Expert meeting on the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX)
22 November 2007, Huize Molenaar, Utrecht
The Largest Ever Study into the Rights of Europe’s Legal Immigrants www.integrationindex.eu
This meeting was held to mark the launch of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) in the Netherlands and to promote debate about the findings of the MIPEX project, as well as wider issues surrounding migrant integration policy.
The meeting was organised jointly by the British Council Netherlands and FORUM Institute for Multicultural Development.
Respected authorities in the field were invited to attend the expert meeting, drawn from the Netherlands and the UK.
The meeting was opened by Sadik Harchaoui.
Dr Dirk Jacobs presented an introduction to the Migrant Integration Policy Index, outlining its origin, construction, and objectives.
 WORKSHOP 1: What can the MIPEX and the Netherlands Integration Monitor learn from each other?
Mr Rob Bijl, Deputy Director of SCP (the Netherlands Institute for Social Research), made an opening presentation.
The discussions highlighted some important differences between the MIPEX and the ‘Integratiekaart’ (Netherlands Integration Monitor). MIPEX measures legislation in 28 countries on 6 policy areas, using 2-3 assessors per country, with results summarized in an index score, whereas the ‘Integratiekaart’ initiative measures the actual situation of migrants in one country (the Netherlands) showing developments in time, trends and cohorts, as well as distinguishing ethnic groups, and including 1st and 2nd generation migrants.
It was felt by many that the MIPEX’s concept of Third Country Nationals, or migrants, is perhaps too broad to take account of the many differences between ethnic groups, since not all groups face the same barriers or problems in the integration process, and may often benefit from customised policies.
MIPEX is restricted to policy and legislation and does not include outcomes, since very little comparable European data is available (Labour Force Survey, PISA). In this way, for now at least, the MIPEX can ensure reliability and validity. Future developments may include addressing how policy regimes practically influence the integration process.
The MIPEX takes a country-by-country approach, but the workshop suggested it would also be interesting to compare European countries by groups of different ethnic origins. For example, are Moroccan-Dutch migrants doing better than Moroccan-French migrants, and so on?
Also, in ranking countries the importance of secondary factors should not be overlooked. For example, Portugal now scores higher than the Netherlands in the MIPEX, but currently has no social welfare policy. If these kinds of general social and economic policies were also taken into account, the overall ranking might be quite different.
MAIN OUTCOMES FROM WORKSHOP 1
- Much appreciation of the publication of the MIPEX: policy regimes all over Europe have been made visible.
- MIPEX raises lots of interesting questions about policy and society.
- Many methodological issues are raised. For example: establishing definitions (e.g. the legal interpretation of the word ’migrant’); the value of implementation (don’t overestimate policy; pay attention to specific groups and the situation in different countries); scoring (reliability and validity), particularly concerning ‘family reunion’.
- Practitioners: very useful source of data, opportunity to identify good practice across Europe.
WORKSHOP 2: Conditions for civic integration (‘inburgering’) and the right to long term residency: comparing recent developments in the Netherlands and the UK
Since Third Country Nationals are not the only people affected by the policies discussed in the MIPEX (e.g. those with long-term residency status and also those who are already ‘naturalised’ are also affected), it may be useful to take other groups into account in considering its impact.
In the UK, the citizenship test was introduced in 2005. It comprises language testing to ESOL Entry 3 level, and the ‘Life in the UK’ test. Starting in 2007, long-term residents are also required to take this test. Whereas these tests (and associated courses) used to be relatively cheap, these can now cost as much as £800.
To ensure greater relevancy of the testing, it is planned is to identify priority groups. One of these groups is long-term residents who do not yet speak English (so helping those already living in the country).
In the Netherlands and the UK, there is a sense in which migrants have to ‘earn’ a strong legal position. Individuals have to ‘deserve’ their position in society by taking tests. What will the long-term side effects of this be, and is there a risk that those not passing the tests will become second class citizens? Could this mean some people may never be deemed integrated, and there will be an elitist attitude towards those worthy of integration?
Alternatively, if civic integration policy is presented as an offer rather than an obligation, uptake will need to be stimulated in an effective way.
Civic integration tests may certainly enable a smoother transition for migrants, although some may perceive the tests positive and supportive, while others see them simply as barriers. Immigrants to the Netherlands have an obligation to learn Dutch, but should that be a formal condition for their secure status in the country?
The workshop considered it important to make any civic integration test practical rather than just theoretical. This would help newcomers to be regarded as potential parents and community members, with varied contributions to make to society.
It could be useful to examine whether tiers of success in civic integration are linked to similar indices in employability. People who succeed in civic integration tests may still have huge difficulties securing employment, and perhaps vice versa.
It was generally felt that the next step for the MIPEX should be about outcomes. How can the practice (which results from the policies) be assessed? How can benefits be realistically measured?
MAIN OUTCOMES FROM WORKSHOP 2
- Agreement that some kind of test is a good thing, in principle.
- There is concern that a rigid pass/fail testing system may result in a two-tiered society of 1st and 2nd class citizens.
- MIPEX raises interest in the mid and long-term effects of the policies. How can we now measure their efficiency? What is their actual impact?
- Migrants should be seen as ‘social capital’ – in other words, seen as potential community members and parents – not just test candidates
WORKSHOP 3: What should be required of third country nationals who wish to reside in the Netherlands and UK? What policies/tests should be in place to enable naturalisation to take place?
Vaughan Jones made some opening comments
Former integration policy in the Netherlands mainly offered practical information to help migrants, whereas more recently, integration tests and policies have been introduced to curb growing problems. The relationship between integration policy and immigration policy is complex in both the UK and the Netherlands.
