‑operation between the many actors involved in the NIP, (see for example Espegren and colleagues (2019[25]) who identify the lack of co‑ordination and meeting places, transfer of information, and concerns related to trust given frequent changes of responsible contact persons) the Integration Act and its regulations have not yet provided clear guidelines to municipalities on how to handle the increased number of actors, beyond the guide on collaboration with the NAV. This could serve as an example for more support in co‑operation and should be widely disseminated.

Technical solutions might improve co‑ordination. For example, skills mapping is already supposed to take place in reception centres for asylum seekers or at IMDi in case of resettled refugees. Ideally, the skills mapping is then shared with municipalities who can then share it with counties. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the results of previous competence and skills mapping are not always shared in a way that municipalities can access and use (Office of the Auditor General Norway, 2019[26]). As a result, municipalities often have to start competence mapping and skills assessment from the beginning once an individual arrives in their community. Notably the municipality is also doing the skills mapping for those settled directly in a municipality and for those who have not done the mapping before settling. With the introduction of career guidance at the county level (see above), counties re‑do a form of skills mapping and assessment but with a different focus. This is not yet systematically integrated into what has been done by IMDi or the municipality. An integrated digital system that allows all parties involved, IMDI, NAV, asylum centres, municipalities, and counties to store and retrieve information on skills and career goals could therefore support effective co‑ordination.

Another technical day-to-day challenge is the assignment of a register number for new arrivals. Every individual in Norway uses a unique personal register number to interact with public entities. Often this register number takes several months to be issued to new arrivals due to extensive background checks. It appears that this has often led to delays in access to services and thereby in the integration process. Some municipalities have been able to provide access to services by circumventing this bureaucratic challenge, for example by paying out the introduction benefit to other individuals or co‑operating with local banks and doctors. However, with the involvement of county-level actors, a more lasting and structured solution is required. One possibility could be to adopt a co‑ordination number as done for new arrivals in Sweden. The co‑ordination number in Sweden is simply a temporary identification number for a person to facilitate the exchange of information between different authorities. The number as such does not give any rights or benefits. For opening a bank account, nationwide solutions such as a collaboration between UDI and banks could be investigated. Temporary solutions could have an automatic expiration after several months or when the register number is finalised.

Monitoring and follow-up of immigrant women after the NIP leaves much to be desired

As noted, one year after completing the NIP, the single most frequent outcome is employment, whereas for women this is education. However, for 23% of women, the labour market status is unknown (Figure 3.8). This stands in stark contrast to men, for whom only about 7% the status was unknown in 2020. An “unknown” status means that a person is not recorded in any of the available registers used to define labour market affiliation, notably also not registered as unemployed or receiving any labour market measures or benefits. The highest share of immigrant women with “unknown” status is found among women between the age of 25 and 29 (Lunde and Lysen, 2020[12]), suggesting that this may be related to childbirth.

Figure 3.8. One year after completing NIP, the labour market status of many women is unknown

Looking at a longer time horizon, the shares of women in employment or education increase only slowly from 46% one year post-completion to 53% after five years, and the share of registered unemployed or on labour market measures increases from 18% to 23%.

It is important to note for consideration of the data that attendance of primary education as an adult is not considered “in education” for adults (it also does not count towards the goal of 70% in education and employment) but is rather included as “unknown” in the register-based employment statistics (SFP). As more and more adults are enrolled in primary education as their main activity, as is both intended by the new policy and welcome from an integration perspective, the result gap in monitoring the outcomes is likely to become even more significant in the future. At the same time, the high share of women with an unknown labour market status suggests that the transition from the NIP to mainstream support measures works poorly and that some are lost in between. It is likely that this group is composed of stay-at-home women, potentially with children, without clear access to individually targeted support measures or social assistance, making them dependent on their partner. While the NIP has gone through changes to adapt to the needs of newly arrived mothers, there are few support measures for immigrant mothers with weak labour market attachment after the NIP and in the mainstream labour market services. Norway does have a second-chance programme, Jobbsjansen (see Chapter 4), but women need to have finished the NIP at least two years earlier to access this programme. A regular status follow-up after NIP completion could be an essential element in bridging this gap and making sure that labour market connection is not lost in the meantime.

There is little attention paid to the specific needs of higher educated immigrants

The new Integration Act has removed previous criteria requiring participants to be in need of basic skills training to receive a right for participation in the NIP. This implies that all refugee arrivals settled with an agreement, including those with higher education from their origin country, have to participate in the programme until the obligatory elements are fulfilled.

At the same time, in the current programme set-up, higher education cannot be offered as an element of the NIP. However, for participants who wish to attend higher education and need help to meet the intake requirements, individual assessments on support measures can be made. The measures offered may include academic internships or sector specific language training.

Under the new Act, individuals with upper secondary education experience the largest reduction in their NIP programme time. Early evidence suggests that the few months these cohorts are given to qualify for employment or higher education may not be sufficient. During the pandemic, NIP participants with upper secondary education were the only group to have experienced an increase in the transition to social security benefits. This is partly due to the fact that municipalities faced difficulties providing sufficient Norwegian and English-language education, which has prevented this cohort from transitioning to higher education (Hernes, Staver and Tronstad, 2021[17]).

An alternative to restricting programme time would be to allow those deemed to benefit from a certain Introduction Programme module relevant to their skills and needs to attend this training also beyond their maximum one‑year participation, possibly in part-time and without the entitlement to introduction benefits. This would be similar to what is practice in Canada, where migrants can access settlement support as needed until they become citizens.

Another option for this group is Hurtigsporet, a fast-track programme for refugees with upper secondary education and skills in demand, initiated in 2016. The fast track is a newly standardised element of NIP organised jointly by NAV, the municipality, the county, and employers. The goal is to facilitate a quick and direct integration of refugees who already have expertise in an in-demand profession on the labour market. The municipality needs to collaborate with NAV, the county and other actors to identify demand and needs in various professions, industries and disciplines locally and regionally.

The programme typically starts with a period of Norwegian language teaching incorporating frequently used words and expressions at the aspired position, followed by work-practice at an employer together with further training. The programme differs from the NIP in that NAV general labour market activation measures are used, such as wage subsidy and mentor schemes. Employers are also involved and active throughout the process.

Exact numbers of participants are unknown, but available information suggests a low take‑up, well below what would be expected based on experiences with similar programmes in peer systems, such as in Sweden. The reasons for this low take‑up are not entirely clear. Local NAV offices and several municipalities have reported difficulties in identifying potential candidates for the programme and anecdotal evidence suggests that few municipalities are aware of the scheme (Pettersen and Aure, 2019[27]) (Ramboll, 2019[28]). A recent assessment of the programme suggested, for example, that only about half of NAV employees knew about the measure. Vague guidelines and questions about the intent and purpose of the programme were also reported. (Fedreheim, 2021[29]). A main difference to the programme in Sweden is that the track in Norway is not adapted to prepare participants for specific professions. In Sweden, specific tracks are developed and designed together with professional bodies. Tracks are available for more than 11 professions such as controllers, painters, butchers, mechanism, teachers and doctors. National guidelines on how to identify the target group and more clearly defined implementation responsibilities could increase usage of the Norwegian programme. Outcomes of the participants in the programme have not yet been nationally assessed, but employers observe that many of the participants are not sufficiently prepared for the specific sector when entering work-training (Pettersen and Aure, 2019[27]). With the new Integration Act and its specific provisions for individuals with upper secondary education and individualised support, the necessity of this programme can be questioned. An alternative would be to tailor it to certain professions.

For NIP participants who have a specific degree from abroad and want to use it in Norway, municipalities may offer preparatory courses helping them qualify for specific bridging programmes. However, bridging programmes are currently only possible for participants with an education as a nurse, teacher, or with at least a three‑year education in engineering, technology or sciences. Furthermore, to qualify for the courses, specific language requirements need to be meet upfront in both English and Norwegian (B1 in Norwegian for engineers and teachers and B2 for nurses). Given these high language barriers, take‑up by the target group has been extremely low (for example, in 2017, no refugees participated in the bridging for nurses), and other non-EU foreign-born can be offered participation in case of vacant seats.

Unlike Norway’s small-scale bridging programme basically covering only three professions, Sweden’s bridging offers extend over 40 different standardised professional tracks. Among the professions there are specific tracks for painters, teachers, health staff, engineers, machine operators, lawyers, economist and social workers. The duration of the programme depends on the profession. Examples of elements in the track are recognition of foreign educations and assessment and authorisation of professional skills after sector requirements, Swedish-language education relevant for the profession, and bridging courses. While it may be difficult to design programmes for less in-demand jobs, these profession-specific tracks can be more efficient, as a new programme does not have to be designed to meet the need of each individual immigrant. Such tracks can be designed by experts in the field, rather than depending on the programmatic choices of individual NIP counsellors. Co‑operation with employers in these sectors can help ensure that the profession-specific track contains components that meet the employers’ needs for their workers. The rationale underpinning these tracks is similar to that of countries that have introduced vocation-specific language training, such as Austria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, and Portugal.

Consider providing parts of the NIP to groups of immigrants currently excluded

As outlined, the NIP is only available as a right and obligation to humanitarian immigrants and their families aged 18 to 55 at arrival. Norway makes a distinction between those who join a refugee partner with less than five years of residence in the country and those who join someone with five or more years of residence. In the latter case, the arrival of the refugee partner is not considered family reunification but family formation. Family formation migrants do not have a right nor obligation to participate in the NIP.

Since 2017, the number of family migrants joining a partner who arrived as a refugee has strongly decreased (Figure 3.9). At the same time, the share of new arrivals joining a refugee with more than five years of residence has grown and, in 2019 and 2020, the number of adult family members joining a refugee with more than five years of residence was twice as high as those joining someone with less than five years. As a result, among the recent arrivals in the respective age group (18‑55), only about one in three family members joining a refugee is entitled to attend the NIP. Three in four of the adult family members joining a refugee are women.

This distinction excludes refugee family members from participation in the NIP, despite evidence of a positive employment effect for this group (Ugreninov and Turner, 2021[8]) and the fact that family migrants have one of the highest likelihoods to settle in Norway long-term (see Chapter 2). Integrating them should be a priority, not just for them but also for the benefit of their native‑born children (see Chapter 5). Improving the data and reporting structure on this group would be an important first step (Box 3.2).

Figure 3.9. Refugee family members without a right to the NIP account for an increasing share of arrivals

New income and residence requirements may interfere with the objective of long-term integration

In recent years, a number of new requirements for permanent residence have been introduced, including an income requirement in 2017. While the income requirement is applied to all immigrant categories, recent research shows that it has had different consequences on different groups (Eggebo and Staver, 2020[30]). According to figures from SSB, only labour migrants reach the required income after 3 to 5 years. Refugees often do not reach the required income even after 10 years. For family migrants, it takes 6 to 10 years to reach the limit. The income requirement seems to be the most difficult condition for permanent residence for refugees to fulfil (Omholdt and Strøm, 2014[31]). Certain groups (under 18, over 67, individuals with disabilities and students in upper secondary education) are exempted from these requirements (Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet, 2017[32]). In 2020, new changes required that those over 18 in education, who were previously exempted from these restrictions now must have been in education for the last 12 months to qualify for the exception. This is designed to ensure that the foreigner has completed training over a certain period of time before being granted permanent residence in Norway. Students at higher education institutions must document that they have been full-time students in the last 12 months. Similar requirements should also apply to foreigners who participate in primary or secondary education (Justis-Beredskapsdepartementet, 2020[33]).

