resoma: research social platform on migration and asylum · 2019. 8. 1. · integration outcomes of...
Post on 13-Oct-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 770730.
ReSOMA:
Research Social platform On Migration and Asylum
Start date of project: 1st February 2018 Duration: 24 months
D1.2 - Social research panel survey
WP n° and title WP1– Setting & responding to policy agenda
Responsible Author(s) MPG
Contributor(s) CEPS, ISMU
Version v.2
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 2 of 49
Deliverable information
Status
(F: final; D: draft; RD: revised draft):
Final
Planned delivery date 31/05/2019 @M16
Actual delivery date 31/07/2019 @M18
Dissemination level:
(PU = Public; PP = Restricted to other program participants; RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium; CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium)
CO
Type: Report, Website, Other, Ethics Surveys
Document History
Version Date (MM/DD/YYYY)
Created/Amended by Changes
01 07/29/2019 MPG Creation first draft
02 07/31/2019 ISMU Final check and submission
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 3 of 49
Content
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................... 4
2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Social Research Panel Surveys ......................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Implementation and Experts Sampling and Outreach ................................................................ 7
3.2 survey response rate & use of survey findings ............................................................................ 8
4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 9
5 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 24
5.1 Examples of how surveys were incorporated in the consultation ............................................ 24
5.2 survey questionnaires ............................................................................................................... 26
5.3 Invitation email to resoma expert database ............................................................................. 40
5.4 ReSOMA official Twitter promotion .......................................................................................... 41
5.4.1 Asylum ............................................................................................................................... 41
5.4.2 Migration ........................................................................................................................... 42
5.4.3 Integration ......................................................................................................................... 44
5.4.4 Examples of unofficial LinkedIn promotion ....................................................................... 47
5.5 Draft email for partners to circulate ......................................................................................... 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 4 of 49
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Please complete with the abbreviations used in the document
Abbreviation Definition DoA Description of Action
EC European Commission
H2020 Horizon 2020
SG Steering Group
NGOs Non-profit organisations
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 5 of 49
2 Introduction
The ReSOMA project aims to set the policy agenda by identifying the most pressing needs relating to
migration, asylum and integration. With a view to bring forward evidence-based policy options, the
project pools together stakeholders’ experience and scholarly evidence and questions existing policy
patterns in order to turn policy options into viable alternatives for policy makers.
The Social Research Panel Surveys have been designed to be a tool to gather evidence from the most
expert researchers and stakeholders on all topics of interest. In this light, the current round of Social
Research Panel Surveys is designed to collect views of a wide range of stakeholders
(European/International institutions, national authorities, municipalities, civil society organisations
researchers and practitioners) at European, national and local level working in the areas of Asylum (3
surveys), Migration (3 surveys) and Integration (3 surveys).
The survey questionnaire has been based on the knowledge acquired through desk research, in relation
to the content of the ‘Ask the expert policy briefs’ (D1.7) and ‘Synthetic State of the art expert Policy
Briefs’ (D1.4), which precisely have the purpose to facilitate knowledge sharing. By reacting to current
events and developments that shape the European migration and integration debate, these briefs
identify the unmet needs and define policy trends. ReSOMA research teams carried out desk research on
the topics and met with relevant stakeholders to discuss the state of knowledge on the topics, which all
contributed to the survey content.
As in Year 1, we decided to conduct an on-line survey as the benefit is threefold:
(1) possibility of gathering experts from all around the EU;
(2) fast data collection;
(3) promised lower cost per interview than most some other methods.
However, in contrast to Year 1, in the implementation of the survey we decided to replace the ReSOMA
survey platform with Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com), which is an online tool to create
surveys. In Year 1 we found the survey platform to be not very flexible and it created a further burden
for respondents (e.g., registration was compulsory to answer the survey). Therefore, we decided to
employ Survey Monkey, which is a more flexible tool and allowed us to reach a large variety of
respondents. The benefit of this strategy can be seen in the number of total respondents which is more
than double in Year 2 (N=70) than in Year 1 (n=26).
