Reception

The Finnish report (Ekholm, Magennis and Salmelin 2005) concluded that resettlement countries have adopted different models or approaches in according responsibility for the reception of resettled refugees. In some countries central government is the main player, whereas other countries employ a high degree of delegation to local or regional government authorities. This kind of delegation is used extensively in Scandinavian countries where local municipalities are vested with wide administrative and budgetary powers. In other countries the authorities "contract out" responsibility for reception and integration measures to NGOs and other entities. This practice is used in some of the larger resettlement countries, such as the US, Canada and Australia.

Ekholm, Magennis and Salmelin (2005) believe that one of the advantages of the "contracting out" model is that NGOs, citizens and communities are heavily involved in the reception of refugees. They also suggest that the Scandinavian model of delegation to municipalities has the advantage of ensuring, or at least increasing the likelihood, that refugees will receive services of equal quality in the different regions of the country.

Administrative arrangements

In some countries, municipal, state or provincial governments are engaged in implementation of refugee resettlement, with national governments assuming responsibility for funding, planning, co-ordination and monitoring. In such countries funding transfers between national and other levels of government are made for these purposes.

In others, responsibility for income support for nationals lies with state, provincial or municipal governments. These countries have more compelling reasons for involving these levels of government in income support programmes for resettled refugees than is the case in countries where both refugee selection and income support systems are administered by the central government.

In a number of the Nordic countries, for example, significant powers of governance are vested in municipal governments, making it possible to implement integration at a relatively local level. In contrast, in the US and Australia, responsibilities are divided primarily between federal and state governments, with local governments playing a less significant role.

Where there is devolution of case management services to local government, it is not always clear who is responsible for preparing, planning and monitoring individual case management plans.

NGOs

The extent to which non-government organisations (NGOs) are formally engaged in the integration process varies from country to country. In some, such as Norway, they play supplementary or advisory roles. In others, such as the US, NGOs are contracted to implement key aspects of integration, from the provision of reception services and early settlement support through to job placement and administering social support payments. Similarly, while in some countries volunteer and community support networks complement the role played by government, in others they are engaged through formal arrangements such as private sponsorship programmes (UNHCR 2002).

Refugee community organisations (RCOs)

Ethnic community groups and refugee community organisations have a substantial role to play in the integration of resettled refugees and other groups into national societies and local communities (Newland, Tanaka and Barker 2007).

Two papers (Carey-Wood 1997; Griffiths, Sigona and Zetter 2005) comment on the marginalisation of RCOs. In Britain this happens, in part, through the new institutional model involving regional consortia, NGOs and the private and voluntary sector. RCOs have only a secondary role within these arrangements as representatives of their particular communities, which makes it hard for them to access funding and build their capacity. They often provide valuable services in the short term however, such as providing support and assistance in using mainstream services or by providing alternative and complementary services.

As in other countries, funding is an issue. Newland, Tanaka and Barker (2007) note:

For most ethnic community-based organisations (ECBOs), government funding provides a significant portion of their operating budget, yet the inherent uncertainty of government funding means that to be financially sustainable, ECBOs should develop strategies to acquire funds from different sources. Not only does diversified funding ensure a more secure funding stream, it also allows ECBOs to add flexibility to their programmes. ORR grants, for instance, do not allow non-refugee immigrants or naturalised citizens to participate in programmes; other funders may not have such conditions. (Newland et al 2007:53)

At an international level there is also a lack of RCO representation and involvement in the development of refugee policy. In 2004 the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE 2005) noted that, out of its then 76 member agencies, not a single one was a refugee community organisation. It is hoped that international initiatives such as the "Strengthening the Participation of Refugees in European Policies and Programmes" (SHARE) project will assist the emergence and development of RCOs at national and international level (Ekholm, Magennis and Salmelin 2005).

Sector expectations of refugees

The review found little specific evidence and few examples of specific expectations of refugees. Most government documents referred to expectations of migrants in general rather than specific terms. A paper prepared for the EU (European Parliament 2007) notes that there has been a shift away from a focus on socio-economic issues for migrants towards a desire to establish shared values. The Netherlands, for example, has introduced the concept of "active citizenship", which is described as a contractual arrangement between the refugee and the government or municipality, under which a person who comes to live in the Netherlands has to take an active part in Dutch society. This means learning Dutch, obeying the laws of the country and respecting the liberties that are part of the Dutch heritage (Korac 2001).

Other countries express similar expectations but some, like the US, Australia and Canada, put an equal emphasis on refugees achieving economic self-sufficiency as soon as possible.

In the proposal for a planned project on refugee rights and responsibilities in the UK (ICAR 2006)[3], the authors consider the complexity of the situation. They point out that

The rights of refugees are also dependent upon their complex and often conflicting responsibilities. Refugees are torn in several directions when it comes to responsibilities, with obligations to, inter alia, their country of origin, the global diaspora and the new community often all needing to be satisfied. This places refugees in a unique predicament, particularly when compared to UK citizens, but also compared to other groups of migrants of migrants, and has implications for determining the civic rights of refugees, how refugees construct their identity and also for their social and economic integration.

A paper prepared on immigrant integration (Fix, Zimmerman and Passel 2001) raises a number of questions about expectations in relation to integration for immigrants in general. The authors ask:

• Over what time period should we expect to observe immigrant integration?
• What should we expect for the period immediately following entry?
• What should we expect over the parent or child's life course?
• When do lagged outcomes justify public intervention?

