resoma: research social platform on migration and asylum · 2019. 8. 1. · integration outcomes of...

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 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




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




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




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).

http://www.surveymonkey.com/




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.




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.




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.




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?




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?




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?




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?





(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?




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?





(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)?




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?





(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?




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





(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





(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






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






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)




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)




5 ANNEXES

5.1 EXAMPLES OF HOW SURVEYS WERE INCORPORATED IN THE CONSULTATION




5.2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES





Secondary movements within the EU




Implementation of the Global Compacts on Refugees (GCR)




5.3 INVITATION EMAIL TO RESOMA EXPERT DATABASE




5.4 RESOMA OFFICIAL TWITTER PROMOTION

In this annex, the official twitter promotion of the surveys is reported.

5.4.1 Asylum




5.4.2 Migration




5.4.3 Integration




5.4.4 Examples of unofficial LinkedIn promotion




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

http://www.resoma.eu/

http://www.resoma.eu/node/191

http://www.resoma.eu/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/resomaPSP1

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/resomaPSP2

resoma: research social platform on migration and asylum · 2019. 8. 1. · integration outcomes of...

Documents