Mutual Learning Programme

Transcription

1 Mutual Learning Programme DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Peer Country Comments Paper - Norway Integration policy between national expectations and local autonomy Peer Review on 'Labour market inclusion of international protection applicants and beneficiaries' Madrid (Spain), May 2016 Written by Anne Britt Djuve. April 2016

2 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit A1 Contact: Emilio Castrillejo Web site: European Commission B-1049 Brussels

3 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Mutual Learning Programme DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Peer Review on 'Labour market inclusion of international protection applicants and beneficiaries' April, 2016 Madrid (Spain), May 2016

4 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission This document has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation "EaSI" ( ). For further information please consult: European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

5 Table of Contents 1 Situation of asylum seekers and refugees in the country Assessment of the policy measure Assessment of the success factors and transferability Questions... 8 Annex 1: Example of relevant practice... 9 Annex 2: Summary table...10

6 1 Situation of asylum seekers 1 and refugees 2 in the country This paper has been prepared for a Peer Review within the framework of the Mutual Learning Programme. It provides information on Norway s comments on the policy example of the Host Country for the Peer Review. For information on the policy example, please refer to the Host Country Discussion Paper. From 1990 to 2016 the population with a migrant background (migrants and their children) in Norway increased by from to persons 3. These groups combined make up 16% of the population. After the enlargement of the EU in 2004, labour migration from the new Member States, Poland in particular, increased significantly. In 2000, the largest migrant groups in Norway came from Sweden, Denmark and Pakistan. In 2016, Polish migrants form by far the largest country group. The largest refugee groups come from Somalia, Iraq, Eritrea, Iran and Vietnam. Figure 1: The top 15 countries of origin of migrants and their children in Norway Source: Statistics Norway From 2007 until 2015, labour migration was the dominant form of migration to Norway. From 2014 to 2015, the number of asylum applicants doubled. Still, the influx of asylum seekers to Norway was modest compared to Sweden, which experienced an increase of 440 % from 2011 to While the influx of labour migrants raised concerns about social dumping and crowding out of native workers, the increased influx of asylum applicants has now raised concerns about labour market inclusion, increased social spending, and the sustainability of the Norwegian labour and welfare model. While labour migrants from the EU have had high labour market participation rates, earlier waves of refugees and family immigration have resulted in quite diverse labour market participation rates according to e.g. country group, educational background, age and gender. The two largest groups of refugees, Somalis and Iraqis, have rather low labour market participation rates. The Syrian group - which is now the largest group of asylum seekers has so far been quite small. The statistics shown here are therefore based on the labour market performance of about adults. It is impossible to assess the 1 Individuals who have arrived in Norway and applied for asylum are called asylum seekers until their applications have been processed. 2 Refugees are either former asylum seekers who have been granted asylum or a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, or quota refugees who are resettled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 3 April,

7 Number of asylum applicants Mutual Learning Programme Peer Country Paper representativeness of this group for predicting the future labour market participation of the newly arrived refugees from Syria. Figure 2: Applicants for Asylum in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden Asylum applicants, by host country Denmark ,192 Finland ,192 Norway ,145 Sweden ,877 Sources: Migration Agency in Sweden, Finnish Immigration Service, Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, Danish Immigration Service, Fyens.dk and Nordic Council of Ministers Refugees are an extremely heterogeneous group. Some are illiterate, other are highly skilled. Some have large families, other are single. Some are in good health, others are severely traumatised. In spite of formally equal rights when it comes to labour market participation and access to labour market services, refugees face a number of obstacles related to poor knowledge of the Norwegian language, lack of relevant qualifications, problems of recognition of qualifications, health issues, and lack of networks and contacts which are known to be important to access the labour market. In some groups, traditional attitudes towards gender roles also to some extent hinder the labour market participation of women. Migrant jobseekers are also discriminated against - but the extent of this is difficult to measure. Figure 3: Labour market participation rates for migrants. Men aged with seven years of residence in Norway or more, by country of origin Sweden Poland Bosnia- Hercegovina Eritrea Pakistan Syria Iraq Source: Statistics Norway April,

