ReROOT Output

POLICY BRIEF (working paper)

Learning from Arrival Infrastructure

Place-based recommendations from the first stage of the ReROOT project: Arrival Infrastructures as Site of Integration for Recent Newcomers.

by Karel Arnaut, Mary Hogan, Carolien Lubberhuizen, George Papagiannitsis, Cornelia Tippel, Marhabo Saparova, Shila Anaraki, Charalampos Tsavdaroglou, Laura Guérin, Aïssatou Mbodj, Ilse van Liempt
About ReROOT
ReROOT is a Horizon2020 research project consisting of six universities, two research institutes, and two NGOS running from 2021-2025. The project uses ethnographic methods to study the challenges and opportunities migrants encounter on arrival in specific arrival situations in eight countries (Belgium, Turkey, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Greece, UK). It uses the lens of ‘arrival infrastructure’ - sources of shelter, support and resources that migrants utilise on arrival in a place. From informal social connections to formal support organisations; from public spaces to libraries, shops or health centres, ‘arrival infrastructure’ impacts on migrants’ pathways after arrival and affects how quickly and successfully they can achieve their goals, whether to settle or move on.
About the Policy Brief
In Europe, there is extensive political and societal debate about migration, including around successful ‘integration’ of migrant populations. In this brief, we talk about 'integration work', by which we mean any activity that contributes to the incorporation, inclusion or empowerment of migrant residents. We speak of 'integration workers' to describe those involved in these activities, although they may not be employed to do so. This policy brief offers initial insights from the project's research to support those working toward greater social inclusion of migrants. It provides concrete, bottom-up recommendations for those who seek to create enabling environments for migrants and those who work to support their arrival.

Findings

1. Gaps and lived know-how in arrival contexts

Through the study of arrival infrastructure in the nine sites, our researchers identified many instances of integration work that emerge to address gaps in existing services. Various formal and informal actors, including older arrivals, civil servants, activists, social and NGO workers, support the arrival processes of newcomers, in addition to (and sometimes in the absence of) formal reception systems [1a-1g]. In several sites, our researchers identified challenges to service provision based on a lack of cultural sensitivity on the grounds of language, religion, ethnicity, age, and gender diversity. In Kumkapi, for instance, lack of cultural sensitivity on the grounds of the gendered experience of employment within centralized arrival service provision, led to cases of newly arrived women being placed in unsafe working environments after which they sought placement through informal channels as the centralized path was unable to address their needs adequately. [1d] In addition, gaps can arise for example from lack of funds or capacity to meet newcomers' needs, from a limited understanding of newcomers' needs, or from laws and policies that inhibit the provision of services to certain migrant categories [1a]. This gap-filling work reveals barriers in service provision where people can fall through cracks. Gap-filling activities also reveal the importance of place-based and need-based approaches for addressing gaps and bring into focus the types of actors operating within arrival infrastructure that signpost, accompany, and channel newcomers along different arrival pathways.
Arrival-related integration work taking place outside or in addition to formal service provision is often indicative of gaps in the formal service provision that need to be addressed [1c]. In Nordstadt, arrival-related integration workers fill gaps where official services are insufficient or inaccessible, such as childcare, healthcare, and school placements. Bridging projects, grassroots initiatives funded by the city council or federal state, provide services like day-care for children without access to facilities or school enrolment, albeit on reduced terms compared to regular facilities[1a, 1c, 1e & 1f]. In Brussels, private hosting of unhoused asylum seekers addresses the gap created by overburdened or underperforming reception centres. Though this practice has been proven to be mutually beneficial for hosts and guests, it faces limitations regarding the vast number of people seeking shelter, the capacity (health, financial situation) of hosts and local regulations on private hosting [1a]. New arrivals in Istanbul facing complex and inconsistently documented reception processes, turn to commercial actors/brokers to expedite their cases [1a & 1b]:
