Mapping of Host-community/Refugee Relations
Creators: name: Irastorza, Nahikari
name: Ajduković, Dean
name: Kiralj, Jana
name: Tucker, Jason
name: MacDonagh, Peter
name: Creta, Sara
name: Murphy, Sile
name: Mackin, Martin
name: Bird, Martha
name: Boschma, Anouk
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: integration practice
integration
migration
policy
socio-economic factors
socio-psychological factors
FOCUS_H2020

description: This deliverable consists of five tasks which were designed to gain an in-depth and broad understanding of the state-of-the-art on research, policy and practice on integration of refugees and host community relations. This was undertaken to form a foundation upon which to build Work Packages focusing on the field work (WP 3 and 4), the development of a refugee and host community toolbox (WP5 and 6) and the dissemination of all of these (WP7). To achieve this, WP2 has been divided into five separate, though highly interrelated Tasks. This includes; Task 2.1. a state-of-the-art review of the literature and research on the socio-economic integration of refugees. Task 2.2. a state-of-the-art review of the literature and research on the socio-psychological integration of refugees. Task 2.3 Part I. a comparative analysis of integration policies in Croatia, Germany, Jordan and Sweden. Task 2.3 Part II. a qualitative study of professionals’ views on integration practices in Europe. Task 2.4 a state-of-the-art desk review, interviews with key informants and a workshop with practitioners on the tools and solutions for successful integration of refugees. Finally, Task 2.5, a state-of-the-art review on the flows and patterns of asylum migration from Syria to, and sometimes through, Croatia, Germany, Jordan and Sweden. The findings of these tasks showed the following. First, there are significant gaps in our knowledge about aspects of integration of refugees beyond labour market integration. This is especially apparent with regards to the understanding of socio-psychological integration. In addition, WP 2.4 also highlighted that practitioners noted that they were unable to keep up to date with the latest research on integration of refugees and that while general tools and solutions exist, they were often difficult to navigate and to implement on the ground in different contexts. Therefore, the challenge is not just to fill this knowledge gaps, but also to disseminate the findings in an impactful way to key stakeholders and end users. Our new understanding of these knowledge gaps has already been drawn on to shape the methodology of the field research (WP 3-4), I the hope of addressing them in part at least. The results of WP3-4 will, in turn, inform the development of the toolbox in WP 5-6, as will the engagement of end users with the research findings. Second, when looking at the integration policies of the four research sites, as well as the views on integration policies more generally by key actors in Europe, we can see there are shared approaches and foci. For example, how integration is understood, and the focus on achieving it by granting access to the labour market in all states, or more activity encouraging and facilitating this access (which can be seen in the European states and Jordan). While EU laws may have an impact here, as identified in WP 2.3 Part II, this is also a result of many organisations reliance on the EU’s AMIF funding, which key stakeholders and practitioners reported as having a significant impact on integration policy and practice. Finally, with the exception of a few cases in Sweden, most of the refugees from Syria have been issued temporary residence permits in the four states. While the nature and duration of these vary considerably, securing permanent residency requires that the refugee has ‘integrated’ to some degree (except in the case of Jordan where acquiring permanent residence is not possible). The demand of the three European states vary, but, for example, all require the refugee has either secured employment or has reached a certain level of language proficiency etc. In general, with the exception of Sweden (who mainstreamed migration in all state activities), there is a lack of state-run public awareness raising initiatives or activities to encourage the host community to fulfil their part of the integration process. Here the findings of WP 2.4 provide a valuable resource in reflecting on small- and large-scale integration policies and the tools that have been used to bridge this gap between the two communities.