8 Figure 4: Labour market participation rates for migrants. Women aged with seven years of residence in Norway or more, by country of origin Sweden Poland Bosnia-Hercegovina Eritrea Iraq Syria Pakistan Somalia Source: Statistics Norway The structure of the Norwegian labour market and welfare model may also be an obstacle in itself. The Norwegian labour and welfare model is characterised by a well organised labour market with relatively high wages, even in the bottom of the income range. This implies few jobs for the low skilled, high demands for individual productivity, and a high threshold into the labour market. Competition for (the few) low skilled jobs has also increased as a result of high labour migration. We also know that migrants are more often overqualified for their job than ethnic Norwegians are, implying that the jobs for the low skilled may already be taken by an(other) overqualified migrant. In combination with relatively generous welfare transfers, the result has been low labour market participation particularly in groups with little formal education. In comparison with Spain, Norway has (so far) not been hit hard by the euro crisis, and has a much lower unemployment rate. On the other hand, the wage/competence threshold into the lowest paid jobs in Spain is probably lower. April,

9 2 Assessment of the policy measure Compared to Spain, Norway seems to have a stricter division between measures designated for asylum applicants and measures designated for individuals who have been granted refugee status (or similar) and a residency permit. In the application phase, NGOs and private actors provide housing and basic services in reception centres, on behalf of state authorities. Refugee children have the same rights to education as any other child in Norway. Here, Norwegian and Spanish policy seem to be basically the same. The division of labour between state and local authorities also differs somewhat from the Spanish system. In Norway, asylum applicants who are granted asylum are resettled in one of Norway s 428 local municipalities. The allocation of refugees to the municipalities is subject to negotiations between state integration authorities and each local municipality and the municipalities receive state funding over five years for each refugee they resettle. The municipalities are responsible for finding proper housing for the refugees and their families and to enrol them in the Introductory Programme (see below). Refugees are not resettled in the municipalities until their applications for asylum have eventually been granted. Case processing times are currently up to 18 months. In many cases the refugees also have to wait several months after the applications have been granted before they are resettled. In this period, the asylum applicants can receive up to 250 hours of Norwegian language training. The local municipalities may apply for state funding in order to supply the language training. Municipalities that receive state funding are obliged to supply training but asylum applicants do not have an individual right to receive language training. They are allowed access to the labour market only if they can document their identity by means of a passport or national identity card (with a few exceptions). This is very often not the case, as many asylum applicants arrive without identification papers. Furthermore, work permits cannot be granted until after the asylum interview has been conducted. In sum, this means that the majority of asylum seekers spend a long time in asylum centres where very little integration activities take place. This means that it is difficult for them to achieve the kind of competences they need in order to enter the labour market, and even if they do find a job, they often do not obtain a work permit. Access to and content of education and training After resettling in a municipality, refugees have access to most mainstream welfare services and to the Introductory Programme (NIP) for refugees. The Introductory programme is a two-year (sometimes three) qualification scheme and is full-time. Participation is obligatory, in the sense that non-participation is economically sanctioned. The Introductory Act of 2003 entitles newcomers to an individually tailored training programme as well as a modest fixed income, the introductory benefit (approximately EUR annually). The benefits are however conditioned on participation in a full-time ( hours per week) qualification programme. Illegitimate absences from the set activities are deducted from the benefits, hour by hour. Parents with young children are offered subsidised childcare and special consideration is to be taken for participants with health problems. The Introductory Act ( 6.3) states that the programme should be based on an individual plan and that this plan is to be drafted in cooperation with the participant. This benefit is not means-tested, meaning that refugees who find employment that does not interfere with programme activities, will receive full introductory benefits. Every adult member of the household is entitled to the introductory benefit, as long as they participate full time and according to their written individual plan. By conditioning financial support on participation, extensive language- and work training became compulsory for most newly-arrived refugees and their families - an entire social category comprising highly diverse individuals. Every year, somewhere between and 13 April,

10 000 refugees are registered participants in the NIP 4. There is no creaming of candidates, as the programme is meant to be flexible enough to include everyone, regardless of educational levels, prior work experience or caring responsibilities. As the content of the programme is not specified in much detail in the Introductory Act, there is flexibility for local adaptations. Adding to the staple components of language training, social studies and work-oriented activities, municipalities have come up with an array of other courses. These additional courses are necessary in order to meet the requirements for full-time, individually adapted programmes. They range from carpentry workshops and cooking classes to computer courses. There is also a wide range of other activities such as helping your children with homework, participating in psychiatric treatment or doing physical exercise. The main ambition of the NIP is to promote financial autonomy and to support wider participation in society. This seems to be in accordance with the ambitions set out in the Spanish example. The curriculum for Norwegian language training and social studies states that the educational activities must include descriptions and explanations about important features of Norwegian society and inform participants on the rights and duties of citizens, as well as conveying knowledge on central values. It seems that the Spanish ambitions are somewhat different, in that host country values should not only be known, but also acquired. When it comes to gender roles, Norwegian politicians did however have ambitions not only to inform, but also to change family practices. When Norway introduced the NIP for newly-arrived refugees and their families in , the aim was to give each participant basic skills in the Norwegian language, basic insight into Norwegian society and to prepare him or her for employment or education. The law was also clear in its gender egalitarian ambitions, emphasising that gender equality and the individuals responsibility for their own provision is a central feature of Norwegian society and that the programme should not be implemented in a way that would support traditional gender practices (Ot.prp.nr ). Hence, the introduction of the individual benefit as opposed to the household-based social benefit - served a double purpose; to reduce the risk of clientification 6 by providing a direct link between active participation and payments, and to promote the participation of women. The individual introductory benefit creates a strong economic incentive for both spouses to participate in the programme. The NIP must entail both Norwegian training with social studies and some sort of labour market training, but local authorities and case workers have wide discretionary rights when it comes to the composition of the programme. This room for discretion may be a precondition for individual tailoring of the programme, but has also turned out to be the Achilles heel of the programme. So far, central authorities have not developed qualification modules for the programme other than curricula for Norwegian training and social studies. The Introductory Programme was established in order to address a number of identified shortcomings in the preceding integration regime, among them low intensive and poorly coordinated integration measures, sequential instead of parallel language training and on the job training, indistinct expression of western/norwegian values and low participation from women in some refugee groups. 4 The Norwegian Directorate of Integration and Diversity The target group comprises people between 18 and 55 years of age who need a basic qualification and who have been granted asylum or residence on humanitarian grounds, are resettlement refugees, or family migrants with the groups mentioned above. Persons who after a breakup of a relationship have been granted a residence permit on an independent basis due to abuse in the relationship were included from 1 July 2011 (Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion 2013). 6 Clientification is a term used to describe the alleged negative impact social assistance may have on the recipient s ability to take control of his/her situation. It is associated with the term learned helplessness. April,

11 Resettled refugees share the same rights to health services as Norwegian citizens. They also by and large share the same welfare rights. Some rights are however contingent on former labour market participation (such as unemployment benefits). During the period that refugees are in the target group for the Introductory Programme, they are not automatically eligible for full social benefits. They may receive supplementary social benefits in some cases but if they leave the programme during the programme period for reasons other than finding a job, the local social service office will refer them back to the programme. After the programme period is over, they are however eligible for full social benefits (if they otherwise fulfil the criteria) and for mainstream employment services. Education is free in Norway and refugees have the same access to Norwegian education as Norwegian citizens. The transition from the Introductory Programme to ordinary education is still not very high. There are probably a number of reasons for this. One important reason is that many refugees do not qualify for admission as they lack secondary education, or documentation and recognition of their former education. Another reason is that even though education is free, the refugees will need some sort of income in order to provide for themselves. Recognition of qualifications Judging from the Host country paper, Norway has developed a more comprehensive system of recognition of qualifications than Spain. Recognition of qualifications is however complicated and the Norwegian system involves a number of different actors. The main actor, NOKUT (Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education), can grant a general recognition of university and university college degrees, and also assist the other actors in their work. NOKUT is also the national partner in in the international networks ENIC and NARIC. Various Universities and University Colleges are responsible for specific recognition within their respective fields and there are 180 different institutions that recognise regulated vocational education. So far, no formal system for recognition of vocational training has been established but the County Governors are authorised to establish local institutions of recognition of vocational training. Some County Governors have established systems for practical testing of vocational skills. In a recent White Paper on adult learning, the government conveys that it will establish national systems for the recognition of vocational training. The systems will be administered by NOKUT and are to be operative by April,