Income requirements for permanent residency and for the right to apply for family reunification might interfere with the educational objective of the NIP, as the need to earn an extra income might become a priority that displaces other, more long-term objectives such as achieving a good level of Norwegian or upgrading educational qualifications. It appears that many participants in the NIP are eager to find a job quickly during the Introduction Programme in order to meet the income requirement for a permanent residence permit, which ensures predictability and security. However, to which degree the choices regarding education are influenced by these rules is not known.

The current income requirement for a permanent residence permit is 2.5 times the basic amount of the National Insurance Scheme on an annual basis, and the introduction benefit, which is an approved type of income for this purpose, amounts to twice this amount. Hence, some participants take an additional part-time job in the unskilled labour market (Lillevik and Tyldum, 2018[19]). Anecdotal evidence also suggests that some immigrants end vocational training before getting a trade certificate in fear of not fulfilling the income requirement (Leirvik and Staver, 2019[34]).

A proposed legislative change would exclude the introduction benefit from meeting the income requirement for family reunification of beneficiaries of international protection. Proposed changes also contemplate the postponement of family reunification for a period of time between one to three years to ensure a higher level of self-sufficiency among individuals who wish to bring their family members to Norway. It is not evident that delays in family reunification increase self-sufficiency among migrants in Norway. On the contrary, international evidence suggests that delays in family reunification may have adverse consequences for migrant integration in the long-term. After ten years or more in the host country, principal migrants whose spouses joined them after some delay earn significantly lower wages than otherwise comparable principal migrants. Spouses who arrive with delay are themselves less likely to be proficient in the host-country language after five or more years of residence (OECD, 2019[35]) (OECD, 2019[35]).

In 2020, additional changes also created different application requirements for different immigrant groups. People who received their first permit on the basis of asylum or family reunification must now meet a residence requirement of 5 years prior to permanent residency, up from 3 (Box 3.6).

Settlement can focus on long-term needs and include personal preferences

Settling refugees in Norwegian municipalities is the joint responsibility of central and local governments (see Chapter 2). There is a formal co‑operation agreement between the central government and the Norwegian association of local and regional authorities (KS). Since 2021, the county government is included in the negotiation process and makes recommendations as to number of new refugees should be allocated to each municipality in the county. The municipality has the decision power on how many refugees they want to settle, but cannot make demands regarding refugees’ nationality or family situation. The Ministry of Education and Research has developed settlement criteria based on previous results of newcomers in the introductory programme, the possibility of gaining work experience in the municipality, and access to attend upper secondary education in the region.

Every year, IMDi asks the municipalities via request letters to receive a certain number of refugees, both former asylum seekers and resettlement refugees. The request specifies if the municipality is asked to settle unaccompanied minors. How many refugees IMDi asks the individual municipality to receive is based on an assessment of the future need for settlement. The National Committee for Settlement decides this based on forecasts of asylum seekers, forecasts of the number of granted asylum applications and forecasts of the number of resettlement refugees. The final number for each municipality is then determined in dialogue with the Central Association of Local Authorities (KS), the county and the municipality, based on the settlement criteria. Municipalities that have decided to settle refugees receive a request from IMDi to receive specific persons. Family members that arrive through reunification usually come directly to the municipality and therefore do not go through the usual settlement process. Self-supporting refugees who have a place to live are basically free to settle on their own initiative, without an agreement with either IMDi or the municipality. Those who settle on their own initiative are not entitled to an introductory programme, although the municipality can choose to provide one. They may also lose rights to other benefits.

The settlement criteria give the greatest weight to opportunities for education and work, and the municipalities’ results in the Introduction Programme. Then emphasis is put on settlement taking place across all parts of Norway, in both small and large municipalities. As not all municipalities are able to offer the same opportunities in higher education and work, striking a balance between the best integration offers for the newcomer and the practice of settling new arrivals across all parts of Norway – including rural areas – can be a challenge. Emphasis is also placed on the municipalities’ capacity for adapting services to changing numbers and the possibility of receiving a large number of refugees. Generally, no receiving municipality should obtain fewer than 10 people. Consideration must also be given to whether the municipality can house refugees with major disabilities. Municipalities are encouraged to avoid settling refugees in areas where the proportion of immigrants is over 30% and where there are difficult living conditions (IMDi, 2021[36]). When assigning a settlement municipality, to the extent possible, IMDi considers information about the refugee’s relatives who already live in a Norwegian municipality, special follow-up needs, education and career plans as well as other needs. Individual preferences regarding a rural or urban placement, or geographical location within Norway, are considered to a lesser degree.

Evidence from before the current Integration Act has shown that highly educated refugees and women were more often placed in central, populous municipalities with a high level of education and income and a high proportion of immigrants. By contrast, families with children and resettlement refugees to a greater extent settled in less central municipalities with lower populations and lower income and education levels (Tønnessen and Andersen, 2019[37]).

Municipalities can decline the assignment of a person if they think they are not a good match for their community. Though it is unclear how often this occurs, municipalities who feel unable to receive one or more of the refugees IMDi has requested them to settle can provide a justification for why this is the case. Refusals must be justified. Several refusals to settle assigned refugees, can result in the municipality no longer being asked to resettle refugees. Refugees, on the other hand, are offered only one settlement municipality. They may refuse the offer but then must settle on their own, losing the right to the introductory programme and benefit.

Whether refugees and their families stay in their initially assigned municipality or move after their integration programme has ended (typically two to three years after settlement) can serve as an indicator of success for municipal integration. Research from Statistics Norway suggests that those settled after the establishment of the NIP, tend to be more likely to stay in their initially assigned municipality. Five years after settlement among the arrival cohort of 2012, about 83% are still residing in their initially assigned municipality, while the share was much lower among those settled in 1997 at 67%. Most refugees who leave their initially assigned municipality depart about four to five years after settlement. The trend among all the cohorts with an Introduction Programme are similar, with little change over the last decade (Figure 3.10). Moving to Oslo has become less and less popular over the past decade (Strøm and Epland, 2020[38]).

Age and gender appear to impact likelihood of moving after an initial period of residence in the assigned municipality and NIP participation. Not surprisingly, single male and younger persons are more likely to be mobile within Norway; families with children are more likely to stay in their assigned municipality. Because they comprise a larger geographic area and are responsible for regional integration needs, county involvement provides an opportunity to better align refugee settlement to long-term needs. At the same time, there are concerns of small municipalities experiencing declining populations and in some cases labour shortages that they may not obtain refugees although they would generally like to. Including the experience of refugees in the monitoring of the NIP and taking into account their individual preferences could allow for better expectation management.

Figure 3.10. Secondary movement of refugees from their first municipality is less prevalent

One possibility to allow newcomers to experience rural Norway while at the same time remaining the option for educational offers could be to pilot the mandatory completion of a training element of the NIP, such as a work practise or internship in a neighbouring municipality. This could link participants directly to employment experiences through work practise and available offers in more rural parts of Norway.

The current funding structure is adaptive but does not incentivise individual plans

The funding structure incentivises municipalities, in particular, those with fewer inhabitants to settle refugees. This is because in addition to the integration specific grants, municipalities in Norway receive most of their funding from central government based on the number of municipal inhabitants. As a result, settling refugees and other newcomers provides not only new people to the community but also brings additional yearly funding. As a result, municipalities are motivated and in some cases even competing to settle refugees. Municipalities have flexibility in terms of what they offer in the NIP, so they can collaborate with other municipalities and are encouraged to test their own initiatives. Outside the larger cities, the number of individuals participating in the NIP per municipality is small and has fluctuated strongly in recent years as in 2017 the median number of individuals settled increased from 25 to 37 before it lowered to 25 in 2019 again.

Municipalities, counties, and other stakeholders receive various grants from IMDi to cover the costs of settlement and integration. Most grants are paid per headcount (per person) and are not designated for a particular purpose (IMDi, 2021[39]). Table 3.3 depicts the main components and differences between two grant schemes for integration: 1) the integration grant, comprising grants for integration, old-age and kindergarten and 2) the grant for training in Norwegian language and Social Studies for adult immigrants (NLTSS). These are both paid based on the number of participants in need of the corresponding programmes. Notably, everyone who is a beneficiary of the Introduction Programme receives language training, which is a mandatory component of the former. However, the same is not true vice versa, as some immigrants receive NLTSS but have no right (or obligation) to the NIP.

	Integration grants	Training in Norwegian and social studies for adult immigrants
Receivers	Municipalities	Municipalities and counties
Payment	Running	Quarterly
Consists of:	Integration grant Old-age grant Kindergarten grant	Personal allowances Basic allowance
Adaptation	No. The integration subsidy is paid regardless of the individual’s needs for follow-up, measures and facilitation in the municipality.	Yes. The personal allowance is adapted to the origin of the participant. The basic allowance is adjusted to the size of the municipality. Basic grants will be paid to municipalities that have between 1‑150 people.
Amount	Integration grants (depends -see table below) Kindergarten grants (2021): 27 100 (one‑off grant) Elderly allowance (2021): 176 000 (one‑off grant)

Source: OECD Secretariat based on IMDi (2021[39]).

Funds for overall integration are based on type of residence permit and the year since settlement. Overall, the largest amounts of the integration grants come in the first years after settlement and overall municipalities can receive monetary support for five years each first time they settle a refugee. Table 3.4 provides an overview of the integration grant per year. In year 1, the integration grant is paid in full as soon as the person is registered as a resident. In years 2‑5, the grant is paid four times a year.

Year of settlement	Amount in Norwegian Krone
Year 1 (2021)	241 000 (single adults)
	194 300 (adults)
	187 000 (unaccompanied minors)
	194 300 (children) *
Year 2 (2020)	249000
Year 3 (2019)	177300
Year 4 (2017)	88000
Year 5 (2016)	72000

Note: There are different rates for grants, depending on the type of category a person resides in year 1. Different rates apply depending on which year the person was resident for the first time, and what kind of residence permit they have. The municipality must apply for the grant as soon as possible after the person became a resident.

Source: OECD Secretariat based on IMDi (2021[40]).

The current funding structure for the NIP incentivises a quick transition to employment over the declared goal of obtaining an education, as the faster refugees become self-sufficient, the greater the share of the integration grants, which are not earmarked, go directly to the municipality. As shown, funds for language training are adjusted to individuals’ national origin, via a personal allowance anticipating that individuals from certain countries need more training. In addition, they also consist of a so-called basic allowance, which accounts for the fact that small municipalities might have a harder time providing and keeping up the infrastructure to offer NLTSS courses. This introduces some support for small municipalities to allow for longer term planning regarding programme offerings and hiring of needed staff.

