Better Local Reception and Civic Integration

Abstract

Each year a wide variety of immigrants arrive in the Netherlands, from all parts of the world. Some move on after a short time, others shuttle back and forth to their homeland and others still stay permanently. All these new residents make a home somewhere in the country. For most labour migrants, that is a free choice. Family migrants usually move in with a partner, and asylum migrants are assigned permanent accommodation in a particular municipality once they have been granted official refugee status. For all, however, the local government is the primary authority charged with hel** them find their way in Dutch society.

Each year a wide variety of immigrants arrive in the Netherlands, from all parts of the world. Some move on after a short time, others shuttle back and forth to their homeland and others still stay permanently. All these new residents make a home somewhere in the country. For most labour migrants, that is a free choice. Family migrants usually move in with a partner, and asylum migrants are assigned permanent accommodation in a particular municipality once they have been granted official refugee status. For all, however, the local government is the primary authority charged with hel** them find their way in Dutch society.

At present, most local authorities are aware of the settlement of refugee status holders. This is because, under national dispersal agreements, they must arrange accommodation for these newcomers. They also have some insight into those groups required to participate in civic integration programmes.¹ Many communities, however, know little about the arrival, stay and departure of other migrants. Consequently, they sometimes only make ad-hoc policies to cater for this influx when it turns out after some time that a specific group has settled in their area. But as shown in Chap. 3, some communities are seeing new migrant groups arriving on constant basis. More is therefore needed than ad-hoc facilities for the ‘groupe du jour’.

The core message of this chapter is that government should organize the reception and integration of new immigrants in a more systematic way. Local authorities need to think about how they can organize structural facilities that will help all groups of migrants familiarize themselves with Dutch society. Consideration should be given to the entire migration cycle, too, from the moment of entry up to and including the moment of departure. In this chapter we discuss several links in the migration chain, and in so doing look at the options available to local authorities and other organizations to promote social cohesion and labour-market participation. Where possible, we back this with research findings. Unfortunately, though, our substantiation is often limited to case studies and organizations’ own reports because few scientific impact studies and policy evaluations have been conducted in this field.

How can local authorities exert more influence over the types of migrant who settle in their area? And how can they organize a good reception for all these different groups? We address these questions in turn below, paying particular attention to temporary migration: how can housing and education be better adapted to migrants staying for only a short period of time? What civic integration facilities are required for them and for those who want to remain more permanently? And finally, how can local authorities facilitate the departure of people who cannot or do not want to stay any longer?

5.1 Before Arrival: Influencing the Nature and Extent of Migration

How can local authorities dealing with high degrees of both diversity and transience in their migrant populations promote social cohesion and labour-market participation? To start with, they can try to influence which migrants settle in their area. Current political debate in the Netherlands centres mainly on the issue of the numbers of migrants municipalities have to accept – asylum migrants, especially – but there is also a valid discussion to be had about the types of migrant suited to a particular community. The huge differences we see at the moment between municipalities in terms of their diversity (see Chap. 2) argue in favour of them being better matched with the place they settle.

This requires that local authorities think more consciously about which migrants will most benefit the economy and society in their areas. Which groups are already present and to what extent can they help strengthen social cohesion or labour-market participation? It also means that national government must be prepared to allow its local counterparts scope to influence the type of migrants settling in their areas.

The existing legal frameworks offer only limited room for manoeuvre in this respect. The arrival and reception of migrants in the Netherlands are largely matters of national policy, European legal standards, and international treaties. It is, however, possible to exercise some control within these frameworks; for instance, by drawing up agreements between central and local government about the numbers and backgrounds of asylum migrants allocated to individual municipalities.² Local authorities can exercise indirect influence, too, by creating favourable conditions for the establishment of international companies in their area and by develo** high-quality housing and a living climate attractive to specific groups, such as highly skilled professionals. They can also reach agreements with employers about accommodation and other facilities for temporary workers in agriculture and horticulture.

5.1.1 Attracting Labour Migrants

Different types of municipality require different types of labour migrant. In horticultural districts such as Westland, Zeewolde, and Horst aan de Maas, for example, these are mainly production workers. Because this workforce will probably increasingly have to come from outside the European Union (EU) in the future, which regions of the world companies recruit from is relevant to local cohesion. For example, would a linguistic or religious ‘fit’ with migrant groups already present locally be beneficial? Or, conversely, is there a need for greater diversity to prevent concentration and segregation? Based upon the answers to such questions, it may be wise for local authorities to seek to ‘steer’ employment practices by, for instance, entering into agreements with recruitment agencies and employers or providing specific facilities and conditions in the fields of housing and education (see Box 5.1). University cities and expat communities, together with companies, academic institutions and central government, already try to make themselves attractive places for highly skilled migrants³ by facilitating a wide variety of international educational provision and cultural facilities and by setting up so-called ‘international centres’.