12 3 Assessment of the success factors and transferability The Host country paper is not very explicit in its identification of success factors but mentions the cooperation between state authorities and NGOs, which has enabled state authorities to gain from the knowledge and experience of NGO actors, and to the development of mechanisms and tools to enhance cooperation between public and private players. These tools involve the Ariadna network, that brings together people in charge of labour inclusion in the public reception centres and the reception centres managed by NGOs, and the computer programme SIRIA. From a Norwegian perspective, it is interesting that Spain through these tools seems to implement integration activities for the refugees at an earlier stage in their stay than the Norwegian authorities do, and also grants formal access to the labour market after only six months. They also seem to succeed at least partially in involving regional authorities while refugees are still living in reception centres. According to the government representative interviewed in Norway, the upcoming White Paper on integration addresses this issue and suggests involving the integration services of the local municipalities in the activities of the state-funded reception centres, exactly to reduce the problems related to long periods of inactivity. It remains to be seen how much these kind of measures will improve the integration activities while the refugees are still in the reception centres. It is well known that the division of labour and distribution of power between administrative levels often causes problems of implementation and the Norwegian integration sector is no exception to this rule. With 428 local municipalities with a high level of autonomy, much coordination and persuasion is needed in order to implement state authority policies. Fewer actors and more extensive powers and responsibilities of the central authorities in Spain may have facilitated the seemingly earlier intervention of integration actors. The stronger role of NGOs in integration activities is in principle transferable to Norway and other countries, but a full switch from local municipalities to NGOs would entail a considerable change in today s division of responsibilities and powers between state authorities and the local municipalities. April,

13 4 Questions What is known about the living conditions and labour market participation of various refugee groups, compared to other migrant groups? What is the scope and content of the actual language training and labour market training activities? Is participation in education and employment activities an individual right for the refugees, or dependent on case worker discretion? At what stage are the individual integration itineraries sketched out and who is responsible for doing this? How are the integration activities that are carried out by the reception centres shaped, monitored and financed? Are there any gender-specific measures, e.g. intended to increase the labour market participation of women? April,

14 Annex 1: Example of relevant practice Name of the practice: Introductory Programme (NIP) Year of implementation: 2003/2004 Coordinating authority: Local Municipalities Objectives: Transition to work and education Main activities: Language training, on the job training, labour market qualification Results so far: Improved transition to employment The programme is funded through a state budget in terms of a fixed sum per refugee resettled in each local municipality. The state transfer runs for five years. The size of the state transfer is based on the calculations of a national committee with broad representation and negotiated with the central organisation for the local municipalities (KS). It is not earmarked, meaning that the local municipalities may spend potential surpluses on other budgetary purposes. According to the Introductory Act, the programme must contain Norwegian language training, some sort of labour market training, it must be full-time, and absence from the programme is to be economically sanctioned. It is also mandatory to establish an individual integration itinerary for each participant, in cooperation with the participant. State authorities do not however systematically monitor the local integration efforts and deviations from state regulations do not result in cutbacks in state financing. The local municipalities are responsible for the implementation of the programme. About 40 % of the local municipalities have organised the programme in qualification centres for refugees. These centres operate in cooperation with the local adult learning centres, which normally provide the language training, and local labour market authorities (an institution run and financed by state authorities). Equally many local authorities organise the programme as part of the local labour and welfare offices. NAV is in partnership between the local municipalities (welfare) and the state (labour and pensions). The rest of the municipalities organise the programme within the municipal centres for adult education or other. The programme is currently being evaluated. Earlier evaluations show that labour market integration has increased compared to before the programme was launched, but that the programme is still suffering from substantial implementation problems, particularly when it comes to individual adaptations and relevant labour market training. April,

15 Annex 2: Summary table Labour market situation in the Peer Country Norway has until recently not been severely hit by the Euro crisis Norway has a compressed wage structure and few low skilled jobs The high thresholds into the labour market make integration of refugees with little education and little knowledge of the Norwegian language difficult Assessment of the policy measure Spain has developed a system for integration of refugees that places relatively high powers and responsibilities with state authorities, but that also includes NGOs and regional authorities. A system of individually adapted integration itineraries has been implemented, and education and labour market training may be provided by regional authorities. The scope and content of the measures are however described to be insufficient. From a Norwegian perspective it is particularly interesting that Spain through these tools, seems to implement integration activities for the refugees at an earlier stage in their stay than Norwegian authorities do, and also grants formal access to the labour market after only six months. Assessment of success factors and transferability Cooperation between state authorities and NGOs, which has enabled state authorities to gain from the knowledge and experience of NGO actors. Development of mechanisms and tools to enhance cooperation between public and private players. The stronger role of NGOs in integration activities is in principle transferable, but a full switch from local municipalities to NGOs would entail a considerable change in today s division of responsibilities and powers between state authorities and the local municipalities. Questions What is known about the living conditions and labour market participation of various refugee groups, compared to other migrant groups? What is the scope and content of the actual language training and labour market training activities? Is participation in education and employment activities an individual right for the refugees, or dependent on case worker discretion? At what stage are the individual integration itineraries sketched out and who is responsible for doing this? How are the integration activities that are carried out by the reception centres shaped, monitored and financed? April,

16

17