A key question for the successful implementation of the new Act will be if the funding structure can incentivise individual plans. It is not clear how a municipality under the new Act will be able and encouraged to provide more individual-tailored services in the NIP than before the reform, without additional funding. One option could be to tie resources – similar to what is done for language learning – to different levels of skills and education. This could also support the goal of adapted measures and course content for each individuals’ prior experience and skill level.

New indicators for measuring the NIP’s outcomes can strengthen oversight, focus on long-term outcomes and support policy learning

The indicator for the success of the Introduction Programme, the labour market integration goal of 70% in education or training one year after programme completion, is quite narrow and has clear shortcomings. First, one year after completion of the NIP is very early in the integration process to serve as a benchmark for success, especially for the integration of vulnerable migrants such as refugees. Indeed, the labour market integration path of refugees is generally a long-term project and it is not uncommon at refugees need more than 10 years to catch up to the employment level of native‑born, if ever (OECD, 2019[41]). Second, this indicator assigns equal importance to three very different outcomes: working, being in education, and combining education and work. Third, it does not allow for any insights on reasons for success or lack of success for particular groups in particular contexts, limiting options for policy learning. A recent evaluation by the Norwegian Auditor General highlights similar shortcomings, noting the proportion who are in work or education one year after the NIP says little about the long-term connection to work-life in Norway or whether individuals are self-sufficient (Office of the Auditor General Norway, 2019[26]).

In the context of the many recent reforms, the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR) has suggested a set of new indicators so that the efforts, results and implementation of the reforms can be evaluated (Hernes, Staver and Tønnessen, 2020[42]). The proposal lists different indicators for three identified stages of the integration process. The first stage is input: the work of the municipality and county authorities in terms of use of education and work-oriented measures in the NIP, hours of Norwegian language training, the duration of the programme and expenditures, as well as ambition for the envisioned results of participants. It also includes the users’ experience and the municipality’s ability to offer a full-time programme. The second stage focuses on the output at the end of the integration programme, such as the participants’ Norwegian skills, knowledge of Norwegian society, achievement of individual programme targets and the share of migrants with formal qualifications. The third and final stage addresses long-term integration outcomes such as formal educational attainment, economic self-sufficiency levels and degree of labour market attachment.

While it is difficult to compare municipalities to one another, the proposed set of indicators would enable an overview of their goals and outcomes, for example whether municipalities settle for the recommended minimum level in language training or set a higher internal goal. It could also shed light on how the content of the NIP goal varies across municipalities and their available resources. Examining variations in duration of the programme offerings can help provide insight as to whether the new set-up leads to additional costs for the municipalities and whether shorter programmes have long-term integration consequences for participants.

One of the new indicators is whether the participants reach economic independence. The authors propose that the income level should amount to two times the National Insurance Scheme, which is also the same amount received as a benefit in the Introduction Programme. As the amount is adjusted annually it would allow the following of changes over time. However, as the measurement is individual it will not automatically detect low-income households. Given the higher share of children of immigrants living in persistent low-income households and that are at risk of child poverty, it would be useful to include an indicator taking into account the composition and income of the whole household. In addition, the proposed follow-up periods of 1, 3 and 5 years after completion could be extended, as for men, detachment from the labour market starts about 7 years after settlement. In 2020, IMDi carried out a test survey with the objective of carrying out an annual survey of participants’ experience.

Norwegian language training

Migrant groups have different rights to free Norwegian language training

All individuals with the right and duty to participate in the Introduction Programme also have a right and obligation to participate in Norwegian language training and social studies (NLTSS), but the scheme is also offered to other groups of immigrants (Table 3.5). Apart from language training, it includes 75 hours of mandatory training in social studies for adult immigrants. The latter covers important information about Norway and individual rights, opportunities and obligations in Norwegian society.

	Refugees, humanitarian migrants and their families (aged 18 to 67)	Family members reunited with persons who have permanent residency from countries outside the EEA/EFTA area (aged 18 to 67)	Labour immigrants from countries outside the EEA/EFTA area + their family (aged 18 to 67)	Persons who are resident pursuant to the EFTA/EEA rules
Is access to the training an obligation or a right?	Right and obligation	Right and obligation	Obligation but no right	No obligation and no right
Duration and scope / Limit of provision	The right applies until the participant has reached their pre‑defined goal (or under old regulations used their 600 (550 + 50) hours of training)		Until goal in Norwegian is reached or 300 (225+75) completed hours of training.
Responsibility of	Municipality. County if the person attends full-time upper secondary education during the NIP	Municipality	Migrants themselves	Migrants themselves
Provided by	Primarily state‑funded schools		Various public and private approved providers
Costs of tuition	Free for participants	Free for participants	Participants pay	Participants pay
Needed for permanent residency or citizenship?	Yes, but potentially at higher level than offered in this scheme	Yes	Yes, need completed Norwegian language training with final exams before application	No. EU/EEA-citizens acquire the right to permanent residence after five years of registered legal residence

Note: Persons who can document sufficient knowledge of Norwegian or Sami and knowledge about Norwegian society can be exempted from these requirements. Until 2016, refugees between 55 and 67 have had the right, but not a duty to participate. See also table 1 in Chapter 2. According to the new curriculum in adult training the hours of social studies increased from 50 to 75.

Source: Integration Act, Chapter 6 on Training in Norwegian and social studies, 2021, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2020-11-06-127.

Third-country labour migrants, as well as their families, must participate. They need to complete 300 hours of training (thereof 75 in social studies) and pass the language tests to apply for a permanent residence permit. They have to pay for this training themselves. When the target level of Norwegian is reached or the 300 hours of training completed, their duty of participation ceases. By contrast, family members reuniting with permanent residents, including those reuniting with a Norwegian or Nordic citizen, have a right and obligation to participate, meaning they can access free courses if they migrated from countries outside the EEA/EFTA area. Persons residing in Norway based on the EEA/EFTA agreements using their right to free mobility cannot be obliged to participate in such training and are not entitled to free tuition in Norwegian language and social studies. A municipality can choose to offer training in Norwegian and social studies to groups without a right to participation, for example to EEA citizens and their families. However, they can also demand self-payment for such training. Since 2018, asylum seekers in reception centres are offered 175 hours of Norwegian language training by the municipality, free of charge. In 2019, about half (49%) of the asylum seekers residing in reception centres received such training. According to the new Integration Act, the municipality must provide 175 hours of Norwegian language training and 25 hours of social studies to asylum seekers.

Norway stands in contrast to other Nordic countries in that the entitlement to language training are based on residence permits, and labour migrants have little access to free training. In Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, in principle all immigrants can receive free language training, though the scope and period vary. In Denmark, refugees and their families are entitled to free language training for up to five years. International students, labour migrants and their family members, as well as EU citizens, are entitled to training for up to 3.5 years. The latter however must pay a deposit of DKK 2000 (EUR 270) at the beginning of the training, refunded if the training is completed within this period. The language training for this group is organised around a voucher scheme provided by the municipality and valid for 5 years. In Sweden, all immigrants registered in a municipality and above 16 years of age who lack basic proficiency in Swedish are entitled to free and unlimited language training. The minimum language training is 15 hours a week, but each participant gets their training adapted depending on their prior level of education and individual needs. In Finland, language training is based on participants’ needs and depends on whether or not individuals have an integration plan. Immigrants who receive language training as part of their integration plan, which includes unemployed immigrants and those who receive temporary income support, are eligible for free classes. All others who do not have an integration plan have to pay (Rambøll Management Consulting, 2021[43]).

While some countries, such as Australia and Canada, have made their language training available to all migrants free of charge, countries differ regarding cost coverage. Some countries, such as Germany, have taken the view that asking migrants to pay a small share when able helps them understand the value of the service provided. Charging fees for the categories of migrants seen as most likely to be able to afford them seems a reasonable approach, provided that the fees are not so high as to dissuade migrants from enrolling in classes.

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. Notably, via this new system, migrants who are otherwise not entitled to free language training, such as EEA citizens, will be able to receive language training worth up to NOK 10 000 (about EUR 1 000). The voucher allows for self-purchasing of around 80 hours of language training and can be used for both online classes and in-person training. The scheme aims to contribute for participants to gradually learn Norwegian at an A2/B1 level or higher (IMDI, 2021[44]). However, migrants who have attended previous training by the Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (formerly Skills Norway), for example via the Jobbsjansen programme, are not eligible for the scheme.

The new Integration Act shifts the focus from hours taught to levels achieved

The NLTSS scheme aims to allow adult immigrants to sufficiently master Norwegian to be able to find employment and participate in society after their first years in Norway. Norwegian language training is organised in three tracks that differ in learning speeds and goals. The tracks initially corresponded to the Norwegian language tests offered at three levels: A1/A2, A2/B1 or B1/B2 as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Following the implementation of the Integration Act, the curriculum in Norwegian and social studies for adult immigrants has been revised. The new curricula entered into force in August 2021. One key change is that level C1, referring to proficient users of a foreign language, is for the first time included in the curriculum. The most important criteria for track assignment are the immigrant’s educational background and literacy skills (reading and writing) in their first language.

OECD-wide, countries are increasingly seeking to provide language tracks based on past education or assessed language ability. In Denmark, there are three tracks based on an initial assessment of a migrant’s education. Each track is divided into six modules with tests at the end of each and a final exam at the end of the programme. Successful learners have the option to progress to the next track if they choose. The target level of Danish increases with the migrant’s education level, with those migrants in Danish 3 aiming to achieve a C1, which is necessary to access higher education in Denmark. Finland offers different tracks based on an initial assessment of learning capacity, and Austria and Sweden also have modular systems. Germany offers an intensive course for highly educated learners. Many countries, like Norway, also offer a pre‑literacy track.

The Integration Act introduced several changes to the Norwegian language training and social studies scheme (see also Chapter 2). Responding to earlier evidence that learners with teachers who had professional credentials in teaching Norwegian as a second language achieved better results (Djuve et al., 2017[1]), the Integration Act introduced an requirement that teachers of Norwegian to have academic and educational competence equivalent to 30 credits in the Norwegian as a second language. Further, in light of the challenges of those attending full-time education at school, the age limit for participation in NLTSS was raised from 16 to 18 years. Participants can no longer grow into or out of the target group by turning 18 or 68 years old. The new age limit of 18 years puts Norway in line with most other OECD countries. At the same time, options should be available for those who arrive at 17 who can no longer grow into this training to ensure that those youngsters have access to Norwegian language training outside of compulsory school. The responsibility for providing NLTSS rests with the municipality unless individuals attend full-time upper secondary education, in which case the county is responsible.