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 6 of 49
3 Social Research Panel Surveys
In a collaborative effort with leading stakeholder representatives, ReSOMA has identified nine unfolding,
highly relevant policy debates in the areas of asylum, migration and integration. In 2019 these topics are
at the centre of the ReSOMA dialogue, resulting in policy briefs, recommendations and deepened
exchange between civil society, research and policy-making. The 9 focus topics are listed below and
described extensively both on the ReSOMA website and in other project deliverables, such as: D1.7/8 -
Ask the expert policy briefs; and D1.4 - Synthetic state-of-the-art expert policy briefs @M17.
Asylum
SAR and Dublin: Ad hoc responses to refusals to disembarkation
Secondary movements within the EU Implementation of the Global Compacts on Refugees (GCR)
Migration
Strategic litigation of criminalisation cases
Implementation of the Global Compacts on Migration (GCM)
The increasing use of detention
Integration
Funding a long-term comprehensive approach to integration at the local level
Public opinion on migrants: the effect of information and disinformation about EU Policies
Integration outcomes of recent sponsorship and humanitarian visa arrivals
As one of the first steps, practitioners and experts were invited to contribute with their knowledge and
share their assessments by responding to the 9 dedicated ReSOMA surveys. The surveys have been
conducted for the abovementioned topics. This research feeds in the discussion on the major trends at
EU level in the national debate and will inform possible future EU level initiatives and recommendations
on the topic.
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 7 of 49
3.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPERTS SAMPLING AND OUTREACH
The ReSOMA Social Research Panel Surveys was launched in June 2019, together with the Consultations
(D1.10). We decided to implement the survey both as part of the Consultations and autonomously to
increase the number of participants.
The survey has been developed based on the needs and specifications of the stakeholder partners.
Surveys targeted researchers, stakeholders and policy practitioners across Europe with the aim to gather
their evidence and assessment of the major new unmet needs, and map responses to the evolving EU
policy agenda.
We created 9 surveys in Survey Monkey (see Annex). A link to invite participants was created and shared
by the means of different methods.
First, experts in the ReSOMA Expert Database and researchers and practitioners within the Partner
Membership and networks were sampled. Experts registered to the ReSOMA Expert Database received
an invitation e-mail to take part in the Consultations and the Surveys, see Annex. In addition to this,
further promotion was carried out using Twitter to post the survey links from the ReSOMA twitter
account using smart hashtags (see Annex).
Second, Consortium partners were requested to further circulate an email (see Annex) within the contact
list of their organisation and to retweet the three thematic tweets that are being posted on the ReSOMA
official Twitter account.
Third, consortium partners were further requested to communicate more personally and bilaterally with
their members and stakeholders on the surveys that resonate more closely to their areas of expertise.
In order to maximise the response rate, the target audience for each individual survey was more narrowly
pre-defined within the broader target group of ‘experts’. Furthermore, the surveys were designed in a
manner to be intuitive and concise by retaining only the essential questions and combining questions in
a manner to reduce response fatigue, in order to maximise completion rate.
As a privacy measure, survey responses cannot be matched with Expert Database Profiles. The
information collected through the survey remains anonymous. Practices on data collection, processing
and storage adopted in this survey are in line with the Horizon 2020 Programme Annotated Model Grant
Agreement.
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 8 of 49
3.2 SURVEY RESPONSE RATE & USE OF SURVEY FINDINGS
While significant efforts have been made to communicate and distribute the first round of ReSOMA
surveys (see Section 3.1), the response rates for the 9 individual surveys were very low (see Table 1). A
coherent distribution/communication strategy was overseen for the ReSOMA surveys and it seems as if
the ad hoc efforts have paid off only for some topics.