It also asks which benchmarks of progress should be measured, and whether immigrant families should be expected to reach parity with their US-born ethnic counterparts or with national averages.

Among the countries under review, only the Netherlands has introduced financial penalties for refugees who do not meet expectations in relation to integration. Those who do not participate in the introductory programme without good reason, or who move from one location to another without consent, may be penalised.

Contribution of the host community

Few of the countries under review set out specific roles for their host communities, beyond those already described for local authorities and contracted NGOs. The US and Canada articulate the expectation that integration and resettlement will occur through a partnership between receiving communities and government agencies.

As Singer and Wilson (2006) point out:

The US refugee program recognizes that metropolitan areas differ in their capacity to absorb refugees, particularly with regard to the labour market, housing, and the supply of immigrant and refugee-oriented organizations and services. Given the local variation, many nongovernmental organizations, including voluntary agencies, community-based organizations, and individuals, play leading roles in the process of incorporating refugees into US communities. In partnering with federal and state agencies, voluntary agencies are key in co-ordinating services to refugees. They raise their own funding and are responsible for locating volunteers and partners on the ground who provide local services, including helping refugees find housing, learn English, develop their US labour market skills, and find jobs. Thus, for newly arriving refugees who are not being reunited with family members, local non-profit organizations and a host of individuals on the ground are the most important integrating features of life in the United States.

There is considerable discussion in the literature of the part host communities can or should play in refugee resettlement. Penninx (2003) suggests that responsibility for integration rests not with one particular group, but rather with many actors - immigrants themselves, the host government, institutions and communities. In his view:

Since integration processes from the point of view of immigrants themselves are taking place at a local level, and since circumstances there may vary significantly, local policies for integration that build on active interaction between immigrants and local society should receive the highest priority. Such local policies should be given more tools and room to act in ways appropriate for the locality.

Local integration policy should follow strategies and tactics that engage partners in the integration process at different levels. It should combine "top-down" activation elements with "bottom-up" mobilization. It should define the process of integration as "open" within the rules of liberal democratic societies, leaving room for an outcome of a society that is more diverse, but still cohesive. The diversity achieved in this way is neither predetermined nor static, but negotiated, shared, and ever-changing.

A British review of evidence on successful approaches to integration at the community level (Spencer 2006) found that interventions that build bridges between individuals, groups and institutions include:

• Outreach by service providers to introduce themselves to migrants; for example by the police through "welcome packs", building confidence to encourage reporting of racist attacks.
• Introducing migrants to their neighbours, including faith-based outreach initiatives - engaging neighbours in the reception process, providing food parcels and welcome packs, and arranging joint community activities. Project evaluations show this can require continuity of purposeful engagement if tensions are not to re-emerge and can be effective within a broader initiative to foster civic participation and community development.
• Mentoring, befriending and hosting schemes in the community: these have been found in evaluation to be successful in promoting dialogue, building trust and facilitating engagement, which is beneficial for migrants but also leads to positive social outcomes. Further consideration is needed regarding the extent to which the positive outcomes for migrants and those directly involved in the scheme extend to communities as a whole. Good practice includes trained and police-checked volunteers spending time with newcomers and putting them in touch with local services and people, and induction mentoring in schools, in which the role of a designated member of staff to manage the induction process is identified as central to success. In other parts of Europe similar goals of interaction are pursued by sponsoring refugees' membership of social, cultural and sports clubs, thus forging relationships around a common interest.
• Volunteering by migrants, which has the same benefits but also creates more direct pathways to work and can contribute to positive media coverage.
• Conflict prevention and resolution: this includes initiatives like the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) Safe Communities Initiative, which provides guidance and brokers inter-agency co-operation in areas where tensions are high; training local people and newcomers to be community facilitators; and engaging newcomers in community development work that fosters engagement and belonging in all local residents.

According to Spencer:

This evidence suggests that bridges are built not by imposing the values of the majority on a minority but by tackling fears of change and by removing barriers to participation, helping individuals and communities to come together for a common purpose.

A press release from the Council of the European Union (2004) refers to migrants generally, and argues that

Frequent interaction between immigrants and Member State citizens is a fundamental mechanism for integration. Shared forums, inter-cultural dialogue, education about immigrants and immigrant cultures, and stimulating living conditions between immigrants and Member State citizens.

Ethnic community-based organisations (ECBOs) play an important role in the US as in other resettlement countries. A recent study (Newland, Tanaka and Barker 2007) described them as

excellent at identifying and responding to the diverse needs of refugees. Competent at delivering linguistically and culturally appropriate services, their staff members quickly come to earn the trust and respect of the refugees they serve. But ECBOs differ from mainstream service providers in that their role goes beyond the normal provision of services. Not only do they help refugees integrate in the short term by offering immediate assistance finding employment or filing legal documents with the government, they also offer creative programs that contribute to medium- and long-term integration.

As a vital player in refugee integration, ECBOs take on five major roles by acting as:

• service providers to refugees based on funded and unfunded (volunteer-based) programmes that, for example, help refugees learn English, apply for welfare benefits, or find employment
• civic and political representatives of refugee populations by advocating for their interests, priorities and concerns
• community centres, by planning festivals, events and activities for people of all ages, ethnicities and nationalities
• intermediaries between refugees and the government (federal, state and local) as well as the larger community (universities, schools, public libraries, resettlement agencies, etc)
• partners with other stakeholders in refugee integration, such as government, voluntary resettlement agencies and other private and public community institutions.