Importantly, the Integration Act changed the focus from the number of hours of teaching provided to the learning outcome (the level of Norwegian attained). The new provision replaces the previous right to a minimum of 600 and up to a maximum of 3 000 hours of free Norwegian language training for those in the NIP with a requirement to achieve a minimum level in mastering Norwegian. The envisioned level is referred to as the participant’s “Norwegian goal”, as determined by the individual’s prior education level (Table 3.6). Training will be given until the immigrant reaches the Norwegian goal across four language skills (oral, listening, writing and reading) or for the maximum participant duration in the Introduction Programme. In case of faster progression than expected, the minimum level can be adjusted upwards. If the participant’s progression indicates that they will not be able to reach the minimum level, the level can be adjusted downwards.

Similar to Norway a number of OECD countries, including Canada and Australia do not have limitations based on hours of language provision (anymore). By contrast, determining the target, based on education is rare. Other OECD countries including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Latvia, do this based on prior knowledge of the language.

	Oral communication (speaking)	Listening	Reading	Writing
not completed primary school before	B1	A2	A2	A2
completed compulsory school before	B1	B1	B1	B1
completed upper secondary education before	B2	B1	B1	B1
completed upper secondary education before and a need to document level B2 in all sub-skills	B2	B2	B2	B2

Note: Participants who receive their Norwegian language instruction in upper secondary education should achieve a grade of 2 or higher in Norwegian language courses. Participants who receive their Norwegian language instruction in primary school should either achieve a grade of 2 or higher in Norwegian or achieve a minimum level A2 in the subtests in listening comprehension, reading comprehension and written presentation and level B1 in the subtest in oral communication.

Source: Adjusted from § 28 Regulations to the Integration Act (the Integration Regulations).

This focus on prior education levels is in line with research findings across the OECD that prior education is a good predictor of how fast and well a foreign language can be learned (OECD/EU, 2014[45]). In Norway, learners’ number of years of prior schooling stands out as a key predictor of test score in the Norwegian language test, together with origin country region (Randen et al., 2018[46]). However, given the highly decentralised system, it is not clear how individual municipalities will handle track assignments or whether they will include other factors such as age or previous Norwegian learning in their assessment. It is further unclear whether education considered for the Norwegian goal refers only to officially assessed and recognised education levels and if not, how this is considered in different municipalities across the country. Some guidance would be useful in this respect.

National language and social studies tests assess participants’ outcomes

Those with a right to participate in Norwegian language training and social studies are expected to enrol as soon as possible after settling in a municipality. The obligation for municipalities to provide participants with a right to NLTSS with training applies until the participant has reached their Norwegian goal, but never longer than three years (with the addition of approved leave). A participant who has an upper secondary education or above does not have the right or duty to training for longer than 18 months with the addition of approved leave. Labour migrants are also expected to define and reach an individual Norwegian goal or complete the mandatory 300 hours of training within three years. Immigrants take a language test at different levels upon completion.

The Norwegian language test measures language skills at levels CEFR A1, A2, B1 and B2. From fall 2020, individuals can also sign up for a C1 test, but few people have done so to date. A person can register for the Norwegian language test up to four times each year (winter, spring, summer and fall) and can choose to register for all four parts of the test at the same time, or one or more individual parts (reading, listening, oral and writing). Individuals are free to take some or all of the four tests multiple times. Since 2014, test takers who do not pass the test receive the result “no basis for assessing the level” or result “below A1”. For example, individuals who take the A1‑A2 test can only get the following results: below A1/no basis for assessing; A1 or A2. It should also be noted the chosen test will not assess a candidate’s level above that which they registered for.

The Directorate for Higher Education and Competence (formerly Skills Norway) provides sample tests so prospective learners can pre‑test their level prior to registering for a test. Tests in listening and reading comprehension are adaptive (see Figure 3.11). These tests include 3 sections, with two pre‑tests to assign the appropriate level, and one main test for assessment. For the oral test, the test taker must register for the level they want to pass, A1/A2 or B1/B2. If the examiner determines that the candidate has been registered to too low a level, the candidate should be given an extra assignment from the level above.

Figure 3.11. The reading and listening test adjusts to the individual’s skills

The municipality decides the price of the tests. It varies between NOK 300 and NOK 2200. Individuals who have a right and duty to participate in Norwegian language training can take all parts of the test free one time. Individuals who are not entitled to free Norwegian language training must pay for the test. In any case, individuals who retake the test will be charged.

For their training in social studies, immigrants are expected to complete the social studies test after 75 hours of training in a language they understand. The course aims to give the participant some insights into Norwegian society early in the integration process. This is why the Integration Act requires the municipality to provide and the migrants to complete the training (and take the test) in social studies within one year. Research has shown that in the past, three out of five teachers believed that this training should be offered later at a time when participants are more proficient in Norwegian (Djuve et al., 2017[1]). At the same time other research stressed the need to inform participants early on about their rights and obligations in Norway. Indeed the input seems to be especially relevant and useful for participants with poor Norwegian language skills who would have trouble identifying this information by themselves – and accordingly the information and test are in immigrants’ native language (Lillevik and Tyldum, 2018[19]). Some countries with similar courses provide interpretation (Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden but not Denmark). In Norway, the social studies test is available in approximately 30 languages, multiple‑choice and takes about one hour to complete. In 2019, about 16 000 candidates took the Social Studies test, compared to close to 175 00 in 2018. In both years, 84% passed the test, which is close to the policy target of 90%.

OECD-wide, exams of this kind remain the exception to the rule, but most countries that do have a social test, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Korea, and the Netherlands, require that it be taken in the host-country language. Belgium (Flanders), like Norway, allows migrants to take the tests in other languages.

The new envisioned language levels are high

It is too early to assess the impacts of the 2021 change from hours to levels. However, data on past tests combined with data on test-takers allows for some insights (see Box 3.5 for a discussion of data limitations). Looking at the outcomes of tests takers in Norwegian over the period 2014‑20 by the level of education suggests, not surprisingly, that those with higher formal education levels perform better (Figure 3.12). Additionally, substantial variation for the different language competencies (speaking, writing, listening, and reading) exists. Those with at-most low levels of formal education (ISCED 0/1/2) have the largest difficulties reading Norwegian, while this is the language competence where those with higher education perform best (with about 70% of test-takers having achieved a level B1 or B2 between 2014‑20). Difficulties in reading and writing are correlated to the country of origin and presumably related to the ability to read and write in the Latin alphabet. For instance, between 2014 and 2020, among tests takers from Eritrea and Syria with low levels of education (ISCED 0/1/2) but between 3 to 6 years of residence, only one in two reached a reading level at A2 or higher.

Figure 3.12. Results from previous tests takers show large variations by competence and education

Comparing previous achieved levels of language competence to the newly required levels by education (Table 3.6) highlights the high ambition of the new regulations. In Figure 3.12 one can identify the share of test-takers who would need to upskill given the new regulations. While improving the speaking level of those with low education levels to B1 will be a challenge (only 27% of test-takers in between 2014‑20 achieved this level), achieving a B2 for those with medium or higher education might be even more difficult. In the period considered here, only 8% of test-takers with medium and 17% of test-takers with high formal education levels achieved this high level of spoken Norwegian.

Notably, for the other competencies (reading, writing, and listening), the Norwegian goal of every migrant is set at least at A2 if they had not completed primary school before, and B1 otherwise. These are ambitious goals as well, especially for those with low to medium education levels. From 2014‑20 among migrants with at most low levels of formal education (ISCED 0‑2), 67% achieved an A2 or higher in writing, 79% in listening, and 61% in reading. However, only a minority in this education group achieved a B1 or higher in these competencies (listening 28%, reading 21%, writing 14%). Outcomes from previous test-takers who had upper secondary but no higher education show that only about one in two or fewer (listening 55%; reading 52%; writing 32%) achieved B1 (Figure 3.12). Among highly educated, a majority of test-takers between 2014‑20 achieved a B1 or higher in reading, writing and listening. For this group, the main challenge might not necessarily be the level B1/B2 as such, but rather the shortened programme time.

Box 3.5. Data limitations on Norwegian language learning

There are two sets of data available regarding language testing in Norway.

First, the Directorate for Higher Education and Competence (former Skills Norway) collects data based on tests taken, as the main unit of observation. In practice, this means that a person can appear with 16 test results each year – four times per subtest. However, Skills Norway noted that most people (>50%) only take the test one time, and only a few people take one of the individual tests more than twice in a given year. Importantly, this data covers all tests taken, irrespective of why the test-taker took the test and their right to language training. This data does not include any background characteristics of test-takers, such as age, gender, level of education, region of origin or native languages. It does also not allow for a linkage with any labour market outcome statistics.

Second, Statistics Norway collects and publishes data on individual language test-takers. SSB publishes data (“Norwegian for adult immigrants”) once a year, removes duplicates and only keeps the highest test level result of an individual. Because these individuals can be linked to the NIR database, it is possible to link their language test results with individual background characteristics including education level and labour market situation. However, these statistics only include individuals governed by the Introduction Act, not all individuals who took the test.

In international comparison, few OECD countries oblige migrants to reach a B1 level or above, and even fewer ask migrants to reach that level in the first few years after arrival. Countries with an obligation to reach a certain language level as part of integration programmes are: Austria (A1 within 2 years), Estonia (A1 in first year, A2 within 2‑5 years), France (A1 within one year), Lithuania (A1‑A2), Luxembourg (A1 within 2 years), the Netherlands (A2 within 3 years), and some cantons of Switzerland. In July 2021, the target level in the Netherlands changed from A2 to B1, with an exception for those who are “unlikely” to be able to meet it. In this respect, the new goals as outlined above make Norway’s target levels among the highest in the OECD.

How long it takes an individual to achieve an intermediate level in a foreign language is highly dependent on context and individual factors. Available estimations (notably often based on English language acquisition) suggest that it will take the fastest adult learners (similar first language, high motivation, young age, experience with foreign language learning, highly educated, etc.) about 380 hours of language training to achieve B1, and double that time, about 760 hours, of language learning to reach a B2 (Benigno, De Jong and Van Moere, 2017[48]). Taking these estimations as a baseline, this suggests that the fastest learners would need to study about 32 hours (for B1) per week to accomplish this in 3 months. As language training is just one part of migrants training in the NIP, it seems unlikely that this is achievable in such a short timeframe. Indeed, even within a 6‑month duration, the best learners would need to study about 16 hours (for B1) or 29 hours (for B2) per week.

Importantly, the right to free Norwegian language training can be longer than the duration of the NIP, and training in Norwegian and Social Studies is not only offered to individuals in the NIP, but also to other groups as outlined in Table 3.5. Individuals with upper secondary education or above who have a right (and duty) to Norwegian training can participate for at least 18 months. During this time, immigrants are expected to achieve their language goal (at least B2 in oral skills and B1 in other competences).

Indeed, when setting the Norwegian language goal of participants, striking the balance of finding a high enough, but not too high, envisioned language level is difficult but key. If an individual’s Norwegian language goal is set too low, migrants might risk losing support for language learning once their Norwegian goal is achieved. The regulations to the Integration Act acknowledge this tension, by requiring municipalities to adjust the minimum level upwards or downwards one step at a time in case of faster / slower progression. Overall, the new regulations encourage to set a high Norwegian goal instead of a low one and ensure that, in the case of faster progression than expected, the municipality adjusts this goal. Setting a goal too high, however, might result in disengagement by migrants when the language gaol is not seen to be attainable.