Table 1. Completed surveys per topic
Survey Number Completed
Funding a long-term comprehensive approach to integration at the local level 22 Public opinion on migrants: the effect of information and disinformation about EU Policies 14 Integration outcomes of recent sponsorship and humanitarian visa arrivals 9 Strategic litigation of criminalisation cases 6 The increasing use of detention 6 SAR and Dublin: Ad hoc responses to refusals to disembarkation The Global Compact for Refugees Secondary movements within the EU The role of the EU in the Global Compact on Migration
3 3 3 4
The Surveys designed as part of D1.2 were envisaged to collect information to feed into the D2.2 Policy
options briefs. However, due to the non-representative sample of respondents and very low response
rate, the survey findings are not drawn on in a systematic manner but rather used as an addition
information source for specific cases and country examples reported in surveys. Taken as a starting point,
authors could conduct additional desk research on the topics and issues raised. It can be noted that
survey responses confirmed the desk research findings and expert interviews conducted in preparation
of drafting the D1.2 Discussion policy briefs.
The surveys will remain open for the entire duration of the project to still collect information and increase
the number of respondents.
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 9 of 49
4 RESULTS
In this section we summarise the main results from the 9 surveys.
Secondary movements within the EU
(3 responses in total)
Question 1. The prevention of secondary movement should be a key priority for the EU. Do you agree?
From the responses collected in this survey, it is clear that the prevention of secondary movements
should not represent a priority for the EU, as all respondents affirm that the EU should not be putting
effort into this area.
Question 2. What is the most important cause of secondary movement?
Responses in this case seem more contrasting. For some it corresponds to the lack of integration
prospects in arrival countries, for others it is linked to pull factors in destination countries or motivated
by an individual choice.
3
Yes, strongly agree– preventing secondary movement is very
important
Yes, agree somewhat – the EU should try to prevent secondary
movement
No, tend not to agree –prevention of secondary
movement is not so important
No, strongly disagree – the EU should not be putting effort into
prevention of secondary movement
The prevention of secondary movement should be a key priority for the EU. Do you agree?
1 1 1
Lack of integration prospects inarrival countries
Poor reception conditions inarrival countries
Pull factors (such as socialassistance) in destination
countries
Individual choice
What is the most important cause of secondary movement?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 10 of 49
Question 3. Assuming the CEAS legal framework does not change, which measure would best address
secondary movement?
Respondents mainly believe that the measure which would best address secondary movement would
be either an improvement of the reception conditions or an enhanced implementation of family
reunification. Increasing returns and the implementation of punitive measures to sanctions those
moving do not seem to represent a feasible possibility to tackle this issue.
(1 answer missing)
1 1
Increasing returns Improving reception conditions Punitive measures to sanctionthose moving
Better implementation of familyreunification
Assuming the CEAS legal framework does not change, which measure would best address secondary movement?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 11 of 49
Implementation of the Global Compacts on Refugees (GCR)
(3 responses in total)
Question 1. The Global Compact for Refugees (GCR) is a useful tool for improving protection globally.
Do you agree?
Respondents seem not to agree on the importance of the GCR as an instrument to improve protection
globally. Answers are mainly polarized between those who strongly believe in the usefulness of this
instrument and those who, on the other hand, strongly disagree that it could represent an effective
protection tool.
Question 2. The EU has an important role to play in the implementation of the GCR. Do you agree?
Once again, responses are very polarized, as they express either the believe that the EU has no role in
the implementation of the GCR or that its contribution is crucial. Positions “in the middle” are not
present in this case.
1 1 1
Yes, strongly agree Tend to agree – if implementation follows
Tend to disagree – the GCR will not change much
Strongly disagree – the GCR is not important
The Global Compact for Refugees (GCR) is a useful tool for improving protection globally. Do you agree?
2
1
Yes, the EU’s contribution will be crucial
Somewhat, the EU could play animportant role
Tend to disagree Strongly disagree – the EU has no role in GCR implementation
The EU has an important role to play in the implementation of the GCR. Do you agree?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 12 of 49
Question 3. How can the EU best support GCR implementation?
Respondents believe that the EU can best support the implementation of the GCR through an effective
asylum system in Europe, followed by the use of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework for
crises in Europe. Both funding and resettlement have not been considered crucial in this respect.
2
1
Funding Resettlement Effective asylum system inEurope
Use of the ComprehensiveRefugee Response Framework
for crises in Europe
How can the EU best support GCR implementation?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 13 of 49
Strategic litigation of criminalisation cases
(6 responses in total, weighted average used for answers)
Question 1. Could you please rate the relevance of each of the following approaches to preventing
criminalisation and policing of civil society actors by the EU institutions and agencies?