5. Resettlement approaches

For all migrants, whether they are refugees or not, settlement occurs in three stages: pre-settlement, on arrival or initial settlement, and post settlement. Because of their circumstances and recent experiences refugees may take longer than other migrants to pass through the three stages. Many settlement or integration strategies recognise this through the provision of specific services and extra support for refugees. It is also important to note that refugees are, in most cases, being resettled in a country of safety rather than settling in a country of their choice.

As noted above, some refugees arrive in a country as asylum seekers and apply for and are granted refugee status, others are selected as refugees under a UNHCR quota programme. It is not always clear from the literature how those in the first category access support services once they are granted refugee status. It appears from the literature that they are entitled to the same resettlement support as quota refugees but do not receive the same orientation programmes.

The goals

The UNHCR sets out nine goals of resettlement and integration for refugees. These are:

• to restore security, control and social and economic independence by meeting basic needs, facilitating communication and fostering the understanding of the receiving society
• to promote the capacity to rebuild a positive future in the receiving society
• to promote family reunification and restore supportive relationships within families
• to promote connections with volunteers and professionals able to provide support
• to restore confidence in political systems and institutions and to reinforce the concept of human rights and the rule of law
• to promote cultural and religious integrity and to restore attachments to, and promote participation in, community, social, cultural and economic systems by valuing diversity
• to counter racism, discrimination and xenophobia and build welcoming and hospitable communities
• to support the development of strong, cohesive refugee communities and credible refugee leadership
• to foster conditions that support the integration potential of all resettled refugees UNHCR (2002).

The Refugee Council (2004a) in Britain cites principles fundamental to integration. These principles are in addition to those that apply to migrants generally. The paper argues that integration is multi-faceted and should seek to create conditions for participation in all aspects of the economic, social, cultural, civil and political life of the country of asylum. It should also bestow a sense of belonging and membership in the host society.

The Council considers the following principles as fundamental to integration:

• An inclusive and welcoming society is key to the successful integration of refugees. Political leaders should set the tone in public debate and, in particular, work to counteract misinformation intended to create fear and mistrust of refugees.
• The integration process must begin at the point of arrival. It cannot be deferred until leave to remain is granted; the asylum process can itself take many months if not years.
• Refugee integration measures should include approved asylum seekers as well as refugees.
• Responsibility for funding and co-ordinating refugee integration lies with national, regional and local government and related agencies. The voluntary and refugee community sectors also have a significant role to play.
• Ultimately, services to refugees should be delivered through mainstream frameworks. But in some cases specialist provision may be required. For example, health services for refugees as victims of torture and trauma may be delivered most appropriately as a specialist provision. In other cases specialist provision may be necessary to act as a bridge to the mainstream service.
• Refugees must be fully involved in developing and delivering integration strategies. The voluntary sector can help facilitate this by providing opportunities for refugee communities and organisations to represent their interests to service providers and decision makers.
• Refugees are a diverse group. For example, our experience shows that unaccompanied refugee children, and those with other special needs, including women and survivors of rape and torture, are likely to require specific attention in policy development, service design and delivery.
• Refugee integration requires co-ordination. The elements of integration set out in this agenda are interrelated. For example, without secure and sustainable accommodation, labour market access can be impeded and vice versa. Such interdependence requires joined up policy and delivery and co-ordination across central and local government and other sectors.

The way different countries put these principles into practice varies depending on the social, political and economic context. The differences are demonstrated in the availability of existing services and programme infrastructure to support integration, as well as the level of non-government and community sector involvement in planning and service delivery, government structures and arrangements and the level of economic capacity to support integration (UNHCR 2002).

Pre-arrival planning for quota refugees

A Finnish report (Ekholm, Magennis and Salmelin 2005) argues that considerable pre-arrival planning is needed for good quality resettlement. The authors suggest 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. In their view, a clear division of labour needs to be set out, and preparatory meetings, seminars and training events undertaken to prepare and motivate those involved in the reception of resettled refugees. This will increase the likelihood that refugees come into a welcoming society.

When a municipality or local authority is receiving refugees for the first time, both training and information are needed. In many resettlement countries, special training programmes for receiving local authorities are provided. Such programmes usually involve: information concerning the situation in the refugees' country of origin; the culture of the refugee group in question; the psychosocial process of integration and the social, healthcare and educational services connected with the reception of resettled refugees.

Table 4 Pre-arrival planning and orientation

Orientation programmes

Pre-arrival programmes

Ekholm, Magennis and Salmelin (2005) point out that refugees resettled in countries with different cultures, traditions and practices to their own can obviously encounter problems adjusting to their new environment. This is normal for anyone lacking the necessary information and orientation required for such a move. Refugees accepted for resettlement often come straight out of refugee camps and sometimes have little, if any, knowledge of the societal and economic practices of western countries. Most will likely have unrealistic and perhaps inaccurate expectations of life in their new country. These expectations will not only cause added distress to the newcomers upon their arrival; they will also cause stress to the social services of the host community as it works to help the newcomers adjust, and may cause tensions between the newcomers and the receiving communities.

The provision of pre-departure cultural orientation reduces these stress factors by presenting a realistic picture of what awaits the newcomers, by providing them with coping mechanisms to deal with the unfamiliar, and by helping shape attitudes towards life in their new community. Pre-departure orientation sessions help newcomers to become self-sufficient, contributing members of society.

Countries conduct cultural orientation training sessions in a number of ways. Some subcontract the training to the International Organization for Migration (IOM)[4], while other countries send their own delegations to the country of asylum or use locally based diplomatic staff. The IOM provides cultural orientation services for a number of countries, including Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway and the US, and currently targets several tens of thousands of participants every year spread over 30 countries of origin or transit. Despite variations in training approaches and curriculum content the IOM considers that several broad themes are shared and applicable throughout the cultural orientation process. These can be summarised into three cultural orientation objectives:

• to provide participants with factual information about the country of destination
• to assist them develop skills needed to succeed in their new environment, eg how to get a job, how to access health care facilities
• to explore attitudes necessary for successful integration, eg flexibility, open mindedness, initiative and self-reliance. Cultural orientation empowers participants to adapt more rapidly and successfully to the day-to-day demands of any new environment (Ekholm, Magennis and Salmelin 2005).

On-arrival programmes

Most countries focus on pre-departure cultural orientation. Others, like the Netherlands and New Zealand, provide cultural orientation on arrival. The support provided by countries on arrival ranges from information (UK) through 30 days or six weeks' orientation and support (US and NZ) to two- and three-year orientation programmes (Norway and Denmark).

Where and how training is carried out and what kind of cultural orientation curricula is used varies according to; the destination country, who is carrying out the training, the size of the quota, related costs and various other factors.

Travel costs

While 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 US, 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 flexible arrangements, although in Canada refugees who remain in arrears cannot receive tax refunds, bring in family members under the family reunification programme or get a travel document. In Canada, the Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration (CIC 2006a) states that:

Loan collection will be managed with due diligence to maintain the strong recovery rate for repayment - currently at 91%.

In both Canada and the US transport loans are part of a revolving fund - repayments are used to fund the travel of incoming refugees.

In Australia, the requirement that refugees or their proposers pay for travel under the Special Humanitarian Assistance (SHP) Programme has caused some concern. A submission by the NSW Government (2006) raises concerns about the capacity of many proposers under the SHP to provide adequate assistance to new humanitarian arrivals, which leads to many new arrivals entering into high levels of debt to meet these resettlement costs. The 2007 Federal Budget included increased funding to establish minimum requirements for people seeking to propose people under the SHP. These are intended to ensure proposers understand their obligations and have the capacity to support entrants on arrival. Van Selm (2003) has summarised the pros and cons of the two approaches to paying for refugee travel.

A recent report from the Annual Tri-Partite Consultations on Resettlement (UNHCR 2006) recommended that resettlement countries cover all costs associated with refugee travel for resettlement. These costs should include travel to the international airport and outbound transit, but should not normally include unforeseen medical or protection interventions that might arise during movement in the country of refuge.

Status

Legal-political status is an important dimension of integration and resettlement for refugees. In five of the countries under consideration, refugees were granted permanent residence on arrival or as soon as refugee status was granted; 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.

The European Union has recently adopted a directive that requires member states to guarantee a series of rights for persons qualifying for refugee status or subsidiary protection status (Kate and Niessen 2007). The rights for those qualifying for refugee status include:

• Residence: entitled to a residence permit valid for at least three years and renewable unless compelling reasons of national security or public order exist.
• Security of status: member states are to revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status if they cease to meet the definition of a refugee. This broadly reflects the provision in the Geneva Convention, with one notable exception. It does not include the humanitarian principle that prevents cessation being applied to refugees who can invoke compelling reasons, arising out of previous persecution, for refusing to avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality.
• Family unity: member states are to ensure that family unity can be maintained. However, the right of family members to enjoy the benefits contained in the directive is qualified by national procedures and the personal legal status of the family member. Member states may also extend more favourable provisions by including other close relatives who lived together as part of the family at the time of leaving the country of origin, and who were wholly or mainly dependent on the beneficiary of refugee status at that time.

The information available indicates that most of the countries reviewed meet the requirements set out by and for European Union countries. In two European countries, Norway and Denmark, refugees receive a residence permit that is only valid for one year but in both cases it is renewable. In the US they receive a temporary residence permit, but this can be made permanent after a year.

Geographical dispersal approaches

Where refugees do not have family connections already living 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 US, place particular emphasis on the needs of receiving communities and their ability to cope.

According to the UNHCR (2002), the challenge in placement is to ensure there is an appropriate match between the needs of resettled refugees and resources available in the receiving community. In the longer term, resettled refugees may choose to move in search of employment or housing and social conditions which better meet their needs.

Careful planning of placement and involving resettled refugees in placement decisions can help to ensure that refugees start out with the best prospects. The Handbook for Refugee Resettlement (UNHCR 2002) suggests that refugees can be included in placement decisions through the provision of comprehensive information on possible destinations, and gaining a better understanding of their priorities and expectations. This can be done prior to arrival and in the early stages after arrival.

The first placement site is particularly critical since this is a time when resettled refugees are more likely to need intensive formal and informal assistance. In making such placements it is important to take into account factors such as:

• the presence of friends and relatives
• aspirations and priorities
• prior social conditions - eg refugees coming from a rural or urban background
• employment skills and educational background
• any special needs
• language abilities
• perceptions of safety (UNHCR 2002).

Secondary migration

If refugees are placed in communities where they are unable to secure basic resources required for integration, they may be compelled to move soon after arrival. Experience suggests that this process, known as "secondary migration", frequently results in significant long-term improvements in the overall health and wellbeing and employment prospects of resettled refugees. Nevertheless, if it occurs too early in the settlement period it can also be disruptive, a particular concern for a population whose recent life experience has been characterised by dislocation and displacement. Early secondary migration also involves considerable costs for resettled refugees, such as transport and household establishment expenses, at a time when they are likely to be in receipt of a low or fixed income.

High rates of secondary migration in the early period of resettlement may also be problematic for receiving communities, involving both direct and indirect costs and creating planning dilemmas for communities receiving large numbers of secondary migrants. Inappropriate placement decisions leading to high levels of early secondary migration can also lead to a loss of community and official support for refugee resettlement in the primary site, in other communities and at governmental level.

Placement or clustering

Robinson (2003) is a British academic who has reviewed the literature on UK resettlement policy since 1945. He concludes that individual dispersal policies have largely failed. Clustering new arrivals, on the other hand, has been relatively successful. This is particularly the case where the location of a cluster is systematic and based on a wide set of variables chosen because of their connection to successful integration and employment in particular. Successful programmes have tended to locate new resettlement clusters near to pre-existing communities, and where there is local support for their presence, either from local people or from local people of the same ethnic or religious group or who share the same political beliefs.

According to Robinson, the more successful programmes have had an explicit commitment to medium and long-term support that aims to facilitate both integration and community development.

6. Approaches to service provision

The Canadians have developed a model for service delivery to newcomers, including refugees. The key elements in the model are individual case management, individual choice, co-ordination, integrated and flexible services, and partnership.

According to the model, a service-delivery system should offer the following features:

• Needs-based - the delivery system will be designed, funded and delivered based on the needs of immigrants (individually and as a family unit).
• Pathway approach - the system will deliver services to newcomers along the full settlement pathway from pre-arrival, arrival and ongoing. It will incorporate a diagnostic and case-management approach so each newcomer's pathway is assessed and tailored to his/her evolving circumstances and he/she is provided with guidance on the path.
• Goal oriented - the system will be goal oriented. Newcomers' needs and expectations will be assessed and a goal-oriented plan prepared and adjusted over time to fit individual circumstances with regular updates on progress toward personal targets.
• Personal service - immigrants will be provided with opportunities to make personal connections with service providers and other organisations, Canadian officials, Canadian citizens and others (as appropriate) before and after they arrive in Canada.
• Choice - newcomers will be able to access the services of their choice, in the language of their choice, when and in the manner that is best for them.
• Central assessment and referral - a 'one-stop shop' for information, assessment and referral services will be available to newcomers on arrival.
• Co-ordinated and integrated delivery system - within a community, service provider organisations will co-ordinate their interests and services through an agreed-on co-ordinating model.
• Local delivery - the delivery system will be characterised by local delivery of services, allowing newcomers to access services in their own communities. Local delivery will be supported by the central information, assessment and referral hub mentioned above.
• Flexible - in order to provide needs-based services over time, the system must be flexible enough to change as newcomers' needs change. Thus it must be supported by funding mechanisms that are flexible, long-term and outcome oriented. And, it must be characterised by strong communication and integration among government, service providers and mainstream services.
• Happy settlement workers - one of the foundations of a successful delivery system is well-trained and appropriately compensated settlement workers.
• Partnerships - the government role in the future delivery system is critical but its role must be performed in concert with other players (other governments and government departments, other service provider organisations, mainstream services, employers, ethnic communities, etc).
• Accountability and continuous learning - the delivery system will be held accountable for its success using an outcome-oriented measurement process, collaboration and immigrants' needs as the basis.
• Information as the foundation - successful settlement and a good delivery system will be supported by current, accurate and complete information. Participants envision information that is provided to newcomers in a variety of formats so immigrants can choose the method most useful to them at a particular time, and can access general information and/or specific information relevant to them at a particular time (CIC 2006).

Reception and initial settlement services

Reception services vary from country to country. New Zealand provides initial services at a reception centre before refugees disperse to their host communities, where they receive ongoing support. In other countries, such as Norway, refugees disperse immediately to their host communities and receive all their support services through the local municipality. In most countries, including New Zealand, Australia and Canada, the responsibility for providing support is contracted to NGOs or sponsoring agencies.

Table 8 below summarises the ways in which countries handle reception and the initial phase of resettlement. Where countries offer case management, the available information does not always provide detail about its precise nature or how long it lasts.

Table 8 Elements in a reception servic

Refugee specific compared with mainstream services

Countries of resettlement have the common goal of supporting refugees to achieve independence in the receiving society, to assume the same rights and responsibilities as nationals, and to have access to the same range and quality of services and programmes.

However, they recognise that in the early settlement period most refugees will require a period of targeted and more intensive support. Typically this includes reception accommodation, early assessment and settlement support, orientation and basic health care, as well as income support until resettled refugees become self sufficient. Some countries provide this support through separate and special programmes for refugees and immigrants (such as designated reception centres). Increasingly, according to the UNHCR (2002), countries are recognising that integration is more likely to succeed if resettled refugees are assisted as soon as possible through mainstream systems and networks in the receiving society. The beliefs underpinning this approach are that it

• fosters contact between resettled refugees and receiving communities
• helps to avoid the dependency that separate services and programs may engender
• ensures that resettled refugees have access to the same quality of services available to nationals.

Norway, the US and the UK, for example, all have a strong philosophical commitment to mainstreaming support for refugees as early as possible.

This section discusses dedicated introductory programmes, targeted services and the length of time refugees are eligible for specialist services. The broad picture is set out in Table 9 below.

¹ Applies to all foreign citizens coming to Denmark

Dedicated introduction programmes

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. Among the countries under review, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are exceptions to this general trend in that they offer relatively long introductory programmes - three, two and two years respectively. These mostly focus on language acquisition and employment. In the case of Denmark and Norway, the time spent in the programme is based on individual plans and needs. The programmes in Denmark and the Netherlands are mandatory. The initial six-week orientation programme in New Zealand is also mandatory. There has been some criticism of the Dutch model, with some refugees believing their integration was delayed by a prolonged stay in a reception centre (six months or more), followed by a lengthy introductory programme (Korac 2003).

In Denmark and the Netherlands the completion of an introductory programme is a compulsory component of eligibility for citizenship. Non-completion may also affect access to social and welfare benefits. This requirement also applies to family members.

In a paper prepared for the EU, Carrera (2006) is critical of this move, commenting that:

In Member States where a nationwide juridical framework on integration does exist, there is a trend towards conceiving integration as an obligation in order to be included and to have access to the different societal dimensions of the receiving State. The mandatory character of integration is becoming a one-way process by which the responsibilities are placed exclusively on the immigrant.

His views on the pros and cons of such a move are summarised in Table 10 below.

Targeted services

Most resettlement governments recognise that resettled refugees will have some special needs extending 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 national governments (UNHCR 2002). The services provided in each country are summarised in Table 10 above. They are generally available to all refugees who have been granted refugee status, regardless of how they came to that point, but are rarely available to asylum seekers.

Targeted services are sensitive to the specific circumstances even of small groups. They respond quickly as needs arise, and they are flexible in the way they are implemented. The Handbook for Integration II (Niessen and Schibel 2007) suggests that the emergence of targeted services, often provided by NGOs and self-help organisations of immigrants or refugees, is one of the clearest indicators of unmet needs. The authors discuss a number of aspects of targeted versus mainstream services as set out below.

Balancing targeted and mainstream services

Once mainstream providers become aware of service gaps, the challenge is to find a good balance between targeted services and general ones. Niessen and Schibel (2007) suggest that a clear division of roles and tasks can help to avoid service overlaps and lack of co-ordination. They believe it is important to consider timing, numbers and capacity in developing a successful mainstreaming strategy that complements targeted services.

Timing

The first period after arrival is typically the time when immigrants and refugees are most likely to require specific programmes. Targeted measures such as language courses for newcomers and introduction programmes are likely to play an important role in policy towards immigrants and refugees. However, general services are not unaffected, as newcomers will equally use "mainstream" services such as hospitals. Niessen and Schibel (2007) argue that recent immigration countries can benefit from making an early start with mainstreaming efforts, so that mainstream services are well prepared to meet demand. Specific programmes can successfully address certain problems in the short term but in the longer term such problems can be tackled by general programmes.

Numbers

According to Niessen and Schibel (2007), numbers are important in deciding to what extent existing services should be modified. Should an organisation change significantly to accommodate a small group of immigrants or refugees with very specific needs (for instance members of a language group which is very small in the host country or local area)? Maybe targeted measures could be developed instead. These measures could then be fully responsive to the needs of the group, rather than settling for a perhaps unsatisfactory compromise. On the other hand, where a change is of great importance for a large number of migrants, the mainstream provider should make a considerable effort to bring it about.

Capacity

The final point discussed by Niessen and Schibel (2007) is capacity and competence. They see these as key considerations when deciding whether to use more general or more specific measures. From an institutional perspective, mainstream institutions (eg public schools, welfare offices, job training centres) offer advantages: They

• typically have comparatively deep institutional capacity
• have developed bureaucratic structures (accounting, personnel offices and the like)
• are often bound by established due process norms and procedures that can limit arbitrariness
• frequently have developed political constituencies.

At the same time they may not have the cultural and linguistic knowledge of immigrants, refugees and their communities. They may be less responsive to refugees' needs, and less able to combine needed services than institutions that are more closely identified with the immigrant communities.

Self-sufficiency goals and specialist support services

Self-sufficiency goals

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.

A number of factors influence self-sufficiency goals, including

• prevailing views about the role of employment in the overall integration process
• unemployment levels (with economic self sufficiency being an unrealistic goal in countries with high unemployment)
• expectations of economic self sufficiency among nationals
• the capacity of the resettlement country to provide income support until self sufficiency has been achieved.

In some countries resettled refugees are expected to obtain employment very soon after arrival, with income support payments being available for only a limited time. In others, income support and other safety net services are available for longer, allowing resettled refugees to accomplish other resettlement tasks before entering the work force.

Some countries do not set specific self-sufficiency goals. Rather, resettled refugees are subject to the same expectations and requirements as nationals. In these countries, however, specific strategies may be used to ensure that the special needs of refugees are taken into account in assessing their eligibility for income and job placement support.

In the countries under consideration, self-sufficiency goals vary from eight months in the USA to between two and five years in the Nordic resettlement countries.

From a planning perspective, it is important to clarify self-sufficiency goals, since they influence both the level of resources required for integration as well as how other critical components of an integration programme are delivered. Where refugee resettlement is implemented at the municipal, provincial or state level with funding from a central government, self-sufficiency goals provide the basis for determining funding levels and regularising funding arrangements between tiers of government (particularly in relation to social support payments).

Timing and length of time of specialist support services

Allied to the question of economic self sufficiency are questions concerning the level of support resettled refugees require to integrate successfully. There is a clear international consensus that dedicated support in the early reception phase is a critical component of an integration programme. However, very different approaches can be distinguished internationally regarding the role of intensive support in meeting longer term integration goals. In some countries, integration is largely the responsibility of resettled refugees themselves, being achieved primarily through the vehicle of economic self sufficiency. In these countries very few specialised services are available to refugees following a brief initial reception phase.

In others, however, integration is thought to be best facilitated by offering resettled refugees relatively intensive support in the early resettlement period, to overcome the negative impact of their refugee experiences and to prepare them for participation in the receiving society. While the range of programmes offered varies between countries, they may include subsidised housing, intensive orientation, health care, language training programmes and opportunities to participate in education and training.

7. Approaches to funding

Funding mechanisms

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 or sponsor events to promote tolerance and inclusiveness among host communities.

Most countries have a mix of mainstream and contracted services, and funding approaches reflect governance arrangements. Where countries have state, provincial or municipal structures, responsibility for services is usually devolved to those levels, with some central government financial support. The strong tradition of local government service delivery in the UK, for example, extends to supporting refugees with the added layer of regional provision through consortia, which may include local authorities.

Support services are almost always contracted to NGOs who draw heavily on the volunteer community for actual delivery. Contracting is through competitive tender in most cases, although well-established organisations tend to retain contracts on the basis of annual proposals. A recent move to tendering in the Netherlands has caused some concern for the Dutch Refugee Council, which has been the traditional supplier of support services. In most countries, the philanthropic sector contributes significantly to NGOs through grants, volunteer contributions and contributions in kind. The US Government has the Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Programme, under which the federal government provides funds on a matching basis to national voluntary resettlement agencies to provide assistance and services to refugees.

A review of settlement services in Australia (DIMIA 2003) discusses some of the issues related to contracting, particularly when there was a change from a grant to a contracting system.

• Most of the participating agencies had limited experience in costing their service delivery arrangements and in preparing tender documentation. It was difficult for smaller agencies with limited resources to compete successfully against larger, better-resourced organisations.
• Some aspects of community service provision, such as the strength of relationships and connections with other relevant services, and the sense of welcome and connection to the wider community, are intangible and do not lend themselves to quantifiable performance measures.
• Achieving accountability in some areas of service delivery, such as the provision of torture and trauma intervention to clients, can be problematic due to issues around client confidentiality.
• A competitive model can be particularly difficult to implement in regional areas where there is generally a lack of effective competition and, on occasion, only one potential service provider. Effective competition is likely to be complicated by the fact that agencies unsuccessful in obtaining contracts in one round are not involved in service delivery for two to three years. These agencies may not be able to sustain their ability to compete with those already delivering services.
• Competitive tendering can also lead to disruptions as services change hands. Handover procedures need to be established in order to ensure continuity of service delivery.
• Effective service integration also requires positive working relationships and information sharing between service providers. This can be challenging due to the competitive nature of the tendering process. Some stakeholders have argued that the tendering of humanitarian services inhibits co-operation and information sharing between providers.

Canada, Australia and the United States see private sponsorship as complementary to the government-assisted programme for refugees, and offer limited financial support to augment the sponsors' contribution. Van Selm's (2003) summary of the pros and cons of private sponsorship is presented in Table 11 below.

Table 12 in the following page summarises the mechanisms countries use to fund services for refugee resettlement.

Table 12 Main funding mechanisms for service provision

8. Systems and approach to monitoring outcomes

An overview

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 quality of inter-relationships between people (Korac 2003). 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. The US, for example, has well-developed mechanisms for measuring economic self sufficiency among refugees, but there is no evidence that it measures the quality and strength of social links with the established community. Writers also point to the need to have realistic expectations of what refugees can achieve within a given time frame - it is likely to be less than the population as a whole (Home Office 2005), and to acknowledge that neither the government nor resettlement services can control all the factors that affect successful settlement (CIC 1998).

A number of papers (European Parliament 2007, Home Office 2004) raise the issue of what exactly is meant by the term "integration", and therefore what should count as a successful outcome. Both agree with the conceptual analysis undertaken for the Home Office study, which concluded that:

There is no single, generally accepted definition, theory or model of immigrant and refugee integration. The concept continues to be controversial and hotly debated.

Measuring the effectiveness of policies and their impacts is therefore a normative exercise, which needs to reflect the fact that integration is a multi-faceted process that occurs over a significant period of time. The Home Office paper came up with the following working definition of integration for their indicator project.

An individual or group is integrated within a society when they:

achieve public outcomes within employment, housing, education, health etc. which are equivalent to those achieved within the wider host communities, and are in active relationship with members of their ethnic or national community, wider host communities and relevant services and functions of the state, in a manner consistent with shared notions of nationhood and citizenship in that society.

Spencer et al (2006) identify five facets of integration - employment, housing, community relations, health and education - and note that evidence in the UK regarding outcomes for refugees and new migrants in these areas is limited because many studies focus on more broadly defined populations such as the migrant population as a whole, ethnic minorities or populations defined by country of birth. They caution that:

Inevitably, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of mainstream services from those with a migrant focus. In community relations alone, for instance, there are policies on civil renewal, active citizenship, social cohesion, social exclusion, neighbourhood renewal, regeneration, sustainable communities, equality and race relations, all of which impact on relations among members of the public but do not necessarily include a focus on migrants. In education there are numeracy and literacy strategies; in employment, New Deal and Jobcentre Plus, the impact of which cannot be neatly detached from that of initiatives targeted solely at migrants.

Data on the integration of refugees and other recent migrants are limited and generally relate to ethnic minorities (including the majority born in the UK) or to the 'foreign-born', an umbrella category which includes those who have lived in the UK for decades and can mask differences between countries of origin. With the exception of some data on asylum seekers and refugees (often conflated), breakdowns are not made by immigration status, so that it is not possible to assess what happens to newly arrived wives and husbands in the job market, for instance, to the children of overseas students at school, nor to the health status of low-wage work permit holders. This lack of data inhibits research. Moreover, most policy interventions promoting integration are too recent to have been the subject of any evaluation exercise. There is therefore only a limited extent to which it is possible to identify authoritative evidence on outcomes or robustly evaluate 'good practice'. (Spencer 2006: Executive Summary)

Countries under review

The UK has made most progress in developing a set of indicators of successful resettlement and integration by refugees. Denmark has developed a single indicator to measure economic integration, recognising the challenges associated with such a measure. Both these efforts sit well alongside work being done in the European Union (European Parliament 2007)[5].

Other countries carry out regular or periodic surveys, which often focus on employment outcomes, partly because these are relatively easy to access and partly because they are such an important component of resettlement strategies. They may also collect data on the perceptual or experiential aspects for both the refugees' and the host community's perspective. One-off evaluations of particular services complement other forms of monitoring, including statistical analyses and audits.

It is apparent that most countries still have work to do to develop and implement systems to monitor the outcomes that are defined as important by all stakeholders.

9. Conclusion

This review has considered aspects of selection, reception and resettlement of quota and Convention refugees in nine countries. Details of arrangements in those nine countries are in Part II.

While the nine countries share a common desire to offer protection to vulnerable people and their families, they differ in the way in which that happens. The differences reflect the social, cultural and economic situations of the countries concerned as well as their historical approach to refugee resettlement and their geographic location. Very few are explicit about the rationale behind their chosen approach, but it is implicit in their policy choices.

Pre arrival

The differences begin at the selection stage. Six of the nine countries, for example, accept refugees on the basis of dossiers provided by UNHCR as well as through selection visits. The three who do not select on the basis of UNHCR dossiers - the United States, Australia and Canada - all offer a sponsorship option.

Five countries have an ability to settle as a selection criterion. It is not clear how far this criterion is included out of consideration for the wellbeing of the refugees and how far it is used for the benefit of the receiving country. Given that integration is widely considered to be a two-way process, both views may be seen as appropriate.

Pre-arrival planning is seen as a valuable way to begin quality resettlement. New Zealand is unusual in not offering a pre-departure orientation programme. Instead it has a relatively long in-house introductory programme in country. No evidence was available to assess whether this is as or more successful than the brief programmes offered by other countries pre-departure.

Three countries have chosen not to pay travel costs for all or some refugees, covering these instead through a loan. In Australia the loan arrangements, which only apply to sponsored refugees, have been made more flexible to facilitate repayments.

On arrival

One of the key markers of integration is the granting of a permanent residence permit and ultimately citizenship. Three countries grant temporary permits for between three and seven years. In two countries the temporary permits need to be renewed each year, which gives the country a considerable degree of control over residence status.

Decisions about where refugees will live can also be made on the basis of the best interests of the refugees and/or the needs of the host community. While all countries take refugees' needs into account, some put most emphasis on the ability of the receiving community to manage the integration process. The literature suggests that careful preparation in the receiving community and giving refugees some say over where they are resettled is likely to be more successful than programmes that have been directive.

Integration and resettlement

In every country integration ultimately occurs at the local level, but the way in which it is managed and the nature and extent of the services offered are greatly influenced by each country's administrative structure. The devolution of services is more common where countries have a long history of service delivery at a local level, but in every case overall financial responsibility for refugees remains with the state. In most countries the State also takes responsibility for leading campaigns to promote tolerance, acceptance of diversity and the creation of a welcoming society.

The literature suggests that the way services are designed may be more important than the way in which they are financed or managed. That is, services need to be well co-ordinated, integrated and flexible and able to meet refugees' needs. They should also be well promoted and accessible so that refugees can find and use them easily. Finding the right balance between mainstream and refugee specific services is particularly challenging. While there is some consensus that refugees should be able to access the same services as other citizens as soon as possible, refugees do not always have the same needs as other citizens, and mainstream services may be ill-prepared to cater for them. The availability of targeted services can enhance integration over the longer term.

The length of time specialist services are made available can be influenced by an expectation that refugees will obtain employment as soon as possible after arrival. While this may be an ideal outcome, the reality of refugees' circumstances and personal needs may make this unrealistic. Increasingly countries are developing strategies and frameworks based on co-ordination and consultation with all stakeholders, including refugee groups, to develop plans that are realistic for refugee groups and flexible.

Funding arrangements in all countries are characterised by partnerships between government and/or local authorities and NGOs, including refugee community-based organisations. There is little evidence that the private sector contributes in any significant way to refugee resettlement other than through a willingness to employ refugees or sponsor particular events. The reliance on community-based organisations and volunteers puts financial pressure on communities who are rarely fully engaged with the resettlement process. State funding often becomes the fallback position.

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring resettlement processes and outcomes is a developing art. While most countries monitor contractual agreements, few regularly monitor outcomes beyond engagement in the workforce and reductions in cash assistance. Some work is being done to develop indicators, but the issue of capturing outcomes for refugees as distinct from migrants in general remains.