If migrants do not achieve the envisioned language level, no sanctions or penalties apply, neither for the migrants nor for the municipality. This is similar to the practice in other OECD countries. Very few countries have identified sanctions for failure to attain a language target level for migrants. In Estonia and the Netherlands, migrants may be asked to pay a fine or they may not receive an extension of their permit should they fail to reach the target level. However, it is unclear how frequently this is implemented in practice. In most cases, for example in Austria and Italy, the period within which to complete the language training is merely extended.

Spoken Norwegian skills correlate with labour market inclusion

Speaking Norwegian is often identified as key to labour market inclusion in Norway. Available data on individuals who took the Norwegian test show that a higher level of oral Norwegian proficiency correlates strongly with being employed or in education at the reference point, in November 2020 (Figure 3.13). The largest increase – given the same formal education level – is visible for those who attain an A2 instead of an A1 speaking level. However, higher skills of Norwegian increase this rate by over 5 percentage points.

The share of former test takers in employment is almost identical for those who are medium and highly educated with at least A2 spoken Norwegian skills. This suggests that language, like education, improves employment prospects. At the same time, an increase in speaking skills does not correlate with a strong increase in the employment rate but rather with the share of migrants who are combining education and employment. A very low level of Norwegian (A1) does not seem to allow immigrants to combine the two. While the chain of causality is not clear from the data, it might be that those who are able to combine work with education are able to upskill their Norwegian in the workplace as earlier evaluations of the NIP suggest that a core level of Norwegian is needed to build language skills at the job (Djuve et al., 2017[1]).

Figure 3.13. Migrants who speak some Norwegian often combine employment and education

Data on tests taken (not individuals, see limitations as discussed in Box 3.5) between 2014‑20 suggest that only 48% of tests taken by male labour migrants result in a spoken Norwegian of B1 or higher, against 69% among all tests taken by female labour migrants. For family migrants, the share is 41% for both genders. Also, only 30% of tests taken by refugee men and 24% of tests taken by refugee women were evaluated at a spoken Norwegian level of B1 or higher.

Language acquisition outside the classroom: The involvement of employers

The Norwegian Introduction Programme combines language training with activation and job training measures. Immigrants with no right to the Introduction Programme can join vocational or on-the‑job language courses when they are offered. On-the‑job language training courses are available in about a third of OECD countries and increasingly receive more attention. Some countries like the United States have historically preferred work-first incentives, leaving language training to local governments or the not-for-profit sector. Others, such as France (in 2007) and Germany (in 2005), have chosen to implement language courses alongside civics instruction (OECD, 2021[49]). Recent evidence from Denmark, estimating the labour market effects of a work-first policy for refugees suggests that this speeded up entry into jobs for men, but mostly into precarious jobs with few hours. It finds that the long-run effects remain uncertain as the policy crowds out language and educational investments upfront and found overall very small effects for women (Arendt, 2020[50]). A blended approach presents a third path in response to the question of what integration should focus on: education or a job.

Evidence from Norway suggests that immigrants enter the work placement component in the NIP either with the expectation to learn Norwegian or to demonstrate their skills to a potential employer, but few report the possibility to combine these two opportunities (Lillevik and Tyldum, 2018[19]). Indeed, it is not self-evident that immigrants learn Norwegian just by having a job or physically being at a workplace. Migrants with a low level of Norwegian skills often work in occupations with few opportunities to socialise in Norwegian, for example as cleaners or in industries with a lot of noise. Those with some prior language skills face difficulties learning intercultural and social skills. A recent evaluation of the language and work internship measures found little effect on the participants’ transition to work or education (Djuve et al., 2017[1]). This has also been found in Sweden, where a study found that the interns did not have much opportunity to use Swedish at the workplace. The work did not require extensive language skills because the context made it sufficient to nod or point and other workers were concerned with getting the tasks done on time, rather than spending time teaching Swedish (Sandwall, 2013[51]).

One approach is to involve employers more directly by moving the workplace into the classroom and vice versa. This can be done via colleagues. An example is the Good Enough in Norwegian project (God nok i norsk) which paired immigrants working or training in the health sector with a Norwegian-born individual mentor in the workplace to guide them in their daily work. An evaluation found that participants became more proactive at work and gained better language skills to discuss professional issues (Enehaug and Widding, 2013[52]). In addition, employers can offer, or be obliged to offer, language classes free of charge during working hours; participation by the migrant can also be obliged. For instance, in 2010, to address the high share of employees in nursing homes in Oslo who do not speak Norwegian as their first language, the Oslo Municipality Nursing Administration instituted an obligation for foreign workers in the nursing care sector with poor Norwegian skills to attend language courses. The courses are free and are held during working hours and participants need to complete the course with a test (Ødegård and Andersen, 2020[53]). However, the language requirements have been criticised for being too stringent and were subsequently eased in 2019.

A survey among employers in the industrial sector, notably in construction, showed that the need for Norwegian language training is to some extent covered by the companies themselves. About 40% of surveyed employers stated that they offer language training to their migrant employees and under one in four companies who think it is necessary do not offer such support (Sønnesyn, 2015[54]). Germany reported successes in employer partnerships for language learning in a 2017 pilot. However, like in Norway, convincing companies to take more responsibility in this arena has proven a challenge, as many employers believe this should be organised by the public sector.

Language acquisition outside the classroom: Considering new methods

Previous reports stress the need for more research on methods for second language acquisition in Norway (Randen et al., 2018[46]). The shift from hours to levels might contribute to innovation and changes in how training is offered in the municipality. An ongoing study on Adult Acquisition of Norwegian as a second language (ALAN) aims to provide new insights into how adults with different levels of educational and cognitive skills develop their language abilities in different educational contexts (University of Bergen, 2021[55]). To this end, and for linking language outcomes with broader labour market results, an improved data structure which allows studying the overall population who learns Norwegian would be highly beneficial (see Box 3.5).

Digital language learning is receiving renewed attention as the COVID‑19 pandemic stresses the need for reliable distance learning and further investment in digital offerings. Digital tools for language are in place in most OECD countries, although the scope and scale differ widely. ICT tools may prove particularly effective in countries where migrants are settled in small numbers across wide geographical distances. This has been pursued in Finland, where migrants are sometimes brought together for an initial in-person orientation and complete the remainder of the programme through digital classrooms. Digital tools may also offer a good solution for differentiation in advanced or highly specialised courses (OECD, 2021[49]).

In Norway, the majority of language programmes before the COVID‑19 confinement required some physical attendance. However, before the pandemic, almost 7 in 10 municipalities stated that they use digital meeting platforms and digital sources to share documents regularly. The transition to digital tools was easier for those following primary education than for those that had work-oriented training, as many also lost their job. By June 2020, 89% of municipalities were applying digital solutions for language training, but challenges with the transition to digital teaching and education are particularly a concern for participants with lower education levels. In addition, 86% of municipalities reported that they have used digital solutions to keep in touch with participants during the shutdown. Most municipalities acknowledge that digital solutions enable them to differentiate more and provide more flexibility in their offers. Yet, no municipality wants to digitalise the training completely.

Early lessons suggest that a combination of digital and non-digital offers appears to be most efficient. This necessitates a provision of digital competence courses earlier and use short messaging to remain in contact with the participants. A. For example, video classes for participants in social studies could gather participants of the same language group digitally rather than physically, providing faster access to training material (Kavli and Lillevik, 2020[56]).

Language skills among EU immigrants have been low in international comparison

In the past, a high share of EU citizens in Norway self-assessed their Norwegian language skills at a basic level. About 28% of EU citizens in Norway felt that their level of Norwegian was basic in 2014, the latest available year for comparable international data. This share was more than three times as high as in comparable countries, notably the other Nordics and Switzerland (Figure 3 14). In most countries only a minority of EU-citizens feel that their language skills are at most basic while many non-EU-citizens feel this way, but in Norway, the difference between those with EU- and non-EU citizenship is small. Against this backdrop, it is key to recall that EU migrants do not have a right nor a duty to language training, while those in the NIP as well as family migrants to a Nordic citizen from outside the EEA have an obligation and right, and labour migrants from countries outside the EEA are obliged to participate. EU/EEA nationals are eligible for publicly supported training in Belgium (Flanders), Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Switzerland. Indeed, the differentiation between access to language training for some groups but not others is particularly stark in Norway (OECD, forthcoming[57]).

Figure 3 14. Many EU migrants in Norway struggle with learning Norwegian

In Norway the share of migrants self-identifying that language presents an obstacle to finding a suitable job has been highest among those with tertiary education 23% (ISCED 5‑8), and slightly lower among those with medium education level (20%; ISCED3‑4) or lower levels of formal education (14%; ISCED 0‑2). EU-born highly educated migrants self-identify as experiencing difficulties in the labour market due to a lack of proficient Norwegian language skills. In 2014, 30% of EU migrants identified the lack of language skills as an obstacle for getting a suitable job in Norway – the highest rate among this group for all countries where this data was recorded. Here again, Norway has an outlier, as this level is equal to the share of highly educated immigrants from non-EU countries who declared the same difficulty (30%). This is in contrast to virtually all other countries in the data with the exception of the United Kingdom, which benefits from the worldwide prevalence of English. For instance, the share among highly educated immigrants who reported difficulties due to language skills has been 16 percentage points higher for non-EU immigrants in Sweden and 29 percentage points higher for non-EU immigrants in Finland. However, these figures are based on 2014 data, and it is not clear to which degree the situation has changed since.

That notwithstanding, a recent report (Ødegård and Andersen, 2020[53]) suggests that the picture has not changed substantially since. It finds similar results of language difficulties and investigates the case of Lithuanian and Polish migrants, who together with Swedish immigrants, account for the three largest groups of EU-born migrants in Norway. In the report, managers in construction, hotels, restaurants and manufacturing, surveyed over the period 2006‑17, described extensive language problems in the workplace with little change since the 2004 EU enlargement. When labour immigrants from Poland and Lithuania who settled in Norway were themselves asked about their skills in Norwegian in 2020, as many as 30% believed that they spoke quite little Norwegian and 8% reported no Norwegian skills. What is more, only three out of ten Polish labour immigrants had attended language courses, while about seven out of ten Lithuanians had done so.

Taken together, the available evidence suggests that many EU-born immigrants in Norway struggle with Norwegian language acquisition. The new voucher scheme (Klippekort) introduced in 2021 might serve as the first step to incentive Norwegian language learning among this group and should be closely monitored. At present, the data quality on this group is very poor, limiting outcome analysis (Box 3.5).

New language requirements for citizenship

For obtaining permanent residency, immigrants must either document the completion of pre‑assigned hours of Norwegian language training (250/550) or pass the Norwegian language test at a minimum A2 level in all four language competency areas. In any case, they must pass an oral Norwegian exam at A1. Another set of amendments to the Nationality Act will raise the requirement of necessary Norwegian oral skills from level A2 to B1 to be granted Norwegian citizenship. There will be exemptions from the requirement, for example for immigrants who, due to personal circumstances over which the person in question has no control, are not able to reach level B1 in oral Norwegian. These amendments have not yet taken effect (Box 3.6).