The political question here is how far local governments should go in their facilitating role for companies employing foreign workers. From the point of view of labour-market participation, they can legitimately challenge the ‘easy’ choice to recruit temporary migrant workers in certain sectors and the role international employment agencies play in this phenomenon. With a view to social cohesion, they could also consider whether forms of migration have displacement effects for existing residents – for example, distortion of the jobs market in their area or an impact upon the local housing market due to longer waiting lists for social housing or rising rents and property prices. In this respect, co-ordination within local authorities between their economic and social affairs departments is of great importance, since the effects of migration differ by policy domain.

Box 5.1: East Asian Diversity in Amstelveen

Suitable educational facilities for the children of their employees play a major role for international companies when deciding where to locate.⁴ A high concentration of east Asian immigrants live in and around south Amsterdam, especially in the Buitenveldert neighbourhood and the adjacent municipality of Amstelveen. They work for companies in information technology, the pharmaceutical and medical industries, and the financial sector. The Indian community in Amstelveen, for instance, has grown significantly in recent years: from just under 1600 in 2012 to more than 4800 in January 2019. Of the 8698 Japanese nationals resident in the Netherlands, 1687 live in Amstelveen. The town also appears to be an attractive location for companies and employees from China and South Korea. About 19% of its residents hold a non-Dutch passport and people of 134 nationalities currently live there.⁵

In response to this diversity, Amstelveen offers dedicated municipal facilities such as a Japanese nursery school and an Indian international primary school.⁶ The local Amstelland Hospital has a physical ‘Japan Desk’ and a digital ‘India Desk’, and there are a number Asian dentists and GPs practising in the area. There is also an annual Japan Festival and a Cherry Blossom Festival for Japanese businesses.

• Sources: Municipality of Amstelveen; Statistics Netherlands (CBS).

5.1.2 Matching Asylum Migrants

When it comes to asylum migrants, the legal frameworks allow greater scope for management of their geographical distribution across the Netherlands. The Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Centraal Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers, COA) uses a national dispersal formula to allocate those granted refugee status on a proportionate basis to municipalities throughout the country. The local authority is then obliged to house those it is assigned. Within this system, room could be created for agreements with the COA to ‘match’ placements to local labour-market needs based upon the backgrounds of the individuals concerned.

In addition, compatibility with existing migrant communities could be a relevant consideration when placing asylum migrants. This might help them find their feet more quickly. Under such arrangements, however, central government (and/or the COA) would have to make sure that municipalities do not ‘cherry-pick’ the most talented or easiest-to-place asylum seekers but also take in their fair share of those harder to deal with. On top of this, the balanced distribution of different types of asylum migrant within municipalities is also important, bearing in mind the ability of individual neighbourhoods to ‘absorb’ them.⁷ Local authorities need to be careful not to overburden already vulnerable communities with new vulnerable groups.⁸ A survey of predominantly Syrian refugee status holders, combined with recorded data on ethnic diversity and the Rotterdam District Profile (Wijkprofiel Rotterdam) monitoring tool, shows that a positive local social climate facilitates the integration of asylum migrants in reasonably homogenous, predominantly white neighbourhoods, but not in ethnically diverse ones.⁹ The Netherlands can also learn here from experiences in Australia and Canada with the dispersal and settlement of migrants (see Box 5.2).

Box 5.2: Dispersal of Migrants in Australia and Canada

In Australia, it is not uncommon for cities and regions to reach agreement with the Department of Home Affairs about the backgrounds of the asylum migrants they are allocated. For example, rural areas may ask for asylum migrants with a rural background. The existence in the region of established ethnic communities able to provide newcomers with social support is also considered.

The distribution of migrants across different parts of the country is also an important aspect of Canadian policy. There, newcomers are aided through the Resettlement Assistance Program. This provides income support and help with essential services, including temporary accommodation, life-skills training, and financial orientation.¹⁰ In all, Canada has more than 60 programmes to facilitate different categories of migrant with their entry and integration into society.

The government department Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada sets long-term targets for the number of immigrants it wants to welcome to the country. This number is broken down by type of migrant and region of settlement. Most newcomers are labour migrants and, since the 2015 refugee crisis, invited asylum migrants. The plans for their reception are based upon demographic trends, operational capacity, community support, political choices, advisory reports, public consultations and society’s expected immigrant absorption capacity.¹¹ There are numerous programmes and pilots for economic migrants, including some specifically aimed at recruiting people to work in the country’s more sparsely populated regions, such as the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot and the Provincial Nominee Program.¹² The Quebec Skilled Worker Program focuses upon recruiting talent for the province of Quebec.¹³

5.1.3 Summary

• Local authorities should think carefully about which migrants are best suited to the economy and society in their area. The existing legal frameworks provide some leeway for this. They can also exert influence through the facilities they offer and by entering into agreements with employers.

• This requires that central government allow local authorities some scope to influence the types of migrant settling in their area.

5.2 Arrival: One Reception for All

The moment of arrival is an important one for both newcomers and their host communities. For migrants, moving to another country is a source of challenges and uncertainties. This applies not only to those seeking asylum, but also to labour, student, and family migrants. Many do not speak the Dutch language well, if at all, know little or nothing about local amenities, and lack social contacts outside their own immediate circle. A good reception can help them find their feet in local society faster and more effectively. It is also important for local authorities to have a clear picture of newcomers from the moment they arrive, to help them start participating in Dutch economic, social and cultural life as smoothly as possible. A well thought-out ‘reception and guidance’ policy for all migrants is therefore hugely important.

Current policy in this respect, however, varies widely according to the type of migrant concerned.

• The reception of highly skilled migrants is relatively well-organized.¹⁴ Various cities and regions have so-called ‘international centres’, which act as ‘one-stop shops’ for questions about housing, education, money matters and healthcare. In addition, there are often active expat communities in the major cities to help newcomers find their way.

• Responsibility for the reception of central and eastern European labour migrants rests with their employers. They usually confine themselves to provisions directly related to the job itself, such as – often expensive – communal living accommodation and transport to and from the workplace. Employers frequently outsource the organization of these facilities to the agencies which recruit the migrants on their behalf.¹⁵ Only very rarely is any effort made to introduce these workers to Dutch society.¹⁶

• Universities and colleges are responsible for the reception of student migrants, but this does not automatically mean that they gain access to language courses or student social life.¹⁷

• When it comes to the reception of family migrants, the principle of personal and partner responsibility takes precedence. In addition, arrivals from outside the EU are obliged to attend a civic integration programme. However, there is no systematic reception policy for this group. From the point of view of labour-market participation and social cohesion, this is a missed opportunity. After all, most immigrants currently coming to the Netherlands do so for family reasons. To find their way in the jobs market and in society at large, they have to rely primarily upon their own family network, which in many cases is ill-equipped for this task.¹⁸

• Arriving asylum migrants are first processed by the COA at one of its national reception centres. These offer them only limited language-learning and educational provision as long as their initial claim for asylum is being considered.¹⁹ When they are granted official refugee status, they are allocated to a municipality for settlement. Most local authorities, however, do not have ‘one-stop shops’ to guide these newcomers quickly and efficiently in finding language training, work, education, housing and healthcare.²⁰

Reception facilities of various kinds do exist, then, but for some groups these are very limited. Consequently, a fair proportion of new immigrants make a ‘false start’ when they first arrive. Basic general services accessible to them all, irrespective of their legal status, motive and intended length of stay, could help them make a better start. A physical local information and registration point at which everyone is welcome would be very helpful in this respect. From here, individuals can be referred to services tailored to their own situation and needs.

Local authorities and institutions would also benefit greatly from such an arrangement, as it can help them learn at an early stage who is having problems or is likely to require further assistance. Particularly when it comes to vulnerable groups such as less well-educated family, labour and asylum migrants, local authorities indicate that they often only gain a clear picture of their needs when they apply for benefits or other social provision. It is precisely these vulnerable migrants, they say, who are most difficult to reach.²¹ Identifying them at an earlier stage, at some form of initial reception facility, would enable local authorities to smooth their entry into the jobs market and their general socialization. Such early face-to-face contact makes it easier to assess participation opportunities and conviviality risks, too, and so adjust local service provision accordingly.

Our proposal, therefore, is that a network of ‘one-stop-shop’ reception centres be created for all new migrants settling legally in the Netherlands. The existing reception infrastructure for expats can serve as a basis for these. They should be established at the municipal level in large cities and on a regional basis elsewhere. Such centres would prevent local authorities from constantly having to develop ad-hoc facilities, as when they were faced with the arrival of large numbers of Syrian refugees or EU labour migrants. For asylum migrants, the centres would offer their services in conjunction in with the facilities provided by the COA and the Dutch Council for Refugees.

Broadening the existing facilities to create general reception centres would help all groups of migrants find their feet, bringing together public and private services in the process. The advantage of having one centre for everyone is that it brings greater coherence to reception functions and activities, as well as providing a better overview of the full spectrum of services available, addressing immigration and reception issues in a systematic manner and creating a broad network for sharing knowledge and so on (see Boxes 5.3 and 5.4). It might also help improve the intercultural competences of local ‘front-line’ workers. The great diversity of the migrant population requires professionals able to deal with a wide range of ‘clients’.

One disadvantage of such a method is its complexity, not least because it calls for a high degree of public-private co-operation and funding. A now somewhat dated evaluation study of this type of ‘one-stop shop’ in six European countries concluded that there are benefits to be gained, but that they can prove troublesome at the operational level.²² Especially in western European countries that have been dealing with immigration for a long time, existing structures and rules may hamper innovation. A full-service reception centre stands the best chance when allowed to develop gradually. Where ‘expat centres’ or ‘migrant worker desks’ already exist, they can be expanded in phases to serve other groups and provide new services.

Box 5.3: International House Copenhagen

International House Copenhagen (IHC) is a physical building housing all the reception functions for newcomers to the Danish capital. In fact, its role is regional as it operates on behalf of more than 30 municipalities making up the ‘Greater Copenhagen Area’. The IHC regards improving reception policy as a must to attract human capital, but also to make Copenhagen the most inclusive city in Europe.

One of its occupants is the International Citizen Service (ICS). This is a reception centre at which migrants can arrange all matters relating to national and local administration, tax, work, income, and civic affairs.²³ The integrated nature of the service – all the relevant organizations are under the same roof, co-operate and attune their provision to each other’s needs and those of the migrant – prevents conflicts of interest, duplication, confusion and delay. Besides the ICS, other organizations represented at the IHC include the city job centre, the local university, and private entities such as removal companies and childcare providers. This ‘one-stop shop’ approach to services for migrants is a key pillar of Copenhagen’s reception policy.

5.2.1 Role of the Reception Centre

A reception centre of this kind can fulfil several functions. To start with, it helps local authorities to better monitor the nature, size, and dynamics of their migrant populations. Which new groups are settling locally, and where exactly? Where and in what groups is there a high rate of turnover? What does this mean for the provision of schooling and other public services? As things currently stand, the national population register is of only limited assistance with these questions. Different types of migrants register in different places, or they fail to do so at all.²⁴ By offering them somewhere to do it easily face-to-face, this basic administrative procedure can be completed quickly and smoothly. As an example of what is possible, in the horticultural Westland district employers and the municipality organize registration evenings for labour migrants at their accommodation or place of work, where they also receive information about and referrals to any other services they may need.²⁵

With a view to encouraging labour-market participation and social cohesion, it is important to inform newcomers about public services at the earliest possible opportunity and to refer them to appropriate services where necessary. This can be organized in different ways. The Hague, for example, holds dedicated ‘consultation hours’ for EU migrant workers.²⁶ The advantage of this approach is that it delivers a customized service, but one drawback is that there is no continuity of provision and other migrant groups do not benefit.

At a reception centre, newcomers would receive advice about civic integration programmes, language schools and so on. Civic integration is usually mandatory for asylum migrants, but for most highly skilled ones it is voluntary. Nevertheless, many of them would like to learn Dutch. A reception centre can tailor its advice to these specific requirements and wishes. Together with training colleges and employers, it can also provide guidance regarding the local jobs market. And it can connect newcomers with organizations, businesses and individuals relevant to their own situations, be they refugee counsellors, language ‘buddies’ or local networks of migrant entrepreneurs.

A final possible function is socialization. Students and highly skilled migrants, for example, often say that they miss social contact with Dutch people.²⁷ Whilst 70% of highly skilled migrants have a generally positive view of the Netherlands, to the extent that they would like to extend their stay here, they are also critical of the country as a place to settle and build a career. They are less than satisfied with their social reception, too, including opportunities to learn Dutch. Some even leave prematurely as a result.²⁸

Meanwhile, more and more local authorities are choosing to immerse asylum migrants in a process of socialization from the moment they arrive, with introductory days and accelerated civic integration trajectories. Increasingly, they are also asking the COA to allow asylum seekers accommodated locally to stay in the area once they have been granted refugee status and are being assigned a municipality to reside in permanently.²⁹ This allows their socialization to continue uninterrupted, using the contacts and networks they have already built up.

Box 5.4: Canadian Welcome Centres: An Integrated Approach

In Canada, so-called Welcome Centres have been set up all over the country. It is not uncommon for new immigrants to visit one as soon as they arrive, sometimes straight from the airport. They are comprehensive facilities at which newcomers all kinds are welcome, from asylum seekers to migrant workers, students to family migrants. The centres give out free information and offer referrals to specific service providers. Subjects covered include government paperwork, naturalization, the labour market, education, assessment of foreign qualifications, language courses (English and French), healthcare, housing, legal matters, volunteering, recreation, income, taxes, food and clothing. The Welcome Centres thus familiarize immigrants with every aspect of life in Canada, from socio-economic participation to the nation’s social structures.³⁰

For some newcomers, the process begins before they even reach the country. The Canadian Orientation Abroad programme is designed to prepare selected immigrants, through interactive sessions, for a successful life in Canada. Evaluations show that participants significantly increase their knowledge of Canadian society and have a more realistic view of emigration and their destination country than migrants who do not follow the programme.³¹

5.2.2 Summary

• The WRR proposes that a network of ‘one-stop-shop’ reception centres be created for all new migrants settling legally in the Netherlands. The existing reception infrastructure for expats can serve as a basis for these.

• These centres should be established at the municipal level in large cities and on a regional basis elsewhere.

5.3 Residence: More Consideration of Temporary Stays

Migrants differ widely in their reasons for coming to the Netherlands and their length of stay. We have seen in Chap. 2 that, on average, nowadays they remain for shorter periods than ever before. This applies to labour and student migrants in particular, but also to some asylum migrants.³² In other words, large numbers leave again sooner or later – sometimes to try their luck elsewhere, sometimes to return to their country of origin and sometimes because they are forced to move on due to the fact that they have no means of support or have not been granted legal residence. Others shuttle back and forth, living part-time in the Netherlands. This fluidity is part and parcel of a global economy, but it does not leave the social fabric unaffected.

5.3.1 Housing

Many local authorities struggle to house temporary EU labour migrants, in particular (see Box 5.5).³³ The migrants themselves also indicate that they have difficulty finding a home that matches their expectations.³⁴ Due to the shortage of suitable accommodation, some end up living in unsafe and overcrowded conditions.³⁵ More and more local authorities and housing corporations are therefore experimenting with temporary accommodation for short-stay migrants. There is a huge need for such solutions.

It is important not only that there be a sufficient supply of housing, but also – given that it is hard to predict how long people will stay – that this supply can quickly be scaled up or down. Temporary migrants generally have little or no need to be at the heart of the community or to develop a local network, so for them such forms of ‘new’ housing can sometimes be located away from built-up areas. This also reduces the pressure on the regular housing market. Examples of such solutions include so-called ‘Polish hotels’, where hundreds of seasonal workers are accommodated. These are often in old office buildings in otherwise non-residential areas. Another example is ‘container homes’ – literally converted ship** containers – for refugee status holders, in some cases mixed with people with a Dutch background. The accommodation of short-stay labour migrants is an important responsibility for employers and requires better regulation of the temporary employment sector.³⁶

Box 5.5: Migrant-Worker Housing Problems in The Hague

In The Hague, the main problems associated with migrant housing affect those staying no more than 1 year. Of the 30,000 central, eastern, and southern European workers living in the city in 2017, fewer than 1000 were in dedicated short-stay accommodation such as ‘Polish hotels’. The rest had to rely upon the regular housing market. In response to this demand, unscrupulous landlords and employment agencies buy up low-quality housing to rent to migrant workers. These properties are often overcrowded and generate nuisance for local residents.³⁷ Moreover, much of this transient population is unknown to the city authorities. Research reveals that approximately half of labour migrants in The Hague do not register as residents;³⁸ either their stay is too short or their landlord and/or employer does not allow them to.

The Hague Housing Inspection Bureau (Haagse Pandbrigade) increasingly finds migrant workers being accommodated in business units and commercial premises with inadequate fire precautions. They also come across bunkhouses in buildings owned by property investors, where middlemen rent out individual beds. In many cases there are too many people living in a dwelling, sometimes due to the official tenants allowing relatives, friends, or acquaintances to move in as well. With each occupant being charged rent on an individual basis, more people means more income. Amongst other tools, the Housing Inspection Bureau uses the app Meld een Vermoeden (‘Report a suspicion’) to gather information about such situations.³⁹

5.3.2 Education

An influx of migrants, often on a temporary basis, can place local educational provision under a lot of pressure. Schools must deal with unexpected spikes in pupil numbers, high rates of turnover and intake and outflow at irregular times. These are issues associated with various types of migrant, ranging from highly skilled professionals and EU workers to refugees.⁴⁰

For highly skilled migrants, the availability of (private) international schools is a magnet.⁴¹ But although the Netherlands has the highest rate of growth for these institutions in Europe, many still have waiting lists. Even for well-paid professionals, moreover, the high fees can be a barrier. Only a minority of employers contribute towards these costs. That aside, a lot of these migrants prefer to send their children to ‘local’ schools. Combined, these factors mean that approximately half of the highly skilled migrants in the Netherlands make use of mainstream education.⁴²

Amongst this group, Dutch schools providing bilingual education are particularly popular. This redoubles the requirement that the quality of teaching in the second language (usually English), in particular, stay up to standard.⁴³ Based upon earlier forecasts, by 2020 the Amsterdam metropolitan region expected to have more than 23,000 children of highly skilled international professionals at its schools, about half of them attending regular ones and the other half international institutions.⁴⁴ Elsewhere, such as in the Laakkwartier district of The Hague and in horticultural districts, schools are dealing with an influx of large groups of children of EU labour migrants.

The arrival en masse of asylum migrants in 2015 revealed that it is difficult to scale up educational provision for newcomers when there is a sudden peak in demand. This was due to a combination of accommodation and staff shortages, funding shortfalls, lack of knowledge about the new students and insufficient public support.⁴⁵ In the face of those challenges, regional co-operation between local authorities and educational institutions proved decisive in ensuring that such a large group of new arrivals was provided with high-quality education, as well transport to and from school where necessary. Because of the unpredictability of current and future migrant flows, it is important that these regional collaborations be maintained on a permanent basis to mitigate the need for unsatisfactory ad-hoc arrangements. Another lesson learnt from 2015 is that it is better for children’s social, emotional and cognitive development for the COA to minimize relocations of families between asylum reception centres. This remains common practice, but is tough on the children and difficult for schools. By accommodating asylum seekers with a good chance of being granted official refugee status at locations in the region where they will eventually be resettled permanently, the disruption of school careers can be kept to minimum.

Greater professionalization is also needed to guarantee the quality of education for newcomers. The teaching of Dutch as a second language is a key pillar in this respect. Teachers must have the right skills and their classroom materials are also in need of improvement. Because the target audience for this subject is so disparate, many commercial publishers do not see it as a worthwhile market and so shy away from investing in the production of high-quality textbooks and other materials. A more active government role in this domain could contribute towards the necessary professionalization. We examine this topic in more detail in Chap. 6.⁴⁶

For schools educating children who stay in the Netherlands only temporarily, good basic support is important. For example, funding based upon the length of their pupils’ stays. There is also a need for standardized non-linguistic tests to enable schools to properly assess pupils’ subject knowledge at intake without the results being affected by their lack of proficiency in Dutch.⁴⁷

5.3.3 Summary

• Transience is a characteristic of contemporary migration. To cope with this fact, a systematic response in the fields of housing and educational provision is required.

• For schools educating children who stay in the Netherlands only temporarily, good basic support is important. For example, funding based upon the length of their pupils’ stays and the further professionalization of education for newcomers.

5.4 Settlement: Civic Integration for All

Approximately half of the immigrants to the Netherlands stay longer than 5 years, although for many that was not their original intention. A good proportion of asylum migrants, for example, especially those from politically and economically unstable regions such as the Middle East, are simply unable to return to their countries of origin. International students find a job or partner here. And labour migrants see their children growing up settled at school and so put off their return again and again. Some of these groups are required to undergo intensive civic integration programmes, complete with demanding mandatory language acquisition and socialization targets and intended as a pathway to Dutch citizenship. For many others little or nothing is arranged.

Current civic integration policy focuses exclusively upon newcomers from outside the EU who are taking up long-term residence in the Netherlands. For them, participation in such a programme is mandatory. This does not apply to other groups, though. For example , European regulations exempt intra-EU migrants from civic integration requirements. And domestic rules extend that dispensation to non-EU students and highly skilled migrants who are staying only temporarily. As a result, large numbers of immigrants receive little or no guidance on settling into Dutch society. Yet that is something they all need to a greater or lesser extent, albeit in different ways. Below we outline the variety of situations facing newcomers not subject to mandatory civic integration.

5.4.1 EU Labour Migrants

The number of intra-EU migrants, especially from central and eastern Europe, has increased considerably in recent years. They are not obliged to undergo civic integration and often have little contact with the authorities. Many do not even register as residents and make almost no use of local facilities. But their settlement is not always problem-free. According to research by Platform Integration & Society (Kennisplatform Integratie en Samenleving), no fewer than 70% of municipalities hosting EU migrant workers in any numbers experience problems as a result, mostly in the areas of housing, registration, language and public nuisance.⁴⁸ But only 20% have drawn up policies specific to this group, covering civic integration, the education of their children and the jobs market.

For EU migrants who remain in the Netherlands for only a short period of time, the most pressing issues are practical matters such as working conditions and housing. In practice, though, it is often unclear how long they stay because many do not register as residents. It is therefore important that local authorities arrange an early contact moment with all of them to record when they arrive in the country. Those who do settle can then be offered access to a range of provision to help them integrate. This approach is in line with a call from the Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken, ACVZ) to create a (voluntary) civic integration scheme for these migrants and to encourage their participation in it.⁴⁹

Research shows that EU labour migrants intending to stay in the Netherlands for longer periods have a great need to learn Dutch. Four out of five Poles living here have difficulties with the language, even after years in the country.⁵⁰ Many are keen to learn it, but say that that is difficult to combine with long working days.⁵¹ For this group, then, it is important that evening classes be provided. These could be organized through their employers, but local authorities can also offer advice about suitable voluntary civic integration programmes from private providers, including e-learning options.⁵²

EU labour migrants also indicate that they have a wide range of practical questions concerning such matters as registration, housing, employment and benefits.⁵³ The information available online is often too general or provided only in Dutch. This is particularly difficult for the less well-educated. In addition, they need information about healthcare, education and debt.

5.4.2 Highly Skilled Migrants

Highly skilled migrants often come to the Netherlands on a temporary basis and are therefore not subject to mandatory civic integration. Currently, they can turn to various expat desks or international centres for help with practical matters like registration, residence permits, healthcare and housing. Nonetheless, members of this group often indicate that they find it difficult to participate fully in Dutch society. Once again, the main obstacle is the language.⁵⁴ These migrants therefore need Dutch courses, too, but they also benefit from informal contact with native speakers. Local authorities can refer people to language schools and associations, of course, but they could also combine informal contact with language learning by, for example, sponsoring mentoring or buddy programmes. Although currently used mainly used by asylum migrants, initiatives of this kind would also be useful for highly skilled international professionals. Their integration is important because some end up staying longer than initially foreseen.⁵⁵

5.4.3 Student Migrants

More and more foreign students in the Netherlands are staying on after they have completed their course here.⁵⁶ This group is not subject to mandatory civic integration but would still benefit from provision in that area. Many have difficulty finding their way in Dutch society and so hardly ever encounter the local culture,⁵⁷ a finding reiterated by the Annual International Student Survey.⁵⁸ Seventy-five per cent have little contact with ‘locals’, and more than a third say they are ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with the available opportunities to learn Dutch.⁵⁹

These students often find themselves stuck in an ‘international bubble’, due to a combination of factors including the language barrier, separate accommodation and the fact that Dutch student societies and sports clubs are not always open to them. Of these, language is the main hurdle preventing them from remaining longer. They can manage with English during their studies, but those who stay on often find it hard to build a social network or to communicate without proficiency in Dutch.⁶⁰

5.4.4 Bespoke Civic Integration for All

We are doubtful that a civic integration policy designed primarily as a path to Dutch citizenship for permanent migrants is appropriate to the realities of the modern migration society. The sharp distinction between those subject to mandatory integration and that exempt is out of line with the actual needs of the various migrant groups in the Netherlands, whether their stay is long or short. Those needs are more a spectrum than the dichotomy created by the current legislation.

In practice, to some extent central and local governments are already responding to the new reality. For example, by providing language-learning opportunities for those not subject to mandatory civic integration.⁶¹ Some local authorities are making certain services, such as job-application training and introductory tours, available to all residents regardless of their migrant background. Amsterdam, for example, offers thematic work-related language courses to anyone who needs them.⁶² This accessibility also encourages intergroup contacts and bolsters public support for such schemes.

Given the increasing diversity of the Netherlands’ migrant population – by origin, length of stay and schooling – what is really needed is a differentiated policy including provision for groups not subject to mandatory civic integration. Local authorities do not have to do everything themselves; they can also refer newcomers to external providers of language courses and workshops, say, or they can buy in these services – perhaps in partnership with employers, volunteer projects and refugee organizations.⁶³

How exactly this broad range of integration services is organized will vary from place to place, according to local needs. In this respect, too, it is wise to allow differentiation. In communities with very high levels of diversity, such as The Hague, a central ‘integration desk’ can help refer different migrants to the right programme or course. Where the degree of diversity is far lower, as in those municipalities where most newcomers are Poles, say, or Germans, local policy can focus more upon these specific groups. Under the auspices of the Association of Dutch Municipalities (Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, VNG), agreements can be reached as to what basic provision is essential to prevent legal inequalities arising between municipalities.

5.4.5 Summary

• A civic integration policy designed primarily as a pathway to Dutch citizenship for permanent migrants is no longer appropriate to the realities of the modern migration society.

• Migrants’ actual needs are more a spectrum than the dichotomy created by the current legislation between those who are subject to mandatory civic integration and those who are not.

• There is a need for differentiated civic integration services for all migrants, including those for whom this is not mandatory and those resident only temporarily in the Netherlands.

5.5 Consider Departure Too

Now that more and more migrants in the Netherlands are staying only temporarily, greater consideration needs to be given to facilitating their departure. Just as when ensuring the smooth arrival of newcomers, specific policy is required for a smooth exit from Dutch society. Current efforts in this respect are pragmatic: migrants deemed unwanted are encouraged to leave and those who are wanted are encouraged to stay and settle. In practice, this means that departure-related measures selectively target failed asylum seekers and labour migrants with poor employment prospects.

Whether the government can influence migrants’ decisions to stay or to leave through a ‘soft-touch’ integration policy is a matter of debate. Past research amongst asylum migrants is inconclusive in this respect.⁶⁴ Those who do leave are often well-integrated in socio-economic terms. Migrants with a job, for example, are more likely to go than migrants without one.⁶⁵ A Swedish study focusing specifically upon refugee status holders shows that those in the highest income group and with the best schooling are most likely to leave the country eventually. One possible explanation for this is that work experience, income and education are important resources for the ability to emigrate.⁶⁶ On the other hand, not being able to find suitable work is sometimes also a reason for leaving.⁶⁷ Departure can therefore be the result of both ‘success’ and ‘failure’. Sociocultural integration, such as contact with people with a Dutch background and identifying with the Netherlands, appears to reduce the motivation to leave.⁶⁸ Since socio-economic and sociocultural integration often go hand in hand – but may thus have opposite effects – the question of their combined bottom-line impact remains open.⁶⁹

Research has shown that good financial support and mediation by someone of the subject’s own nationality seems to work in encouraging the departure of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues.⁷⁰ The Ministry of Justice and Security subsidizes courses for people in this category to equip them better for the future, in the hope that a positive outlook will increase the chances that they depart voluntarily. These courses are not evaluated as to their effectiveness, however. A review of repatriation policy has shown that it is not possible to determine the effectiveness of specific measures. And an inventory of the literature reveals a range of opinions about the extent to which repatriation support affects actual decisions to leave the country.⁷¹ For those already thinking about going, it may play a role in finally deciding to pack their bags or bring forward their departure. But this is so not much the case when departure is not yet being considered or when a person has decided to stay in the Netherlands at all costs.

5.5.1 Local Departure Policy

At present, there is strong central control over measures to repatriate failed asylum seekers and undocumented migrants with no further legal recourse. Five major cities have been designated to operate a so-called ‘Bed, Bath and Bread’ scheme, which provides only basic, subsistence-level support in the hope that this will persuade them to leave of their own accord. Meanwhile, the Repatriation and Departure Service of the Ministry of Justice and Security employs an intensive one-to-one approach to the same end.⁷² In Belgium, too, the government encourages such migrants to start thinking realistically about their future and not continue to regard securing refugee status as the sole solution to all their problems.⁷³

Local authorities should be given greater scope to organize their own repatriation support services for specific groups, including failed asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. For some, it may also make sense to help labour migrants return to their home countries or move on elsewhere (see Box 5.6) in times of economic decline. Since some employers and agencies provide short-stay workers with housing linked to the job, they are in part responsible for an increase in homelessness when contracts end or they lay people off.⁷⁴ They need to be held accountable for this, and should be required to arrange repatriation or provide help finding alternative accommodation.

Box 5.6: Self-Help to Repatriate Homeless Polish Labour Migrants

The Barka Foundation is a Polish charity which manages dozens of sheltered workplaces, residential communities, and reintegration projects in Poland itself, but also has an office in the Netherlands. For homeless eastern European migrants who want to stay in the country and still have some chance of success here, Barka NL offers help to re-enter the housing and labour markets. In 2013 it opened a Social Economy Centre in Utrecht to provide training, advice and support for this purpose. It also organizes voluntary repatriations to Poland, currently operating projects in Utrecht, The Hague, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven, Nijmegen and Breda with funding from central and local government.

Barka NL works with mobile teams deployable throughout the Netherlands and consisting of a leader and an assistant, both from Eastern Europe. The leader is always an ‘expert by experience’ in addiction and homelessness, whilst their assistant is formally trained as a psychologist or social worker and is familiar with the Dutch language and institutions. The charity maintains relationships with hospitals, day and night shelters, the police, social services and other agencies to make and maintain contact with disadvantaged Poles and other eastern Europeans. If necessary, its counsellors attempt to restore broken ties with family in the home country and to facilitate voluntary returns to help people overcome an addiction and/or reintegrate into society.

Each year Barka NL teams speak to about 2000 central and eastern Europeans, around 500 of whom return home. According to its own figures, a total of 2678 people were repatriated voluntarily between its launch in 2012 and the end of 2017.⁷⁵ Most were Poles, but they also included other eastern Europeans. The majority returned to family, with the rest going to Barka communities in Poland or to shelters or addiction clinics in their home countries.

It is also worthwhile, though, to think about how best to facilitate the departure of migrants who have found success in the Netherlands. As we have seen, large numbers across all categories leave the country after 5–10 years here. Local authorities could smooth this process by, for example, introducing simple municipal and school deregistration procedures and by aiding the final settlement of social security or pension entitlements. A local or regional reception centre, as proposed above, could also play a role in this. In addition, it is well worth trying to ensure that children’s development suffers as little as possible in their move to another country. Consider designing curricula dovetailed as far as possible with education elsewhere, for instance, as international schools already do.

5.5.2 Summary

• Local authorities should be given greater scope to organize their own repatriation support services for specific groups, including failed asylum seekers and undocumented migrants

• Local authorities can do more to facilitate the smooth departure of migrants – by reaching agreements with employers and agencies, for instance, but also by offering support through reception centres.

5.6 Conclusions

Government needs to make systematic provision for the reception of new immigrants. This is primarily a task for local authorities, working in co-operation with civil society organizations and employers. They are going to have to think about how they can create structural facilities to help all migrant groups find their way in Dutch society. And to prevent frictions affecting social cohesion and labour-market participation, they will need to meet the challenge of effectively organizing a variety of reception services.

A more proactive reception policy at the local level requires appropriate financial and material support from central government. Along with the VNG, central government can also help here by develo** know-how and by identifying and sharing best practices. Moreover, not all costs need be borne out of the public purse. Particularly in the case of EU migrant workers and highly skilled professionals, part of the bill for reception and civic integration can be passed on to the employers who bring them here. This also prevents employers from shifting the entire social burden of labour migration to the community and overloading society’s ability to absorb newcomers. In the case of family migrants, partners can reasonably be expected to bear part of the cost of reception and civic integration. As for students, educational institutions can offer language courses and mentoring schemes. Finally, language buddies, residents’ organizations and community centres can all help asylum migrants find their way in Dutch society.

The main conclusions of this chapter are as follows.

• Local authorities should think more carefully about which migrants are best suited to the economy and society in their area. They can exert some influence in the respect through agreements with employment agencies, employers and the COA, and by setting up dedicated facilities.

• Regarding asylum migration, central government should allow local authorities greater scope to determine who settles definitively in their area. In doing so, however, it must ensure that these migrants are dispersed fairly between municipalities.

• Local authorities should provide reception facilities for all migrants. It may help to create one local or regional centre for all those settling legally in an area. The existing reception infrastructure for expats can serve as a basis.

• Systematic provision should be made for migrants staying only temporarily, particularly in the fields of housing and education.

• A civic integration policy designed primarily as a path to Dutch citizenship for permanent migrants is no longer appropriate to the realities of the modern migration society. There is a need for differentiated civic integration services for all migrants, including those for whom this is not mandatory and those resident only temporarily in the Netherlands.

Local authorities can do more to facilitate the smooth departure of migrants – by reaching agreements with employers and agencies, for instance, but also by offering support through the reception centres.