Two new arrivals, single Ugandan women seeking residence in Turkey, frustrated with the constantly shifting and untransparent process for residence permit applications, linguistic and cultural barriers, followed the recommendation of peers and sought a local commercial broker to file their cases. Unbeknownst to them, they spent six to seven times the typical formal processing costs. (Kumkapi, 2022)
These are three examples of many from the research that point to instances where local actors often outside formal service provision has stepped in to address gaps or to offer services. Despite limitations (resources, policy support, exorbitant fees), the informal or temporary provision of these services indicates where formal service provision is failing to address the specific needs of arrivals.
Arrival related integration work benefits from actors who are either already embedded in arrival networks or have lived-experience navigating arrival-related services. In addressing challenges to service provision based on a lack of cultural sensitivity, local authorities in the Haspengouw/Westland site made noteworthy progress by actively forming coalitions with existing migrant networks formally and informally engaging in integration work to devise temporary solutions tailored to the unique concerns of the arrival context [1b]. In one instance this took the form of a mobile information bus staffed by 'oldcomers' with diverse labour-migrant backgrounds and language skills, which facilitated greater access to essential services for EU migrant workers through cooperation with municipal services, NGOs, labour unions, and migrant networks. Similarly, in Istanbul, a doctor in a private health clinic frequented by migrants and familiar with the challenges and aspirational trajectories of patients, often informally directs them to relevant services (mental health support, childcare, trusted migrant support associations) [1a & 1b].
These examples of integration work point to innovative ways frontline actors in collaboration with new and oldcomers not only provide much needed services, but also forge important connections, and build a life beyond bare necessity. Furthermore, at the EU level, they build upon and provide concrete instances of the 5th key principle of the Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027, ‘Maximising EU added value through multi-stakeholder partnerships’ [1g] which is stipulated as:
“Integration happens in every village, city and region where migrants live, work and go to school or to a sports club. The local level plays a key role in welcoming and guiding newcomers when they first arrive in their new country. In addition, civil society organisations, educational institutions, employers and socio-economic partners, social economy organisations, churches, religious and other philosophical communities, youth and students’ organisations, diaspora organisations as well as migrants themselves play a key role in achieving a truly effective and comprehensive integration policy.” (Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027, p7-8)
The above insights reveal numerous instances of integration work emerging to address gaps in formal service provision. Both formal and informal actors, including older arrivals, civil servants, activists, and NGO workers, channel newcomers through various arrival processes. Challenges to service provision stemmed from a lack of cultural sensitivity, insufficient funds or capacity, and restrictive policies inhibiting services to certain migrant categories. Findings highlight how local actors step in to fill gaps in childcare, healthcare, and housing, often outside formal service provision. These instances underscore the importance of place-based and needs-based approaches and the crucial role of multi-stakeholder partnerships in achieving effective integration policies. Therefore, the following recommendations consolidate our findings into seven key points focusing on reducing gaps, improving access to information, collaboration with frontline actors, cultural and diversity sensitive approaches, governmental and civil society collaboration, and bottom-up policy making.

Recommendations

Local actors
1a. Reduce the emergence of gaps, provide suitable public services with sufficient and adaptable capacities which are open and accessible to all
1b. Improve access to arrival-related information through embedding info points and service provisions targeting newcomers into existing arrival infrastructures.
1c. Develop arrival-addressing policies and strategies in close collaboration with organisations on-the-ground who know the situation very well and (in some cases) have already ‘tested’ arrival-related services.
1d. Ensure cultural sensitivity and diversity awareness when establishing services and information points, considering factors such as language, religion, ethnicity, age, and gender diversity.
Local governments & National governments
1e. Involve both governmental and civil society sectors in providing for new arrivals, utilising the strengths of each but ensuring that civil society actors are not overburdened.
1f. Embrace a bottom-up approach to policymaking, and regular dialogue with knowledgeable civil society organisations, to ensure policy and practice responds appropriately to conditions on the ground.
EU-Level
1g. Implement policies that emphasise the vital role of multi-stakeholder partnerships, including local communities, civil society organisations, educational institutions, employers, and migrants themselves, in achieving effective and comprehensive integration, as outlined in the Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027 (‘Maximising EU added value through multi-stakeholder partnerships’, p.7-8).

2. The Role of Labour Market Access

Policies preventing certain migrants from working are commonplace in Europe, yet these create challenges for employers, support organisations and migrants themselves in many of the arrival situations studied. This was evident in comparing the enabling policies adopted for Ukrainian refugees to the more restrictive policies applied to asylum seekers – for instance in the UK, asylum seekers cannot work or receive welfare benefits, while Ukrainians were given a status that allowed both. In the Greek case site of Karditsa & Katerini, the temporary protection status granted to Ukrainian newcomers provides a clear timeframe of 90 days, one-year validity with possibility of simplified renewal, legal residence in the country, work permit, and identification/certificate documents of the beneficiaries of temporary protection. In contrast, migrant groups without this status face uncertain waiting periods, differential renewal processes and work permit access [2a, 2c, & 2d]. These migrant groups can be an essential resource to local employers in the context of labour shortages, but when they lack the right to work it creates an insoluble dilemma, as a farmer in Greece recounted:
“I would like to hire them [the migrants] legally, I have tried in the past, but it was impossible. For me it is much better to have all my staff formally registered because I get a tax deduction, but I can’t. So, I am forced to break the law. Otherwise, my crop will remain in the fields, unsold”.
Workplaces, even volunteer work when formal participation is not possible, offer a chance to gain useful contacts, access information, develop local language skills and find out about wider opportunities, for instance from colleagues [2a & 2b]. Work also provides financial resources to afford transport to participate in other activities that build migrants’ social connections and prevent social exclusion [2e]. Lack of adequate financial resources can push migrants into destitution and force them to resort to exploitative or illegal work or trap them in abusive relationships.
The differential access to the labour market creates policy-induced inequalities and social exclusion amongst residents which local-level efforts to support social inclusion for all cannot effectively counteract [2c]. For instance, in London some undocumented parents are forced to live on financial support far lower than mainstream welfare standards because they are not permitted to work and support themselves. In Brussels, asylum seekers living in temporary shelter or on the street cannot work because they lack a permanent address, which creates a cycle of economic deprivation.
These forms of policy-induced social exclusion can make it harder for newcomers to support themselves, and more likely that small and often under-resourced individuals and organisations working to promote social inclusion and socially integrated communities will be unable to provide sufficient support for the demand they are faced with.
Finally, work provides a crucial source of value and purpose for many migrants, and barriers to work also waste the energy and skills they wish to share. For instance, an Albanian asylum seeker quoted at an event in Barking & Dagenham said:
It’s not that I don’t have dreams or goals. It’s just that I have lost hope for the future. Because not having the right to work is like not have the right to dream to become someone better for ourselves and for the others... a parasite in a city of 10 million at 22 years old with the capacity and the will to probably lead people someday but not having the right to get that.
At the EU level, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum (2023), regular migration related to labour as well as low-skilled migrants is given little priority [2e]. Rather, the Pact appears to prioritise only the `best and brightest´ migrants. Our findings and recommendations suggest widening the access to the labour market for new arrivals in recognition as was indicated by both A European Agenda On Migration (2015):
“The EU must continue to offer protection to those in need. It must also recognise that the skills needed for a vibrant economy cannot always immediately be found inside the EU labour market or will take time to develop. Migrants who have been legally admitted by Member States should not be faced with reluctance and obstruction – they should be given every assistance to integrate in their new communities. This should be seen as central to the values Europeans should be proud of and should project to partners worldwide.”( European Commission: A European agenda on migration, 2015, p7)
and MIPEX’s Labour Market Mobility (2021) study: targeted assistance is a significant area of deficiency in many countries. General services often lack the capacity to cater to the distinct requirements of individuals who have received education abroad or possess minimal education, as well as migrant women and young people.
In summary, the findings collected in this section emphasize the prevalence of policies in Europe restricting certain migrants from employment poses significant challenges for employers, support organizations, and the migrants themselves in various arrival scenarios. Employment serves as a vital avenue for building networks, accessing information, honing language skills, and discovering broader opportunities, yet policy-induced barriers perpetuate inequalities and social exclusion within local communities. These exclusions exacerbate difficulties for newcomers in self-sustainability while straining the resources of smaller organizations striving for social inclusion. Moreover, the denial of work not only deprives migrants of a sense of value and purpose but also hinders the utilization of their skills and energy. The following five recommendations build directly on these findings with regards to enabling workforce entry or interim alternatives such as volunteer work, reviewing existing policies blocking differential workforce access among migrant categories, reducing uncertainty, and providing targeted support for the inclusion of different groups via the labour market.

Recommendations

Local actors
2a. Support newly arrived migrants to enter the workforce
2b. Where formal participation in the workforce is not possible, enable access to volunteer opportunities that might provide linguistic exposure, new skills and networking advantages otherwise provided by work environments.
Local governments & National governments
2c. Review existing restrictions on the right to work for new migrants in certain categories, such as asylum seekers.
2d. Policies should seek to reduce the levels of uncertainty, regarding at least the simplification of the procedures for granting basic rights (work, health, education) to newcomers.
EU-Level
2e. Prioritise targeted support and invest in the integration of all migrant groups into the labour market to enable inclusive and equitable migration policies that maximise the potential contributions of all individuals, regardless of their background or skill level as already stipulated in European Commission: A European agenda on migration, 2015, p7.

3. The Role of Social Connections - Contacts shape pathways to inclusion or exclusion

Help and information from informal sources such as friends, family, landlords, and colleagues can unlock access to opportunities and help newcomers overcome common barriers. Across research sites, our researchers reveal how friends, solidarity initiatives-groups, schools, colleagues, landlords and family help arrivals find a job or place to stay, interpret, apply online on their behalf, or accompany them to help register for language lessons, childcare, school, and local health services. The following examples illustrate specific instances where access to social connection (or lack thereof) informed newcomers’ inclusion or exclusion in their arrival contexts.
In Nordstadt, isolated newcomers are often mothers (some with multiple children). Schools targeted them in various low-threshold ways [3a]. For example, as children are usually accompanied to the primary school by their parents, one school offered coffee and thus a very low-threshold option of getting in contact with other parents (mostly mothers) at the school gate. Another school aimed to bring together newcomers and people who have lived longer in the area. Mothers who had somehow settled could present themselves on a poster in the school including their language skills, help or willingness to have a chat. Newcomers could contact them to come in contact or get help in a shared language. The same school provided a so-called healthy breakfast for school kids. The breakfast was prepared by mothers in the school. Thus, the school aimed to bring together mothers. Likewise, schools often arranged specific German classes for parents including childcare, as lacking childcare is often hindering mothers from language classes.
In the London site, handholding, or accompaniment to initial engagement in ongoing activities, provides a sense of psychological security that boosts confidence in independent social activity participation [3a & 3c]. For instance, a Romanian mother had to rely on her children for everything from interpretation to applying for jobs and benefits, while the Armenian landlord of a Moldovan migrant had accompanied her to register for a doctor, and also helped her write letters and had called Inland Revenue to sort out a tax problem for her. Likewise, after a first accompaniment doing food distribution volunteer work, one Romanian woman forged social connections with older arrivals and improved her English.
Furthermore, our research in Paris reveals that "foyers" (hostels for male labour migrants in France since the 1950s) foster social connection across national, ethnic, and age boundaries. These connections play a crucial role in enhancing the foyers as an enabling arrival infrastructure. Foyer resources primarily offer accommodation and aid in navigating administrative and job market demands. Collective spaces, such as kitchens and meeting rooms, allow residents to form connections beyond kinship or shared origin. However, current renovation policies target these spaces, reducing their availability and limiting interaction in intermediary and exterior areas [3b & 3d].
Despite the many instances of social connections informing inclusion, many research participants were isolated, or had social networks that did not help them overcome any language, skills and know-how barriers [3a]. Even in provided housing, for example from employment agencies, migrant workers in Westland clearly express feelings of isolation in daily life, when even basic amenities become difficult, let alone services or resources necessary to overcome more serious problems, or to move away from precarious labour [3d]. One migrant worker from Latvia living in a migrant hotel complained:
But after work nothing to do. Nobody speak with me, walk somewhere. All weekends alone... It is very difficult to get somewhere without car. Walking 40 minutes to the Lidl.
For some, contacts with services were their only opportunity to access support or information, yet those services were not always designed, resourced or equipped to provide it. Signposting was of little to no use to those facing barriers of language, digital skills or know-how, and providing effective direct assistance extremely time consuming for minimally resourced support services and volunteer-based organisations [3c]. The quality of help depended on the knowledge and attitude of the front-facing individual, which could be particularly variable in volunteer-based services.
At the EU level [3e], we consider these insights building blocks and concrete examples of the application of the Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027, item 5.3, “Fostering participation and encounters with the host society”:
“Increased opportunities are provided for encounters and exchanges between migrants, EU citizens with a migrant background and local communities, including through art, culture, sport and social life in general.” (Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027, p21-22)
As evidenced above, support and guidance from informal sources like friends, family, landlords, and colleagues play a crucial role in facilitating newcomers' access to opportunities and overcoming common barriers. Our research across various sites underscores how these informal networks, including friends, solidarity initiatives-groups, schools, colleagues, landlords, and family members, greatly influence a newcomer’s ability to settle. The five recommendations below build on these findings with regard to multiplying social connection at the local level, reviewing policies that block social connection, enabling the intervention of Local Authorities supporting social connection through resource allocation, and through the implementation of EU level policy enhancing integration through social, cultural, and recreational activities.

Recommendations

Local actors
3a. Consider ways of supporting more isolated newcomers to multiply their social connections. This could include signposting such residents to group activities in their native language with a sensitivity to the barriers they may encounter (for example variable digital literacies, provision of childcare, transportation costs).
3b. Within housing dedicated to, or predominantly for, migrants, prioritize the existence of collective spaces (such as kitchens, common rooms, shared outdoor space) so that ordinary sociability can safely take place.
Local Governments & Local governments
3c. Offer funding to enable Local Authorities to support the building of social connections in areas with substantial numbers of new arrivals, particularly those who do not arrive with family, friends or a right to work.
3d. Review policies that impose social isolation on certain newcomers, such as policies preventing individuals from working or ‘warehousing’ newcomers in accommodation that offers no opportunities for social connection beyond others in the same isolated situation.
EU-Level
3e. Implement policies that enhance encounters and exchanges between migrants, EU citizens with a migrant background, and local communities, leveraging avenues such as art, culture, sport, and social activities, as outlined in the Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027 (section…).

Closing details:

Coordinator: Karel Arnaut, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, karel.arnaut@kuleuven.be
Funding programme: Research and Innovation Action
Duration: April 2021 – July 2025 (51 months).
Website: https://rerootproject.eu/
Social Media: @ReROOT_Project, ReROOT on Facebook, ReROOT LinkedIn, Newsletter
2024-04-29 10:06 Project Updates publications