Many countries have some language obligation when immigrants want to obtain permanent residency. As stated in Norway, this requirement is at least A1 for oral skills if the pre‑assigned hours were completed or A2 for all four skills (oral, listening, writing, and reading competencies) if the competence is proven with a language test. The corresponding levels in other countries are: Czech Republic (A2), Denmark (A2), Germany (B1), Greece (B1), Italy (A2), Korea (Level 5), Latvia (A2), Poland (B1), Portugal (A2), and the United Kingdom (B1). Denmark has instituted a bonus for reaching the B1 level and imposes an even more stringent requirement of C1 on migrants seeking to sponsor a spouse for family reunification. Some countries ask migrants to meet a higher threshold beyond their initial integration should they seek permanent residency: Austria (B1), Estonia (B1), France (A2), Lithuania (A2), and Slovenia (A2). Norway’s new requirement of spoken language levels equivalent to B1 is thus not exceptional, but at the high end compared to other OECD countries. Notably, the Netherlands has also recently sought to raise targets – the target Dutch level should become B1 in 2022.

Box 3.6. Requirements for permanent residency and citizenship in Norway

For a permanent residence permit

Immigrants generally require three years of residence in Norway, must fulfil language requirements as well as pass the social studies test and meet an income requirement (2.5 times the basic amount in the National Insurance Scheme, currently amounts to 265 998 NOK before tax). Immigrants need to either document the completion of 550 (250 for EEA) hours of Norwegian language training or pass the Norwegian language test at a minimum A2 level in all four language competencies. All must pass the oral Norwegian exam at CEFR A1. For certain immigrants, notably refugees and their families, the residency requirement was increased from three to five years in December 2020.

For Norwegian citizenship

New regulations apply since January 2022. The requirement of residence in Norway has been raised from seven of the last ten years to eight of the last 11 years. For refugees, however, the requirement remains seven out of the last ten years. For any applicant with sufficient income in the last year, documented with a fixed tax settlement, the period is reduced to six out of the last ten years. Norway plans to raise the requirement for knowledge of oral Norwegian from level A2 to level B1.

In 2019, about 59% of foreign-born in Norway over the age of 15 and with more than 10 years of residence in Norway had Norwegian citizenship. The proportion negatively correlates with the level of education: it is higher for low-educated and the lowest for highly educated immigrants, related to the category of migration (refugees, who are most keen to take up citizenship, are more likely to be low-educated). Among immigrants with ten or more years of residence in Norway in 2019, only 3.5% of immigrants from Lithuania and only 7.5% of those from Poland are Norwegian citizens. The share among immigrants from North America and Oceania is 15%, and among migrants originating from the EU or an EEA country, it is 20%. By contrast, 86% of immigrants with 10 years of residence in Norway who were born outside the EU/EEA, North America, or Oceania are Norwegian citizens. Immigrants coming as a family member to a refugee with at least ten years of residence in Norway have the highest rate: 91% are Norwegian. Among refugees, this share is similarly high at 88%. Shares among individuals who initially came for education (45%) or as family but not to a refugee (61%) are somewhat lower. Shares among those coming for work are still very low even after 10 years of residence in Norway – at only 10% overall. For individuals coming for work from Poland and Lithuania with more than ten years of residence, shares are below 3%. As language knowledge is not recorded in the register data, it is not clear to what extent limited proficiency in the Norwegian language prevents immigrants from passing tests and becoming Norwegian.

Figure 3.15. B1 oral Norwegian skills can be a barrier to citizenship for immigrants

Since January 2020, Norway allows for dual citizenship, the last Nordic country to do so. Statistics Norway reported that in 2020, naturalisations increased sharply, likely related to the change in the Nationality Act allowing multiple citizenships. Increases were particularly strong among immigrants from Europe, North America and Oceania (Molstad and Naz, 2021[58]) who have little to gain from Norwegian citizenship but previously were generally required to relinquish their original nationality. A similar development has been documented based on a dual citizenship reform in Sweden (Peters and Vink, 2021[59]).

An amendment to the Social Services Act entered into force at the beginning of 2021, which sets language training as a condition for receiving financial assistance. It remains to be seen if this works as an incentive for immigrants to achieve a higher level of Norwegian language skills.

Foreign credential recognition and skills validation

Finding the right pathway for official credential recognition is complex

The socio‑economic gains from immigration depend largely on the extent to which immigrants can use their previously acquired skills in the new labour market. Having one’s foreign degrees formally recognised is associated with better jobs for the tertiary-educated, irrespective of migrant category and field of study (OECD/EU, 2014[45]). In Norway, as elsewhere, immigrants need to navigate a complex system to find the right body responsible for assessing and recognising their qualifications (Table 3.7).

The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) is a key actor (see Chapter 2). Among other responsibilities, NOKUT is the national agency responsible for assessing the level of foreign VET training, post-secondary vocational and higher education and training, and for providing information and advice related to the recognition of foreign education, training and vocational qualifications.

For higher education, NOKUT evaluates the status of the educational institution, the qualification in the country where the education was acquired, and the duration and level of the education programme. If the education programme is recognised as equivalent to higher education in Norway, NOKUT issues a decision, which states the duration of the education programme and to which academic degree a foreign degree is equivalent to in Norway, if relevant (bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD). The assessment does not say anything about the academic content of the education programme.

Norwegian universities and colleges can also recognise foreign higher education and assess the content of previous studies. In order to obtain an academic recognition, an immigrant must find an institution that offers an education as similar as possible to their education from abroad. The institution will assess whether the education led to the same qualification as the institution itself offers. Such academic recognition is most relevant for immigrants interested in further studies in Norway.

	Level of foreign education			Professional qualifications (academic discipline/subject)	Regulated professions
	Upper secondary education (Vg1 or Vg2)	Vocational training (trade / journeyman’s certificate)	Higher (vocational) education	Professional qualifications (academic discipline/subject)	Regulated professions
Responsibility	County (admission office)	NOKUT	NOKUT	Universities and colleges	17 different recognition authorities for professional qualifications (one of them NOKUT)
Requirement	Voluntary, but necessary to continue formal education in Norway	Voluntary but can be demanded by employers and support job applications.		Voluntary. Required to continue further studies at Norwegian university	Yes, mandatory for around 160 professions to practice in Norway
Costs	Depends, free if referred to by municipality or NAV	Free of charge, but translation of documents might be needed			Depending on the profession and if applicant is required to complete a compensation measure. For applicants with qualifications from outside of the EEA area, other costs might occur, such as a language skills test.

Source: OECD Secretariat based on data from official websites.

For most professions, no official recognition procedure is required before a person can start to work in Norway. However, for around 160 professions, the national law regulates specific qualifications and skills requirements. This is the case for example for nurses, teachers, and electricians. To be able to practice a regulated profession in Norway, qualifications must be formally recognised by one of 16 professional bodies. These include, for example, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, which is the authorisation authority for 29 occupational groups within the Norwegian health care system; the Directorate for Building Quality; and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Apart from its other responsibilities, NOKUT is the authority for professional recognition of teachers, as well as pre‑school educators. Since 2016, NOKUT is also responsible for assessing vocational education and training (Box 3.7).

For regulated professions, Norway has specific distinctions for EEA citizens with rights under the EEA Agreement and non-EEA citizens. Previous national evaluations have shown that it is often difficult for newcomers to navigate this system by themselves (Office of the Auditor General Norway, 2019[60]). However, it does not follow that the system is not working. In the most recent cross-national comparable data available, 11% of tertiary educated (ISCED 5‑8) immigrants in Norway identified the lack of recognition of their qualifications as an obstacle to finding a suitable job, while the share among medium-educated was 10% (Figure 3.16). This is at the lower end compared to other OECD countries and at a very similar level with comparable countries like Switzerland and Sweden.

Figure 3.16. Recognition of qualifications is no major obstacle for getting a suitable job in Norway

Box 3.7. The recognition scheme for vocational education and training

Currently, the recognition scheme for upper secondary vocational education and training comprises 19 Norwegian craft and journeyman’s certificates from five countries: Poland, Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The scheme was established with a focus on skills in high demand on the Norwegian market. Qualifications are compared to those awarded at Norwegian upper secondary schools in the same subject.

There are major differences in the case processing time between cases where countries and qualifications have not been previously assessed by NOKUT and cases where there is a precedent. For applications without a precedent, the case processing time in 2019 was 342 days, while for applications with a precedent it was 44 days. 614 cases were handled under this specialised system in 2019. Among these, 306 were approved and 322 rejected. Rejections are often due to applicants having an education at a different level than the scheme covers as well as challenges related to verification of submitted documentation.

Source: NOKUT annual report (2020[61]).

NOKUT offers several user-friendly and fast services

NOKUT’s services and educational assessment are free of charge apart from necessary translations of documents not provided in Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish or English. In addition, individuals do not have to reside in Norway to have their education level assessed and about 15% do so while still abroad.

In 2020, NOKUT required on average only 8 working days to finalise an application for higher education assessment, provided all documents were submitted, compared to 63 days in 2016. This is a strong acceleration of the process compared to previous years, despite receiving overall similar levels of applications (Figure 3.17). The average processing time, which includes waiting times due to missing documents of applicants, was 46 working days in 2020, down from its peak of 100 days in 2019. NOKUT reported a decrease in processing time as a result of improvements both technical (improved digital case system) and managerial (better routines and procedures for staff).

In 2020, about 90% of applications to NOKUT resulted in a positive outcome. The majority attested to the equivalence of a bachelor’s degree (52%), followed by a master’s degree (28%). A small share was assessed to be equivalent to a short cycle higher education ‘Høgskolekandidatgrad’ (6%) and at PhD level (2%). In addition, for several applications, the result was not a complete recognised degree, for example due to interrupted studies, but educational credits were recognised on a specific level (bachelor, master or PhD).

Figure 3.17. NOKUT has speed up its services over the past five years

For employers interested in hiring a foreign worker, but who need guidance on the degree held by the candidate, NOKUT also offers a fast-track assessment service (“turbo evaluation”) during the recruitment process. NOKUT makes this free‑of-charge evaluation within five working days. This evaluation is a guidance tool, not a legally binding decision. Between 2017 and 2019, NOKUT completed around 250 to 300 assessments for employers per year. The service does not include recognition for a regulated profession, which is subject to authorisation from the competent authority. NOKUT also offers a turbo assessment of the scope and level of foreign higher education for institutions considering admission of candidates to a PhD programme.

A specific scheme assesses diplomas for persons with so-called “non-verifiable documents”. This assessment involves professional testing and two professional experts from Norwegian universities. They look into subjects the applicant has studied and are consider whether it is probable that their education matches what is reported on the diploma.