Respondents mainly believe that, among the possible answers, the EU’s obligation to respect, protect
and promote the work of human rights defenders, as well as crimes against humanity are the most
important ones, followed by EU citizens’ right to good administration and the EU’s obligation to secure
humanitarian space within the EU. The right to assembly and freedom of speech are considered less
relevant.
Another element: “Fundamental rights”
(Weighted average of the answers reported for each item)
3.33 3.673.33
3.67
2.67 2.8
EU citizens’ right to good administration
The EU’s obligation to respect, protect and promote the work of
human rights defenders
The EU’s obligation to secure humanitarian space within the EU
Crimes againsthumanity
Right to assembly andfreedom of speech
Another element(please specify it below)
Could you please rate the relevance of each of the following approaches to preventing criminalisation and policing of civil society actors by the EU institutions and agencies?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 14 of 49
Question 2. In your opinion, which is the relevance of the following international, regional and EU
courts and human rights bodies in preventing the policing of humanitarian actors?
According to respondents, the most important body for the prevention of the policing of humanitarian
actors is the Court of Justice of the EU, followed by the European Court of Human Rights. The European
Court of Editors appears to be less crucial in this field.
Another element: “UN Special Procedures”
3.67 4 4.333.67
2.67 3
European Court ofHuman Rights
Court of Justice of theEU
European Ombudsman European Court ofEditors
Another element(please specify it
below)
In your opinion, which is the relevance of the following international, regional and EU courts and human rights bodies in preventing the policing of humanitarian
actors?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 15 of 49
Implementation of the Global Compacts on Migration (GCM)
(4 respondents in total)
Question 1. Which of the EU Institutions or Commission Services should lead the implementation of the
Global Compact on Migration (GCM)?
DG HOME is the most important EU institution that should lead the implementation of the GCM,
immediately followed by DG DEVCO and the EEAS. DG NEAR and DG ECHO, on the other hand, are not
considered important actors in this process according to the respondents.
(More than 1 answers allowed per respondent)
Question 2. How should the EU address the specific needs of civil society, local authorities and private
businesses to be actively involved in the GCM implementation process?
This survey shows that the EU should mainly devote funding schemes to address the specific needs of
civil society, local authorities and private businesses to be actively involved in the GCM implementation
process. Other possibilities are barely considered or not even taken into account.
1
3
Promoting and gatheringpledges
Establishing online platform forconsultation
Devoted funding scheme Conducting research on needsand gaps
How should the EU address the specific needs of civil society, local authorities and private businesses to be actively involved in the GCM
implementation process?
2
3
1
DG DEVCO DG ECHO DG HOME DG NEAR EEAS
Which of the EU Institutions or Commission Services should lead the implementation of the Global Compact on Migration (GCM)?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 16 of 49
Question 3. How important is the GCM?
Half of the respondents believe that the GCM is important because it gives emphasis on the protection
of the human rights of those on the move, while none of them believe that the GCM has no role. In the
middle, some believes this instrument is important as a mechanism for international cooperation on
migration and as it creates a human right to migration.
2
1 1
The GCM is not important The GCM is important because itis based on protecting the
human rights of those on themove
The GCM is important because itis a mechanism for international
cooperation on migration
The GCM is important because itcreates a human right to
migration
How important is the GCM?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 17 of 49
The increasing use of detention
(6 respondents in total, weighted average used for the answers)
Question 1. Please rate to what extent the following elements in the current and potential future EU
legal framework contribute to the increased use of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants?
Respondents believe that the concept of the ‘risk of absconding’ is the element which contribute more
to the increased use of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in the EU, followed by the
grounds for detention (which also considers the newly proposed one base on public security) and the
possible limitation of the suspensive effect of legal remedies. The possible resort to alternative measures
seems to be the factor which counts the least.
Another element: “I think we don't understand this well, so there will be important other factors...”