There is evidence that some migrants approach tests with cynicism, having already undergone ten years of integration in the country. As well as the positive aspects, testing may breed a culture of suspicion amongst some immigrants, and in this way, there is a risk that some tests can become symbols of a barrier to integration.
Citizenship ceremonies have become very significant to local councillors, who have a vested interest in making integration work. Should the design and delivery of tests be relocated to local authorities? This would take the issue of citizenship away from borders agencies and bring it under local authorities, where the inclusion dynamics of local boroughs can be brought into play. In this way communities can be built according to local need, reflecting the differences in regional areas of the UK.
The Dutch language test focuses on transactional Dutch, but it is still quite difficult for many. What level of linguistic sophistication is needed amongst new newcomers, and what is a reasonable level of language attainment to require of them?
It was felt that tests can force individuals and countries into an institutional structure, which may appear objective, but can actually be very selective in many ways. The most important thing to know is: can this person function in the community?
A sound ideology can enhance how practical any test is. For example, what does citizenship actually mean? What is the host country’s sense of identity? Should this be the starting point? What does ‘British’ mean? How can it be ensured that people coming into Britain understand and endorse that concept?
It was also felt that knowing the make-up of the host country, its law, customs and conditions is crucial for all immigrants, and that candidates should also be aware what is and isn’t permitted from a legal perspective.
In the UK there is increasing emphasis on vocational courses, as English language teaching for migrants is related to participation in society, predominantly aimed at enabling people to get a job. However, it was also noted that some groups don’t access the labour market or learn English at all.
In designing future tests immigrants themselves may be asked what they would have liked to know about schools, healthcare, supermarkets, taxes, social security, etc in the host country. Society changes and this process may accommodate those changes accordingly.
MAIN OUTCOMES FROM WORKSHOP 3
- Tough tests won’t work. They should be practical and understandable to people who take them.
- In developing tests, existing immigrants should be consulted on content.
- Tests should value the existing skills of migrants (e.g. ability to speak several languages)
- The authorities should beware of creating a regime of testing. Rather, the focus should be on teaching and other ways of assessing.
- The authorities should ensure the quality control of teaching. Teachers are sometimes poor quality and poorly paid. Skilled Dutch teachers must be retained.
- The concept of integration obscures the wider need for indigenous people to invest in the process. The concept is often poorly defined, which leads to emphasis on ‘others’ not ‘us’.
- Passing a test doesn’t automatically help you get a job.
- It is more important to provide training than tests.
Questions and comments were put to a panel consisting of Dirk Jacobs, Rob Bijl and Vaughan Jones.
Lyn Parker: MIPEX is based on facts. How will the less measurable ‘real life’ impact of the policies be evaluated?
Panel: When commissioning independent research, it’s important to agree on performance indicators. Sampling procedures are extremely complicated. This surveying exercise is feasible, but very expensive.
Evaluation is certainly crucial. However, since there is no empirical data on the practical impact of integration policies yet, it is problematic to get agreement on ‘definitions’. Scalability is the key to succeeding with this – begin on a modest scale.
Nahed Selim: Are there institutions within the European Union which can help standardise the criteria for civic integration tests?
Panel: There is a lot of ideology involved in constructing research and surveys, which means that standardisation can lessen the practical relevance of the test.
Nigel Bellingham: The actual report is only one output from the MIPEX project. Another is the consortium of over 25 participating organisations, which is now a powerful tool for taking additional steps forward.
Panel: MIPEX has provided a framework for policy measurement. But migration is a multi-layered ‘human’ issue, which cannot be managed with policies alone. The impact of testing is felt by communities in a different way to how politicians often perceive it.
One approach may be to re-examine the importance of local authorities and cohesion strategies in the acceptance of new people into the host country. We should beware of the ‘silo’ approach to migrant integration policy, and instead adopt a cross-sectional matrix of policies across a wide range of social structures.
Guus Extra: There is a danger when perceiving integration with a single definition, because in reality there are so many different concepts. Most migrants have a very multi-faceted view of their own integration, and unless this is shared by policy makers, there is a danger.
Panel: Integration policies in the past were focussed on minorities, whereas new policies also include indigenous society. The challenge is to introduce these new policies in an ethical and measurable way.
Do policy makers make best use of existing and commissioned academic research, rather than focussing only on figures?
What is the purpose of integration policy? Aren’t all sectors of the population subject to social policy? The real question is what kind of access immigrants have to proper community services. This raises broader questions such as: what type of society and what type of economy does the host country want?
Marc Verlot: Revisions of the Race Equality Act oblige public services to assess the impact of their new policies on ethnic minorities. Ethnic monitoring can pinpoint how certain systems are actually working (e.g. probation and rehabilitation).
Do governments and local authorities want to be monitored in such a way? There needs to be willingness from all parties to accept the results of the monitoring, and then act on the results.
Ella Vogelaar, Minister for Housing, Communities and Integration, was originally expected to address the meeting. Due to unforeseen events at late notice, however, she was unable to attend. Instead, Ali Rabarison (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) kindly presented on her behalf.
Closing comments from Lyn Parker, British Ambassador to the Netherlands:
Perhaps it is now worth considering a smaller number of countries within this EU-wide sample, and scrutinising how they can learn from each other’s policies and situations by comparison. Getting into more detail can address the gap between what is on paper and what the reality is.
Economic integration could be a key to wider integration – i.e. access to the labour market. Participation in the workforce and access to prosperity have a huge impact on integration over time.
|