Under the Lisbon Recognition Convention, Norway gives refugees and displaced persons the right to have their qualifications assessed, even in cases where all documentary evidence is missing. Two specific schemes assess diplomas for persons with so-called “non-verifiable documents”. The Recognition Procedure for Persons without Verifiable Documentation involves professional testing and two professional experts from Norwegian universities. They investigate subjects the applicant has studied and are consider whether it is probable that their education matches what is reported on the diploma. The resulting decision is legally binding. The other scheme is the NOKUT’s Qualifications Assessment. This is done via a structured interview, where NOKUT staff try to evaluate the higher education level of a person without certificates. Divided into the two schemes, NOKUT handles about 250‑300 of such cases per year.

The European Qualifications Passport for Refugees (EQPR) is also part of NOKUT’s recognition offering, in fact it was initially piloted by NOKUT in 2016. The passport maps and summarises a refugee’s education, qualifications, and work experience. The process involves a structured interview with an evaluator and an analysis of available documents.

Processes for regulated professions are complex and fragmented

Entry into regulated professions can be a long and complex process in most countries. Norway is no exception, and 16 separate authorities are charged with the process of professional certifications. For migrants, NOKUT collects the numbers of received applications from EU/EEA applicants but has no mandate to collect data from non-EU/EEA applicants. A regulatory change to allow for such data collection is pending, but currently, gathering of data regarding non-EU/EEA applicants is at the discretion of the individual recognition authority and thus not systematically available.

In 2019, 88% of applications for authorisation to practise in a regulated profession from EEA/EU migrants were addressed to the three largest recognition authorities: the Norwegian Directorate of Health, followed by the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority and the Norwegian Directorate of Civil Protection (DSB). Together these three authorities are also responsible for close to 80% of occupations. By contrast, eight of the 17 authorities received ten or fewer applications in 2019.

Over the years 2016‑19, close to 60% of decisions on recognition of professional qualifications in regulated professions for permanent establishment were for qualifications obtained in only three countries: Poland (26%), Denmark (18%) and Sweden (16%). While 92% of applications from Sweden and 95% of applications from Denmark received a positive decision, the share of positive recognition of qualifications from Poland was much lower at only 75% (European Commission, 2021[62]).

Alternative pathways for skills recognition exist but might not always reach migrants

A key issue surrounding skills is the assessment and mapping of non-formal and informal skills. Many OECD countries have established programmes to identify and use prior skills (Box 3.8). All adults in Norway with the right to primary and secondary education – regardless of immigration status – have the right to be assessed for prior learning. When the right to upper secondary education was implemented in 2000, a right to a so-called “real competence assessment” (Realkompetansevurdering) was also established. This includes assessment of competences a person has acquired through paid or unpaid work, continuing education, leisure activities in addition to formal education.

The real competence assessment consists of four steps. It first maps out the envisioned level of education relevant for the assessment. Typically the career centre in the county offers general information about prior learning and career guidance. The education sector, working life and voluntary sector can provide information for documenting skills. In a second step, prior learning can be documented in multiple ways. For instance, course certificates, visual proof of the applicant’s past work, a self-declaration or a certificate signed by a manager can all be considered as relevant documentation. In a third phase, the prior learning is assessed against the criteria of the curriculum at the education level the applicant targets. This can be done in dialogue or via a practical assessment during the execution of a task. This can also mean that the applicant is assessed against internal criteria at the workplace. In the fourth phase of the process, the applicant receives certification of the results of the assessment. Certified individuals may be exempted from parts of study in a vocational school, college or university and can use these certificates to show their approved skills (Skills Norway, 2020[63]).

The real competence assessment can provide admission to a vocational school as well as to colleges and universities without completion of upper secondary education in Norway. Candidates can also enrol in a higher-level programme, such as a master’s programme, based on the real competence assessment (Eurydice, 2021[64]). In 2017, in total over 5 000 adults applied to higher education based on validation of prior learning. Among them, 14% of applicants were foreign-born, 8% from the EU and 6% from other countries. The share of applicants assessed as qualified was highest among EU-citizens (83%), followed by Norwegians (48%) and citizens from other countries at 36%. Among those assessed as qualified, 94% of EU citizens were offered a place and 77% of citizens from other countries. The share among Norwegians who were offered a place after being assessed as qualified was somewhat lower at only 70% (Olsen et al., 2018[65]).

The municipalities are responsible for offering and carrying out prior learning assessments in relation to the curricula in primary and lower secondary school, while the counties are responsible for offering and carrying out prior learning assessment towards curricula in upper secondary education. The Directorate for Education provides templates and national guidelines for the assessment at these two different levels (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2021[66]). However, each institution or vocational school has its own rules for what qualifies as sufficient prior learning and skills for admission.

In addition to the real competence assessment, other pathways to receive a certified vocational competence at the upper secondary level exist. On a dedicated webpage, “The road to a trade certificate”, the Directorate for Higher Education and Skills describes in detail seven available pathways, including the traditional model with 1‑3 years each at a school and at a company, but also the option to take a trade exam after five years of work practise. This targets adults who have been working in an area for at least five years without having received formal recognition of their qualifications (Directorate for Higher Education and Skills, 2021[67]). Since 2018, other options to acquire a trade certificate have been developed, based on a mix of work practise in a company and additional training. Many allow applicants to sit a trade exam after four to five years, but data on the share of immigrants who take this option is not available. Other actors are working to map and use informal competences for employment in Norway. For instance, the Federation of Norwegian Enterprises (VIRKE) has recently developed a model called “A Balancing Act” that identifies and evaluates skills acquired at the workplace to create a unified skill standard that can be used, transferred and understood in a wider context. The model is aimed for employers and employees, but also for those working in career counselling and training.

In summary, many alternative pathways for skills recognition exist in Norway and while the initiative of many different stakeholders is positive, co‑ordination and information dissemination needs to keep up with these developments. What is more, a study of the assessment system of prior learning in education and working life suggest that local differences in the interpretation of legislation exist and as in other domains, much depends on individual case by case assessments. This set-up does not ensure that eligible immigrants are offered these pathways (Olsen et al., 2018[65]).

Box 3.8. Identification of prior skills of migrants across the OECD

Online portfolios map and store prior skills and future goals

In Denmark, the online competence portfolio (Min kompetencemappe) allows to create a systematic overview of their prior learning free of charge. Education institutions and employers also use the platform for performance reviews or planning their employees’ continuing education and training. At the international level, the EU Skills Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals to support the early-stage profiling of the qualifications and skills has the ambitious aim of ensuring that skills development, training and support for third-country nationals are effectively targeted and build on existing skills.

Informal skills can be included in search and matching tools

In Sweden, a specific job search and matching assistance programme (Equal Entry) identifies and matches newly arrived migrants with jobs, based on both formal and informal competencies. The programme consists of a broad mapping of job seekers experiences, interests, ambitions, contacts, work preferences, and skills acquired through jobs or hobbies. The officers conducting the mapping are trained to adapt the questions to job seekers who lack formal skills. They do so in a group setting, where heterogeneous groups of immigrants meet to broaden networks and share different perspectives. An equally thorough mapping is then done with employers to identify their demand. Here attention is given to finding employers who are committed to diversity and can hire the jobseekers for the long term. The programme is particularly effective in increasing the labour market participation of newly arrived female immigrants. A recent evaluation found that 37% of the women in the programme were employed or studying after the programme, compared to 27% in other, less individually focused programmes.

Video tests can assess practical work competences

To assess informal skills of migrants, Germany developed a computer-based identification tests in co‑operation with research institutes and employers’ associations. The tests rely on images and only few words to assess practical competencies in a wide number of occupations, including construction, pastry and meat industry, metalwork, social and health work, service sector, tree and transport industry and more. Candidates observe videos of standard tasks of the occupation and have to identify errors or put a sequence of tasks into the best order. The assessment takes around four hours and is done under the supervision of an expert. Testing is planned for around 30 professions and in six languages. Additionally, German employers are actively involved in the development of industry specific practical guidelines through vocational trade committees.

Source: (Danish Ministry of Children and Education, 2021[68]; European Commission, 2021[69]; Helgesson et al., 2020[70]).

References

[18] Andersson Joona, P. (2019), Labour Market Policies: What Works for Newly Arrived Immigrants?, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen K, https://doi.org/10.6027/Nord2019-024.

[50] Arendt, J. (2020), “Labor market effects of a work-first policy for refugees”, Journal of Population Economics 2020, pp. 1-28, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00148-020-00808-Z.

[48] Benigno, V., J. De Jong and A. Van Moere (2017), How long does it take to learn a language? Insights from research on language learning..

[9] Bratsberg, B., O. Raaum and K. Røed (2017), Immigrant Labor Market Integration across Admission Classes, http://www.iza.org (accessed on 11 February 2021).

[15] D’Amato, G. and S. Kurt (2021), “The Swiss Rationale of Integration Policies: Balancing Federalism, Consociationalism and Direct Democracy”, in Jochen, F. and J. Ruanto de la Fuente (eds.), “Local Integration of Migrants Policy : European Experiences and Challenges, Springer International Publishing.

[68] Danish Ministry of Children and Education (2021), Min kompetencemappe, http://www.minkompetencemappe.dk/#.

[67] Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (2021), The road to a trade certificate, https://veientilfagbrev.no/?alder=OVER_25&erfaring=HAR_ERFARING&vis_alternative=1 (accessed on 20 December 2021).

[7] Djuve, A. and H. Kavli (2018), “Refugee integration policy the Norwegian way – why good ideas fail and bad ideas prevail”, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, Vol. 25/1, pp. 25-42, https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258918807135.

[1] Djuve, A. et al. (2017), Introduksjonsprogram og norskopplæring. Hva virker – for hvem?, FAFO, http://www.fafo.no/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/item/introduksjonsprogram-og-norskopplaering (accessed on 14 April 2021).

[5] Dumont, J. et al. (2016), “How are refugees faring on the labour market in Europe?: a first evaluation based on the 2014 EU Labour Force Survey ad hoc module”, Working paper, No. 1, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=fr&pubId=7921&furtherPubs=yes.

[30] Eggebo, H. and A. Staver (2020), “Mer midlertidighet. Innvandringspolitikken etter asylforlike”, Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, Vol. 37/2, p. 125136, https://oda.oslomet.no/oda-xmlui/bitstream/handle/10642/9654/Mer%20midlertidighet%20Eggeb%c3%b8%20og%20Staver%20Akseptert%20versjon%20med%20fotnote.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 28 October 2021).

[52] Enehaug, H. and S. Widding (2013), Evaluering av prosjektet “Godt nok norsk”: Et opplæringsprosjekt for minoritetsspråklig helsepersonell i den kommunale pleie- og omsorgstjeneste, Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet, Oslo.

[25] Espegren, A. et al. (2019), “Samarbeid mellom offentlig, privat og frivillig sektor i gjennomføringen av introduksjonsprogrammet”, https://norceresearch.brage.unit.no/norceresearch-xmlui/handle/11250/2621198 (accessed on 26 October 2021).

[69] European Commission (2021), EU Skills Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1412.

[62] European Commission (2021), Regulated professions database: overall statistics for establishment, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/index.cfm (accessed on 6 October 2021).

