EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This international literature review on refugee resettlement policy, completed November 2007, provides part of the information platform for progressing a multi-year, cross-departmental research project being led by the Department of Labour called "Refugees plus ten: perspectives on integration, identity and community". It also contributes to a Department of Labour-led review of aspects of refugee policy related to the resettlement of refugees.
2. This review relates to the OECD and the European Union (EU), with an emphasis on the UNHCR and the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States of America.

   Much of the literature refers to migrants in general, rather than specifically to refugees. In several countries provision for refugees is being extensively reviewed and reorganised, with new models of delivery being piloted and new contractual arrangements tested. This created challenges for the review.

3. The review refers to UNHCR Convention refugees, but excludes asylum seekers who are yet to have their claim determined. Convention refugees typically fall into one of seven categories:
   • legal and physical protection needs
   • medical needs
   • survivors of violence and torture
   • women at risk
   • family reunification
   • children and adolescents
   • elderly refugees.

   Most of the countries under review include these categories within their overall resettlement quotas (or, in the case of the United States and Canada, within their ceiling or target), usually with some scope for additional permits being granted on humanitarian grounds under the provisions of their immigration laws.

   With the family reunification category, countries allow family members to join their families over periods ranging from six months (Netherlands) to five years (Canada) following the refugee's arrival in the country of protection.

   Almost all countries choose refugees through selection visits; six, including New Zealand, also accept refugees through dossiers submitted by UNHCR. The three countries that do not accept dossier refugees - Canada, Australia and the United States - offer a sponsorship option.

4. Few countries articulate a rationale for their selection policy or the outcomes sought, beyond stating: the need and desire to provide protection for vulnerable people; the wish to see refugees become self-sufficient, contributing members of society as soon as possible; and the desire to ensure social harmony is maintained.
5. The criteria for selecting UNHCR quota refugees are similar across the countries under consideration. They typically include:
   • eligibility under legal criteria
   • family reunification and/or family connection
   • health or medical factors (individuals with communicable diseases or mental illnesses may be excluded)
   • good character (lack of criminal convictions and no security risk)
   • an ability to integrate, which may take into account education, language skills and "resourcefulness"
   • families over single people because it is easier to find accommodation for them.
6. The literature confirms that pre-arrival planning is needed for good quality resettlement. There is a consensus that central government has an important role to play in facilitating the reception of resettled refugees, including settlement by municipalities or local authorities where that is the strategy. A clear division of labour needs to be set out, and preparatory meetings, seminars and training undertaken to prepare and motivate those involved with the reception of resettled refugees. This will increase the likelihood that refugees move into a welcoming society.
7. Most countries deliver a pre-departure cultural orientation programme; a few, like New Zealand, offer a cultural orientation programme on arrival. Where and how training is carried out and what kind of cultural orientation curricula are used varies according to; the destination country, who is carrying out the training, the size of the quota, related costs and various other factors. It is not clear which strategy is most effective.
8. Most of the countries under review pay for the travel of refugees selected for resettlement; three countries provide travel through loans which refugees must repay. In the United States, a refugee is expected to begin repayment six months after arrival and repay the full amount within three-and-a-half years. Canada and Australia have more flexible arrangements.
9. In five of the countries under consideration, refugees were granted permanent residence on arrival or as soon as refugee status was approved in others, refugees had to wait up to five years. Requirements for citizenship were more stringent, ranging from two years in Australia to seven years in Norway.
10. Where refugees do not have family connections in the country, most countries try to link them with existing ethnic communities or to place them in locations where they will have opportunities to become established economically. Some, like Denmark, the Netherlands and the United States, place considerable emphasis on the needs of receiving communities. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are the only countries that do not have formal geographical dispersal strategies.
11. Careful planning of placement, and involving resettled refugees in placement decisions, is seen as essential. The first placement site is particularly critical as resettled refugees are more likely to need intensive formal and informal assistance at this time. In making such placements it is considered important to take into account factors such as:
    • presence of friends and relatives
    • aspirations and priorities
    • prior social conditions, eg refugees from a rural or urban background
    • employment skills and educational background
    • any special needs
    • language abilities
    • perceptions of safety.
12. Resettlement programmes have fared better where reception staff, support groups, and all the external agencies connected with resettlement have been well informed about who is arriving, when, and with what needs.
13. Common elements in a reception and resettlement service include individual case management, information to allow individual choice, co-ordination, integrated and flexible services and partnership.
14. Most countries have a mix of mainstream and contracted services. Where countries have state, provincial or municipal structures, responsibility for services is usually devolved to those levels, with some financial support from central government. Australia and the United Kingdom also provide services on a regional basis.
15. In most resettlement countries, dedicated integration programmes are time limited. While meeting immediate needs, they are generally delivered in ways that facilitate resettled refugees' early access to the resources and systems they need for their long-term settlement, such as permanent housing, employment, education and social support networks.
16. Most governments of resettlement countries recognise that resettled refugees will have special needs that extend beyond the reception phase, which are unlikely to be met by services provided to nationals. Examples include interpreting and translating services, counselling for survivors of trauma and torture, and language training programmes. Such programmes are generally funded (though not necessarily implemented) by central governments.
17. While there is a consensus internationally that economic self sufficiency is a pivotal goal of integration, there are significant differences in expectations about how soon after arrival this should be achieved, and about the importance of self sufficiency in the integration process. In this context, self sufficiency is defined as the capacity to live independently of government and other external sources of income support.
18. The literature identifies three principles for establishing roles and responsibilities:
    • the State must retain overall responsibility and accountability for the reception and integration of resettled refugees
    • all divisions of responsibility between central government, local government, NGOs and other entities should be clearly defined and set out in user-friendly documents easily accessible to the public
    • answers to the question "who is responsible for what?" should be readily available to refugees, service providers and the authorities.
19. Similarly, the literature shows that co-ordinating the implementation of integration has three aspects:
    • co-ordination across government or a whole-of-government approach
    • co-ordination between ministries that have a migration responsibility and between those and other ministries
    • consultation between government and other stakeholders at the national level.
20. The integration process should be actively supported by local and national authorities, employers and members of civil society, and should be based on a commitment to non-discrimination and gender equity. The promotion of a welcoming, tolerant and inclusive host community is seen as a key role for central government.
21. The review found little evidence of specific expectations of refugees. Most government documents refer to the need for migrants to share the values of the host society and to become economically self sufficient as soon as possible.
22. Monitoring and evaluation of resettlement processes occurs through performance measures in service contracts, audits, regular or one-off surveys and reviews, and analysis of statistical data. In some countries it is difficult to distinguish data for refugees from that for migrants in general.
23. Attempts to monitor outcomes for refugees have been hampered by definitional issues, difficulties in collecting data and difficulties in measuring important elements, such as the host community's receptiveness, the quality of inter-relationships between people, and people's sense of safety and belonging. There is a risk that countries will measure the factors that matter to the host community or the government and pay less attention to those that concern refugees.
24. Two models dominate countries' approaches to funding - government partnerships with NGOs and central/local government partnerships. The private sector appears to play no formal role in refugee resettlement in any of the countries reviewed, although the private sector may contribute to private sponsorship arrangements. Funding approaches reflect governance arrangements.