4.17 4.33
3.33 3.17
4.17 4
The grounds fordetention (including
the new one regardingthe risk to public
policy, public securityor national security)
The concept of the ‘risk of absconding’,
along with the proposed 16 objective criteria to determine it
The minimum andmaximum duration of
detention
The resort toalternative measures
The possible limitationof the suspensive
effect of legalremedies
Another element(please specify it
below)
Please rate to what extent the following elements in the current and potential future EU legal framework contribute to the increased use of detention of asylum seekers
and irregular migrants?
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 18 of 49
Question 2. Please rate to what extent the following factors are controversial in the context of detention
of asylum seekers and irregular migrants
The most controversial factor in the context of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants is the
adverse impact on health, psychological wellbeing and social relations of migrants, followed by the
current lack of ban for children detention and the restrictive migration policies and practices at the
national level.
Another controversial element: //
3.5
4.54.17
3
Restrictive migration policies andpractices at the national level
Adverse impacts on health,psychological wellbeing and social
relations of migrants
Current lack of ban for childrendetention
Another controversial element(please specify it below)
Please rate to what extent the following factors are controversial in the context of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 19 of 49
Funding a long-term comprehensive approach to integration at the local level
(22 respondents, weighted average used for answers)
Question 1. Please rate to what extent the following elements of a comprehensive approach to
integration on local level should receive more support from the EU
Respondents believe that, for a comprehensive approach to integration on local level, the EU should first
and foremost enable a comprehensive integration from day one and improve the coordination among
authorities for newly arrived migrants, followed by the need to facilitate social investments and ensure
adequate social infrastructure. The least important contribution that the EU could do is linked to the
possibility to seize opportunities of transnational links and promote integration as a three-way process.
Another element:
1. “To develop a cultural change based on solidarity and mutual knowledge and respect”
2. “Is of algorithms to improve matching of newcomers with volunteers in host societies”
3. “Dealing with the psychological trauma in order to improve general health”
4. “Cooperating with labour market representatives”
5. “Stimulate equality of social services (minimum wage, health insurance, allowances) within EU
countries”
4.36
4.094.23
4.32
3.77
4.054.18
3.95
3.64
3.864
Enabling comprehensiveintegration from day
one & improvingcoordination amongauthorities for newly
arrived
Mainstreamingintegration across policyareas & aiming for long-
term integrationoutcomes
Establishing effectivenon-discriminationpolicies & enforcing
anti-discrimination laws
Facilitating socialinvestments (education,
health, care etc.) &ensuring adequate
social infrastructures inareas affected by
immigration
Creating a knowledgebase & strengthening
evidence-basedintegration policydevelopment and
evaluation
Initiating community-building & fostering
trust and positiveidentification among
newcomers andresidents
Enabling participation &involving migrants with
different residencestatus, host language
skills and social capital
Encouragingvolunteerism & ensuringlong-term collaborationbetween authorities and
civil society
Seizing opportunities of transnational links &
promoting integration as a ‘three-way process’ including the countries
of origin
Supporting place-basedempowerment of
migrant communities &setting free potentials
for neighbourhooddevelopment
Another element(please specify it below)
Please rate to what extent the following elements of a comprehensive approach to integration on local level should receive more support from the EU
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 20 of 49
Public opinion on migrants: the effect of information and disinformation about EU Policies
(14 respondents, weighted average used for the answers)
Question 1. Please rate to what extent the following factors drive public opinion on the EU’s migration
policies
The survey shows that the most important factor driving public opinion on the EU’s migration policies are
the information from social media, followed by the discourses of populist parties. The discourse of EU
institutions seems not to count a lot.
Another factor:
1. “Integration policies”
2. “Stop and listen to people's fears in host societies, don't push policy that strengthens populist
parties”
3. “Images conveyed by mainstream media”
4. “Specific incidents (like Cologne or knife attacks) that are covered broadly in media (more broadly
I guess than if the deed had been done by a non-refugee / non-Afghan / etc.
43.21 3
4 4.29 4.43 4.33
People’s pre-existing attitude to EU / migration
People’s direct experiences of EU
policies (e.g. as volunteers, migrants, locals living near EU borders/hotspots)
Discourse of EUinstitutions
Discourse of mainstreamparties
Discourse of populistparties
Information from (social)media
Another factor (pleasespecify it below)
Please rate to what extent the following factors drive public opinion on the EU’s migration policies
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 21 of 49
SAR and Dublin: Ad hoc responses to refusals to disembarkation
(3 respondents, weighted average used for the answers)
Question 1. Please rate the importance of the following policy recommendations for the new European
Commission to halt 'pushbacks' and 'pullbacks'
The survey illustrates that all the following factors are important for the respondents, but among the top
3 there is the investigation of allegations of unlawful actions by the EU agencies, guidelines on how to
reconcile border control protection and EU migration funding conditional to human rights compliance.
Question 2. Please rate the importance of the following policy priorities that the new EU institutions
should address to alleviate pressure at EU external borders
Respondents indicated that the permanent corrective relocation mechanism and the Revision of Dublin
Regulation is the most important policy priorities that the EU institutions should address to alleviate
pressure at the external borders, followed by the creation of an EU Search and Rescue Operations in the
Mediterranean.
4.33
4 4
4.33 4.33
Investigation of allegationsof unlawful actions by EU
agencies (Fontex andEASO)
Infringement proceduresagainst relevant Member
States
EU monitoring mechanismon fundamental rights
compliance
Guidelines on how toreconcile border control
with internationalprotection
EU migration fundingconditional to human
rights compliance
Please rate the importance of the following policy recommendations for the new European Commission to halt 'pushbacks' and 'pullbacks'
4.67
3.673
4
Permanent corrective relocationmechanism and Revision of
Dublin Regulation
Better enforcement of currentstandards in EU asylum acquis
Enhancement of EASO into aEuropean Asylum Agency
An EU Search and RescueOperation in the Mediterranean
Please rate the importance of the following policy priorities that the new EU institutions should address to alleviate pressure at EU external borders
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 22 of 49
Integration outcomes of recent sponsorship and humanitarian visa arrivals
(9 respondents, weighted average used for the answers)
Question 1. Please rate the importance of the following elements in fostering migrants' integration
through private sponsorship programmes (PSPs)
The provision of a one-to-one tailored support and other factors which the respondents had to specify
are the most important factors for respondents in fostering the integration of migrants in the context of
PSPs; the least important is the potential extension of the duration of these schemes.
Another element:
1. “Use algorithm to optimize matching between sponsorship groups and newcomers, to prevent
sponsorship breakdown”
2. “Training and supports to sponsors in preparing for and during the sponsorship”
3. “Ensuring durable legal status and linking to mainstream services”
Question 2. Please rate the importance of the following actors (and related actions) in fostering migrants'
integration through private sponsorship programmes (PSPs)
Among the respondents, the majority believes that the local community where the beneficiaries settle
has a crucial role in ensuring a smooth settlement process; the private sponsorship consortium and
organisations that have already experience in welcoming refugees is almost equally important. The role
of the EU institutions, on the other hand, in establishing a well-defined common procedure for the
selection of the beneficiaries, is the least preferred answer.
Another actor and related action:
1. “Regional government can be very helpful in coordinating and supporting local actors. Likewise,
'lead sponsors' play a similarly helpful role - though perhaps they are included in the private
sponsorship consortium category above?”
2. “Privately sponsored refugees should be involved in settlement planning and decision-making as
much as possible in order to promote self-sufficiency and independence”
2.67
4.67 4.33 4.22 4.67
Extending the duration of PSPs (thatnormally ranges from 1 to 2 years)
Providing one-to-one tailored support Clarifying since the beginning whatbeneficiaries should expect and what
sponsors should provide
Establishing monitoring and evaluationmechanisms to understand the strengths
and weaknesses of the programme
Another element (please specify it below)
Please rate the importance of the following elements in fostering migrants' integration through private sponsorship programmes (PSPs)
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 23 of 49
4.67 4.83
3.67
3
4.5
The private sponsorship consortium thatincludes both sponsors (e.g., private citizens,
families, churches) and organisations thathave already field experience in welcoming
refugees, to ensure the creation of a diverseand effective support network
The local community where the beneficiarysettles (e.g., public service providers, social
assistants, municipality, associations, privatecitizens), to ensure a smooth settlement
process
The central government, to support privatesponsors in the preparation and throughout
the entire duration of the programme
The European Union institutions, to establisha clear and well-defined EU commonprocedure to select PSP beneficiaries
Another actor and related action (pleasespecify it below)
Please rate the importance of the following actors (and related actions) in fostering migrants' integration through private sponsorship programmes (PSPs)
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 24 of 49
5 ANNEXES
5.1 EXAMPLES OF HOW SURVEYS WERE INCORPORATED IN THE CONSULTATION
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 25 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 26 of 49
5.2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
Funding a long-term comprehensive approach to integration at the local level
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 27 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 28 of 49
Public opinion on migrants: the effect of information and disinformation about EU Policies
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 29 of 49
Integration outcomes of recent sponsorship and humanitarian visa arrivals
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 30 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 31 of 49
Strategic litigation of criminalisation cases
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 32 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 33 of 49
The increasing use of detention
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 34 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 35 of 49
Secondary movements within the EU
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 36 of 49
Implementation of the Global Compacts on Refugees (GCR)
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 37 of 49
Implementation of the Global Compacts on Migration (GCM)
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 38 of 49
SAR and Dublin: Ad hoc responses to refusals to disembarkation
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 39 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 40 of 49
5.3 INVITATION EMAIL TO RESOMA EXPERT DATABASE
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 41 of 49
5.4 RESOMA OFFICIAL TWITTER PROMOTION
In this annex, the official twitter promotion of the surveys is reported.
5.4.1 Asylum
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 42 of 49
5.4.2 Migration
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 43 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 44 of 49
5.4.3 Integration
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 45 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 46 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 47 of 49
5.4.4 Examples of unofficial LinkedIn promotion
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 48 of 49
D1.2 – Research Social Panel Survey
Dissemination level – CO
ReSOMA - GA n° 770730 Page 49 of 49
5.5 DRAFT EMAIL FOR PARTNERS TO CIRCULATE
As an example, we report the e-mail on private sponsorship consultation and survey.
Invitation to join the consultation on PSPs in the frame of the RESOMA project Dear__, We are delighted to invite you to an ongoing online consultation and survey on ReSOMA platform on the topic of Integration outcomes of recent sponsorship and humanitarian visa arrivals. Private sponsorship programmes (PSPs) are alternative legal pathways of migration which include presence of private engagement as well as the governmental involvement. They are aimed at supporting migrants’ arrival and integration into the destination society and have recently been implemented in different ways across the European Union. The consultation, which include a short survey, aims to facilitate exchange between national stakeholders, practitioners, policy actors and researchers the following three topics: Topic 1- Needs for better support: (1) What are the critical factors to be addressed to facilitate integration of newcomers via PSP? (2) What do local and national actors need to ensure the smooth transition and integration of newcomers via those pathways? Topic 2- Policy actions to ensure that needs are addressed: (1) What are the measures that have been implemented to fulfil these needs in your national/local context? (2) What other possible measures could be implemented to fulfil these needs? Topic 3- The role of the EU and other actors: (1) What role could the EU play in fostering good practices and empowering local and national stakeholders in PSP adoption and implementation processes? (2) Who are the other key institutions and actors that are or should be involved in PSPs in your national/local context? How can they help ensure the successful integration of newcomers via PSPs? By the end of the consultations, a summary report will be published on the ReSOMA website. Based on the summary report and further consultations with the EU-level actors and international organizations, ReSOMA partners will identify the most effective policy options at the EU level. The consultation on PSPs is available at http://www.resoma.eu/node/191 To leave a message, please register at http://www.resoma.eu The survey consists of two parts, please fill in both (it takes less the 5 minutes in total):
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/resomaPSP1 ; https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/resomaPSP2
Please feel free to share my e-mail with your colleagues.
Thank you very much for your support. Kind regards,
Giacomo Solano, Migration Policy Group – on behalf of the ReSOMA consortium
top related