[64] Eurydice (2021), Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning, Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/norway/validation-non-formal-and-informal-learning_en.

[29] Fedreheim, G. (2021), “En policystudie av et tiltal for a fa flyktinger hurtig i arbeid”, in Kane, A. and Ø. Spjelkavik (eds.), Arbeidsinkludering, læring og innovasjon i NAV, Orkana Akademisk, Stamsund.

[70] Helgesson, P. et al. (2020), Matchningsinsatser för personer som nyligen fått uppehållstillstånd – Delrapport från socialfondsprojektet Jämställd etablering, Arbetsförmedlingen analys 2020:3.

[2] Hernes, V. et al. (2019), Nordic integration and settlement policies for refugees: A comparative analysis of labour market integration outcomes.

[42] Hernes, V., A. Staver and M. Tønnessen (2020), Indikatorer for ny integreringslov, NIBR: Regionforskningsinstituttet.

[17] Hernes, V., A. Staver and K. Tronstad (2021), NIBR-rapport 2021:14. Evaluering av integreringspakke I og midlertidig lov.

[23] Hernes, V. and K. Tronstad (2014), Komparativ analyse av introduksjonsprogram i Norge, Sverige og Danmark, http://www.nibr.no.

[44] IMDI (2021), Tilskudd til klippekortordning for norskopplæring.

[20] IMDI (2020), “Forelrerveiledning till Deltakare i Introduksjonsprogram”, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/1b3942a8e79c4a568508de6c3418634c/horingsnotat-for- (accessed on 27 October 2021).

[36] IMDi (2021), How refugees get their municipality, https://www.imdi.no/planlegging-og-bosetting/bosettingsprosessen/ (accessed on 9 September 2021).

[40] IMDi (2021), Integration grants, http://www.imdi.no/tilskudd/tilskudd-2021/integreringstilskudd/.

[39] IMDi (2021), Settlement and municipal finances, http://www.imdi.no/planlegging-og-bosetting/kommunens-arbeid/bosetting-og-kommuneokonomi/ (accessed on 4 November 2021).

[24] IMDi and NAV (2021), “Veileder om samarbeid mellom kommunen og Arbeids- og velferdsetaten om introduksjonsprogrammet”, https://www.imdi.no/contentassets/f3421621db2840cd99f0b925c0212d0d/veileder-om-samarbeid-mellom-kommunen-og-arbeids--og-velferdsetaten-om-introduksjonsprogrammet.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2021).

[13] Joona Andersson, P., A. Wennemo Lanninger and M. Sundström (2015), Etableringsreformens första år – en första utvärdering, The Stockholm University Linnaeus Center for Integration Studies (SULCIS), Stockholm, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:822081/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2021).

[32] Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet (2017), Høringsnotat-endringer i utlendingsforskriften-krav om selvfor-sørgelse for rett til permanent oppholdstillatelse.

[33] Justis-Beredskapsdepartementet (2020), Endringer i Utlendingsforskriften - Unntak fra kravet om selvforsorgelse for rett til permanent oppholdstillatelse for voksne i grunnskole- eller vidaregaende opplaring mv, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/politisk-plattform/id2626036/ (accessed on 28 October 2021).

[56] Kavli, H. and R. Lillevik (2020), «Vi har nå holdt hjulene i gang» - Kommunenes integreringsarbeid under koronautbruddet, Fafo.

[34] Leirvik, M. and A. Staver (2019), Fag- og yrkesopplæring for voksne minoritetsspråklige – Hvordan inkludere flere flyktninger fra introduksjonsprogrammet?, NIBR, OsloMet.

[19] Lillevik, R. and G. Tyldum (2018), En mulighet for kvalifisering, Fafo-rapport 2018:35, http://www.fafo.no/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/item/en-mulighet-for-kvalifisering (accessed on 6 October 2021).

[12] Lunde, H. and J. Lysen (2020), Tidligere deltakere i introduksjonsordningen 2013-2017, Statistics Norway.

[11] Lu, Y., Y. Gure and M. Frenette (2020), The Long-term Labour Market Integration of Refugee Claimants Who Became Permanent Residents in Canada, http://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2020018-eng.htm (accessed on 22 October 2021).

[16] Mexi, M., P. Moreno Russi and E. Guzman (2021), “‘Fortress’ Switzerland? Challenges to Integrating Migrants, Refugees and Asylum-Seekers”, in Federico V., B. (ed.), Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ Integration in European Labour Markets, IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67284-3_11.

[58] Molstad, C. and G. Naz (2021), Sharp increase in number of naturalisations, http://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/innvandrere/statistikk/overgang-til-norsk-statsborgerskap/articles/sharp-increase-in-number-of-naturalisations (accessed on 6 October 2021).

[10] Müller, T., P. Pannatier and M. Viarengo (2022), “Labor Market Integration, Local Conditions and Inequalities”, https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9914.

[61] NOKUT (2020), The Year 2019, http://www.nokut.no/siteassets/om-nokut/arsrapporter-og-tildelingsbrev/2019/nokut_arsrapport_2019_eng.enkeltsider.pdf.

[4] Norwegian Ministries (2020), Immigration and Integration 2019-2020. Report for Norway to the OECD.

[53] Ødegård, A. and R. Andersen (2020), Norskkompetanse blant arbeidstakere født i utlandet 2. utgave, Faforeport 2020:27, http://www.fafo.no/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/item/norskkompetanse-blant-arbeidstakere-fodt-i-utlandet-2 (accessed on 6 October 2021).

[49] OECD (2021), Language Training for Adult Migrants, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02199d7f-en.

[35] OECD (2019), International Migration Outlook 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e35eec-en.

[71] OECD (2019), Ready to Help? Improving Resilience of Integration Systems for Refugees and other Vulnerable Migrants.

[41] OECD (2019), Ready to Help?: Improving Resilience of Integration Systems for Refugees and other Vulnerable Migrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311312-en.

[57] OECD (forthcoming), Making Integration Work: Introduction Measures for New Arrivals.

[45] OECD/EU (2014), Matching Economic Migration with Labour Market Needs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264216501-en.

[60] Office of the Auditor General Norway (2019), Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse om godkjenning av utdanning og yrkeskvalifikasjoner fra utlandet, Office of the Auditor General, http://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globalassets/rapporter/no-2018-2019/godkjenning_utenlandsk_utdanning.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2021).

[26] Office of the Auditor General Norway (2019), Undersøkelse av myndighetenes arbeid med å integrere innvandrere gjennom kvalifisering og arbeid, https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/rapporter-mappe/no-2019-2020/undersokelse-av-integrering-gjennom-arbeid/ (accessed on 27 October 2021).

[65] Olsen, D. et al. (2018), “Realkompetansevurdering: En studie av systemet for vurdering av realkompetanse i utdanning og arbeidsliv”, 179, https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/handle/11250/2502219.

[31] Omholdt, E. and F. Strøm (2014), Lavere inntekt blant innvandrere, Statistisk Sentralbyrå.

[21] Østby, L. (2002), “The demographic characteris-tics of immigrant population in Norway Statistisk sentralbyrå • Statistics Norway Oslo-Kongsvinger”.

[59] Peters, F. and M. Vink (2021), Heterogeneous effects of dual citizenship acceptance on immigrant naturalisation: Quasi-experimental evidence from two European policy reforms, Center for Open Science, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/skvfp.

[27] Pettersen, I. and M. Aure (2019), Alle vil at flyktninger skal komme fort i jobb – hvorfor er det likevel vanskelig?, Forskning.no, https://forskning.no/arbeid-innvandring-kronikk/alle-vil-at-flyktninger-skal-komme-fort-i-jobb--hvorfor-er-det-likevel-vanskelig/1312195 (accessed on 3 December 2021).

[28] Ramboll (2019), “Rapport Hurtigspor for Nyankomne Flyktninger”, https://www.imdi.no/contentassets/44537335b14c4381b93f00d598269429/hurtigspor.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2021).

[43] Rambøll Management Consulting (2021), Kartlegging av tilbud om språkopplæring og språktrening for voksne innvandrere i Norge og øvrige nordiske land.

[46] Randen, G. et al. (2018), Norskopplæring for voksne innvandrere - en kunnskapsoppsummering, Høgskolen i Innlandet.

[14] Riksrevisionen (2020), Uppföljning, https://www.riksrevisionen.se/rapporter/granskningsrapporter/2015/nyanlandas-etablering---ar-statens-insatser-effektiva/uppfoljning.html (accessed on 27 October 2021).

[51] Sandwall, K. (2013), Att hantera praktiken: Om sfi-studerandes mojligheter till interaktion och larande på praktikplatser, Gothenburgs university.

[47] Skills Norway (2021), Beskrivelse av norskprøvens oppbygning (A1–B2).

[63] Skills Norway (2020), Real competence assessment, http://www.kompetansenorge.no/realkompetanse/realkompetansevurdering/.

[54] Sønnesyn, J. (2015), Norsk på arbeidsplassen. Kartlegging av behovet for norsk-opplaering for arbeidsinnvandrere i byggenaeringen og industrien.

[6] Statistics Norway (2021), Tables shared with the OECD on immigrants and their labour market outcomes 2008 to 2020.

[38] Strøm, F. and J. Epland (2020), Monitor for sekundaerflytting. Sekundærflytting blant personer med flyktningbakgrunn bosatt i Norge 2007-2016, Statistics Norway.

[22] The Ombudsman (2014), LDO - 12/2423 Gender discrimination with an absolute five-year deadline for the right to Norwegian education, https://www.ldo.no/arkiv/klagesaker/2014/122423-Kjonnsdiskriminering-med-en-absolutt-femarsfrist-for-rett-til-norskopplaring/ (accessed on 5 October 2021).

[37] Tønnessen, M. and S. Andersen (2019), Bosettingskommune og integrering blant voksne flyktninger, Statistics Norway.

[3] Tronstad, K. (2019), Flyktninger i introduksjonsprogrammet er stort sett fornøyde - OsloMet, OsloMet, NIBR-rapport 2019:4, https://www.oslomet.no/forskning/forskningsnyheter/flyktninger-i-introduksjonsprogrammet-er-stort-sett-fornoeyde (accessed on 12 February 2021).

[8] Ugreninov, E. and L. Turner (2021), “Next to Nothing: The Impact of the Norwegian Introduction Programme on Female Immigrants’ Labour Market Inclusion”, Journal of Social Policy, pp. 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1017/s004727942100043x.

[55] University of Bergen (2021), Adult Acquisition of Norwegian as a second language (ALAN) | Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies | UiB, http://www.uib.no/en/lle/141815/adult-acquisition-norwegian-second-language-alan#research-questions (accessed on 6 October 2021).

[66] Utdanningsdirektoratet (2021), Realkompetansevurdering, http://www.udir.no/eksamen-og-prover/dokumentasjon/realkompetansevurdering/.

Note

← 1. The few refugee arrivals who do not participate in the NIP are six times more often recorded as out of the population only a few years after arrival, indicating that many may have left Norway already.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment