final report on using eu indicators of immigrant integration june 2013 en

8/22/2019 Final Report on Using Eu Indicators of Immigrant Integration June 2013 En

1/74

Home Aairs

Using EU Indicatorsof Immigrant Integration

Final Report or Directorate-General

or Home Aairs

Written Thas Huddlestn, Jan Niessenand Jasper Dag Tjaden


2/74

Using EU Indicatrs Iigrant IntegratinReport prepared or the European Commission

This project was carried out between January 2012 and April 2013 by the European Services

Network (ESN) and the Migration Policy Group (MPG) on behal o the European Commission.

ESN was responsible or the overall management o the project and the organisation o

seminars held in Berlin, Budapest and Lisbon. MPG was responsible or the research and or

engaging policy-makers and practitioners. An ad hoc research team was created with as

members: Jan Niessen, (Director), Thomas Huddleston (Coordinator) and Jasper Dag Tjaden

(Researcher) and Proessors, Pierre Desmarez, Dirk Jacobs, Sle Padraigin ODorchai and

Andrea Rea o the Free University o Brussels (or quantitative analysis) and Albert Kraler

and David Reichel o the International Centre or Migration Policy Development (or theassessment o data sources).

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by external consultants and does not necessarily reect the views

o the European Commission.

Brussels March 2013


3/74

Tale Cntents

Using EU Indicatrs Iigrant Integratin

Intrductin 4Eecutie Suar 5

Chapter 1: Background on a pilot project to develop and use European integration indicators 11

PART I: Analsis 14

Chapter 2: What inuences migrant integration outcomes? 14

2.1 Migrant population 142.2 General policies and context 182.3 Migration and integration policies 22

Chapter 3: The Relevance o EU migrant integration indicators 24

3.1 The relevance o EU migrant employment indicators 263.2 The relevance o EU migrant education indicators 263.3 The relevance o EU migrants social inclusion indicators 273.4 The relevance o EU migrants active citizenship indicators 283.5 The relevance o EU indicators o a welcoming society 29

Chapter 4: Migrant integration and the Europe 2020 30

PART II: Data assessent 32

Chapter 5: Availability o indicators 32

Chapter 6: Quality o data sources 33

6.1 The LFS and EU-SILC 33

6.2 PISA 34

Chapter 7: Robustness o indicators 36

Chapter 8: Alternative data sources 37

Chapter 9: Availability o data sources or additional indicators 37

PART III: Using EU indicatrs 39

Chapter 10: Background on using integration indicators 3910.1 Key issues or integration indicators 39

10.2 Integration indicators in the Member States 40

10.3 Beyond integration: Using indicators in other areas o EU cooperation 41

Chapter 11: How are integration indicators used or policymaking? Purposes & methods 42

11.1. First purpose: Understanding the context 42

11.2. A second purpose: Evaluating the results o policies 46

11.3. Third purpose: Use targets to mainstream and improve integration 48

Anne 51

Further selected reading 67

Glssar 70

3


4/74

4

Intrductin

This report on the urther development and use o EU immigrant integration indicators in policy

debates is prepared at the request o the European Commission by the European Services Network

(ESN) and the Migration Policy Group (MPG). It is based on research undertaken by an ad hoc research

team lead by MPG including scholars rom the Free University o Brussels (ULB) and the International

Centre or Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) in Vienna.

The initial research results were presented in discussions papers which were rst discussed by the

European Commission and the National Contact Points on Integration (NCPIs) and subsequently by

around 300 governmental and non-governmental integration actors and academics rom all 27 Mem-

ber States and Norway attending three expert seminars that were organised in the course o 2012.

Participants o the seminars were asked to make presentations on the development and use o

integration indicators at local, regional, national and European levels. Concluding documents sum-

marised the seminars main ndings. In this way, the European Commission and the NCPIs helped to

rene research questions and to test how results can be interpreted and used to inorm policies. The

seminar participants got a better understanding o how policies and outcomes can be measured andmonitored, as is being done in an increasing number o countries.

This nal report has three parts which are preceded by this introduction, an executive summary and

a background chapter.

Part I o this report explores how three types o actors inuence societal integration outcomes in our

areas and as such can inorm integration policies. The three types o actors concern personal charac-

teristics o the immigrant population, the general context in the country and its specic migration and

integration policies. The our areas are employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship.

In those areas, the European Union selected an initial number o indicators (the Zaragoza indictors)

which are considered in this project. Overall, the analysis reconrms the relevance and useulness o

the Zaragoza indicators.

Part II reconrms the availability, accessibility and reliability o the main sources or the calculation

o the integration indicators considered within the report. They include the EU-Labour Force Survey

(EU-LFS), EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), OECDs Programme or Interna-

tional Student Assessment (PISA) as well as Eurostats migration statistics. These are well-established

international and comparative data sources which build upon data that is gathered nationally, oen

by national statistical institutes.

Part III presents dierent options reecting the dierent ways in which indicators could be used to un-

derstand national contexts, evaluate the outcomes o policies, and use targets to improve integration.

It takes existing national and EU indicators as starting point or reection. Indicators can be used to

describe the (constantly changing) situation in societies with citizens and residents with and without

a migration background. Indicators can also be used to clariy the link between integration policiesand societal outcomes, or example by monitoring the beneciaries o policies and conducting robust

impact evaluations.

The report is explorative and descriptive in nature. Considering the advantages and limitations o

international and comparative research, the results o this report represent a substantive contribution

to the on-going debate and research on the development and use o integration indicators on which

integration actors can build.


5/74

5

Eecutie Suar

This report is based on the projects own research

and analysis o existing international quantita-

tive and qualitative research. Consultations with

integration actors rom across Europe provided

valuable inormation and insights. The projects

outcomes can be summarised as ollows:

1.1 Analsis

1. Time o residence matters: Integration is a

long-term process. Immigrants show better

outcomes, the longer they are in the country.

Just as or non-immigrants o working age,

outcomes also improve generally with age.

2. Gender matters: Across all Zaragoza indica-

tors, oreign-born women and mothers are

among the most vulnerable groups, in particu-

lar those born in non-EU countries.

3. Origin country matters: Compared to immi-

grants rom EU or highly-developed countries,

immigrants rom non-EU countries, in particu-

lar less developed countries, have on aver-

age dierent reasons or migration, dierent

aspirations or the uture, and dierent typeso problems. Non-EU immigrants ace greater

challenges on the labour market, the housing

market and in schools. They are more likely to

be aected by poverty and over-qualication.

Immigrants rom lower developed countries

are also more likely to naturalise.

4. Socio-economic background matters: Social

mobility remains modest or immigrants. Em-

ployment and education outcomes still largely

depend on the parents socio-economic status.

Immigrants are more likely to be concentrated

in lower track, low-perorming schools with alow average socio-economic status. Children

o immigrants with low socio-economic status

ace much greater difculties advancing into

higher education.

5. Quality matters: Integration is more than hav-

ing a job, housing, and basic education. Em-

ployed immigrants more oen work part-time,

temporary, below their qualications and with

wages that are insufcient to protect them

rom poverty than non-immigrants. They are

more likely to live in overcrowded housing andpay more o their income or rent. Foreign

qualications are oen devalued on the labour

market or not ormally recognised.

6. Discrimination matters: Unequal treatment ham-

pers integration. Immigrants are less likely to be

hired even when their qualications are simi-

lar to non-immigrants. Immigrant students are

less likely to be reerred to higher track educa-

tion even when their grades are similar to the

perormance o non-immigrants. In countries

with larger gaps between immigrants and non-

immigrants, the public is more likely to say that

discrimination against migrants is a problem.

7. Context matters: Structures o society shape

integration. Immigrants tend to have bet-

ter labour market outcomes, perorm better

in schools and participate more in countries

where the general population has higher out-

comes. Immigrants rom the same countryo origin and with a similar social background

perorm dierently in dierent countries.

Some welare systems protect immigrants

rom poverty better than others and some

education systems are more avourable or

low-perorming immigrants. Across the board,

more research is needed on the direct impact

o the welare system, the education system,

housing and general labour market structures

on integration outcomes o immigrants.

8. Policy matters: There is a lack o rigorous im-pact evaluations o policy eects in the EU.

There is evidence that policies are directly rel-

evant or some EU integration indicators. For

example, Employment rates tend to be higher

in countries with a larger share o work migra-

tion. Welare systems in some countries were

more successul in reducing poverty than oth-

ers. Richer, more equal countries tend to adopt

more ambitious integration policies. More im-

migrants naturalise in countries where naturali-

sation policies are more open. While there is a

better understanding o which countries adopt

policies and which outcomes seem to be as-sociated with which policies, very little is known

about the causal eects o specic policies or

programmes.

Employment

9. Highly-qualied immigrants are most likely

to be overqualied or their job. Easier and

more accessible recognition procedures,

equivalence courses and European coopera-

tion could acilitate the recognition o quali-

cations and skills.

10. Immigrants and their descendants are un-

derrepresented in the public sector which is


6/74

6

a major share o the job market in many EU

countries. Public sector employment targets

and targeted inormation campaigns can in-

crease application rates o eligible immigrants.

11. Little is known about the impact o legal restric-

tions or employment o some migrant groups

and participation in labour market programmes

on immigrants employment outcomes.

12. Immigrants ace severe discrimination on the

labour market. More accessible and coherent

anti-discrimination legislation, stronger equali-

ty bodies, more teacher and public sector train-

ings as well as anonymous job applications

could enhance the situation.

Education

13. Quality early childhood education and care is

associated with better education outcomes

or immigrants at the age o 15. Access and

quality o early childhood education and

care can have an impact on immigrants long

term education careers.

14. Education outcomes improve over time. Gen-

eral education policies can accommodate re-

cent immigrants by providing homework and

other general school support or the young,language tuition or all, equivalence classes

and access to lie-long learning or adult im-

migrants. Targeted policies can tackle longer

settled groups with lower achievement.

15. Education outcomes still largely depend

on the parents social background. There is

evidence that decreasing socio-economic

segregation in schools, increasing the hours

spent in school, improving the quality o

teaching, delaying the age o tracking and

supporting students beore and during the

transition into higher education can reducethat link. Smaller classes and more parental

involvement have proven to be eective or

improving immigrant childrens outcomes.

16. Foreign trained immigrants qualications are

oen not recognised or the skills and qualica-

tions do not t current labour demand. Oppor-

tunities or adult migrant learners to upgrade

or equalise their qualications, including by

providing easier access to lielong learning can

help to enhance employability o immigrants.

17. Immigrant students with good potential ace

obstacles o discrimination in schools. A

way to tackle this is providing discrimination

awareness trainings and support or teach-

ers to deal with second language teaching

and diversity in class rooms.

Social Inclusion

18. The results o the projects seminar suggest

that social inclusion indicators are rarely part

o the debate on migrant integration de-

spite the act that social inclusion indicators

such as income, poverty, health and housing

largely aect other areas o integration, such

as education and employment. Immigrants

have on average lower incomes, higher pov-

erty risk, higher in-work poverty and worse

housing conditions. Some evidence suggests

that immigrants actually are less likely to

use social benets than non-immigrants

i several actors are accounted or. Moreresearch is needed on the impact o social

benets on migrant integration.

19. Immigrants are more likely to live in bigger

amilies and overcrowded housing. However,

not enough is known about how housing poli-

cies aect integration outcomes. Evidence is

needed on accessing the housing market and

its impact on the situation o immigrants.

20. Especially immigrant women in large house-

holds are aected by poverty. There is a goodreason or reviewing compliance with and

implementation o gender equality legisla-

tion and the eects o amily and unemploy-

ment benets on migrant amilies.

Active Citizenship

21. Citizenship and long-term residence are only

two elements o active citizenship. Indicators

on other orms o civic participation o mi-

grants such as voting, membership in organi-

sations, running or or holding a political ofce,

protesting or volunteering are needed to cap-ture immigrants political and civic involvement.

22. The interaction between access to citizenship

and integration is complex. Naturalisation is

both a nal step in a process and as a tool

to urther improve integration in several ar-

eas o lie. Citizenship is a societal outcome

indicator, a policy indicator and a measure

o openness o receiving societies, all at the

same time.

23. In many EU countries, many immigrants inthe country more than ten years have not

naturalised. These people are still seen as

oreigners and largely excluded rom the

democratic process.


7/74

7

24. Immigrants become citizens and long-term

residents more oen in countries where the

process is more inclusive and where dual

citizenship is accepted in both the country o

origin and destination. Beyond legal changes

acilitating naturalisation, support to pay

naturalisation ees and minor changes o

administrative procedures could acilitate

acquisition o citizenship.

25. Naturalised immigrants have on average

better integration outcomes than non-nat-

uralised in most countries, regardless o

whether naturalisation policies are inclusive

or restrictive. It remains unclear whether

this citizenship premium is greater or lesser

in certain countries due to their policies or

to other actors. More research is needed onwho benets most rom naturalisation.

The relevance o the Zaragoza indicators

26. The project analysed relevant actors that

inuence migrant integration with a view to

inorm integration policies at various levels

o governance. It reconrms the relevance o

the Zaragoza indicators and proposes a ew

additional ones.

27. The Zaragoza indicators are relevant orachieving the goals o the Europe 2020 and

ET2020 Strategies and benchmarks. To il-

lustrate the impact o eectively integrating

immigrants into the EU agenda, the project

developed a closing the gap-scenario by

which equal outcomes o the migrant popu-

lation in comparison with the total popula-

tion are assumed.

28. Currently, the total employment rate in the

EU is 69 %. The employment rate or the or-

eign-born is 64 %. The Europe 2020 target is

to increase the overall rate to 75 %. Closingthe employment gap or oreign-born immi-

grants accounts or 10.7 % o meeting the

Europe 2020 target across all EU countries

or which targets and data are available. Giv-

en the no gap scenario, Austria, Germany,

the Netherlands, and Sweden would hal-

way meet their national Europe 2020 target.

29. Member States could prevent hal a mil-

lion people rom leaving school early, i

they could close the gap or migrants. This

accounts or 8.7 % o all early school leav-ers in the EU. The EU as a whole would be

30 % closer its headline target o reducing

the early school leaver rate rom 14 to 10 %.

The no gap scenario accounts or more than

50 % o reaching the target in Belgium, Cy-

prus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and Italy.

In act, Sweden would exceed its national

education target.

30. 23 % o the EU population is at risk o poverty

or social exclusion. The rate is 9 % higher or

the oreign-born population (32 %). I this gap

were closed, the EU could li 3.3 million immi-

grants out o poverty or social exclusion. This

number accounts or 5 % o all people at risk

o poverty or social exclusion in the EU. This

stands or 17 % o all people at risk o poverty

or social exclusion in Austria, 19 % in Belgium,

and almost 19 % in Sweden. Closing the gap

or immigrants would bring the whole o the

EU 16.2 % closer to reaching its headline pov-

erty target. The migrant gap represents morethan 50 % o the national targets in Austria,

Belgium, Greece, and the Netherlands.

1.2 Data surces

31. The indicators o immigrant integration de-

ned in the 2010 Ministerial Conerence in

Zaragoza are based on high quality interna-

tional data collections. Data sources used are

the best available ones or monitoring the in-

dicators dened in the Zaragoza Declaration.

32. As these data sources were not originally de-

veloped to measure outcomes or migrants,

several improvements regarding data availa-

bility and reliability should be pursued, such as:

Increasing saple sizes: The main problem with

availability and reliability o data or immigrant

integration indicators stems rom small sample

sizes. To better capture immigrants in the exist-

ing data sources mainly two options are avail-

able: 1. Oversampling: The sampling strategies

could be adapted to sample more immigrants

into the samples. Oversampling does not onlyimprove the reliability and scope o analysis o

the Zaragoza indicators that use the LFS, SILC,

PISA and Eurostat data. It would also create the

opportunity to include additional indicators. For

example, boosting immigrant samples in the

European Social Survey would allow to meas-

ure immigrants civic and political participation.

2. Pooling o samples over years: Combining the

data rom two years would double the sample

sizes and will considerably improve availability

o data in several countries, also allowing or

urther breakdowns in more countries. For in-creasing availability and reliability, pooling data

rom three years might be considered, even i, as

a result, migrant integration indicators could not

be produced every year. Pooling can be a cost-


8/74

8

eective short-term solution to make available

more data to measure immigrant integration

while it has to be kept in mind that some quality

o data is lost in the process.

Shwing uncertaint in results: Since results

based on sample surveys are inevitably limited due

to sampling errors, the provision o condence in-

tervals would increase the visibility o uncertainty

in the estimates. Showing condence intervals

might increase the credibility o results based on

small samples. I minimum sample size require-

ments were lowered, results could be published or

more countries. Condence intervals indicate rang-

es o the estimates, in which the true population

gures are very likely to be (by convention 95 %

condence intervals). The estimation o these in-

tervals depends on the sampling designs in thecountries, which are dierent across EU countries.

Consequently, the condence intervals or total

population and or immigrants have to be provided

by the National Statistical Institutes (NSIs).

Harnise ethds data prductin:

Currently, dierent parameters or weighting

survey estimates o the main surveys (especially

the EU LFS) are employed across EU Member

States. Some countries include estimates on the

oreign born or oreign population to account or

non-response and some countries do not. It isimportant to harmonise weights across countries

according to country o birth or citizenship or

providing more reliable comparisons o the esti-

mates. There is a lack o research on weighting

methods and practices by country o birth and

citizenship and its impact on data quality.

33. I the previous recommendations were also ap-

plied to other data sources, such as the Europe-

an Social Survey, they could be useul to explore

additional indicators o migrant integration.

34. Data harmonisation and improvement at theinternational level needs good coordination.

Eurostat has set priorities or mainstream-

ing migration statistics into general data col-

lections. Eurostat should continue to take a

leading role in reinorcing and coordinating

research on the issues mentioned above in

close cooperation with the NSIs.

1.3 Using indicatrs

35. There are three key policy purposes or using

integration indicators: understanding inte-gration contexts and immigrants integration

outcomes, evaluating the results o policies,

and mainstreaming integration into general

policies. These purposes are not one in the

same. Measuring the situation o immigrants

is a dierent exercise rom the evaluation o

the results o integration policies. The results

o these policies cannot all be measured in

terms o immigrants outcomes on integra-

tion indicators. For integration stakeholders,

not all Europe 2020 targets are relevant or

integration. For policymakers working in other

elds, many o their policies are not signi-

cantly aected by the situation o immigrants

or the results o integration policies.

36. The EU integration indicators make it easier

to understand the integration context in the

EU Member States so that policy actors can

better learn rom one other. The results show

the similarities and dierences in national con-

texts, while urther analysis reveals what ac-tors explain these similarities and dierences.

Integration outcomes in dierent countries are

oen related to the same key aspects o the

immigrant population, the general context, and

national policies. The more these actors are

present in a country, the more likely are cer-

tain integration outcomes in that country. This

analysis helps policy actors to appreciate the

unique combination o actors inuencing in-

tegration in their country and other countries.

Moreover, the use o indicators over time gives

policy actors a new long-term perspective orpolicy planning. The availability o these indica-

tors is thereore a starting-point or more in-

ormed mutual learning across the EU.

37. Policy actors have various options or using

integration indicators at various levels, which

can be implemented and combined in dier-

ent ways and at dierent times. The main

options are summarised in the chart below.

38. A more structured and regular integration

monitoring at EU level can see the best results

by building on existing national and Europeandata collection mechanisms. In this way dupli-

cation is avoided. Existing data can be made

more accessible or policy actors and scien-

tists who can help to demonstrate how data

can be used responsibly and meaningully.

This may also incite urther reection about a

possible expansion over time: rom a simpler

to a more sophisticated system. Experiences

at national, regional and local levels are im-

portant in this respect as well.

39. Integration policy makers and practitioners inMember States can learn rom each other in

how indicators can be used in policy debates.

The NCPI meetings and the European Integra-

tion Forum are platorms or such exchange.


9/74

9

List Zaragza indicatrs and additinal indicatrs t e cnsidered

Eplent Educatin Scial Inclusin Actie Citizenship Welcing Sciet

Employment rate Highest educational

attainment

At-risk-o-poverty

(and social

exclusion)

Naturalisation rate Perceived experience

o discrimination

(survey)*

Unemployment rate Tertiary attainment Income Share o long-term

residence

Trust in public insti-

tutions (survey)*Activity rate Early school leaving Sel-reported health

status (controlling

or age)

Share o elected

representatives

(research)*

Sense o belonging

(survey)*

Sel-employment Low-achievers (PISA) Property ownership Voter turnout

(research)*

Over-qualication Language skills o

non-native speakers

(LFS module)**

Public sector employ-

ment

Participation in early

childhood education

(SILC/PISA)**

Child poverty (SILC) Participation in vol-

untary organisations

(survey)*

Public perception o

racial/ethnic discrimi-

nation (Eurobarom-

eter)

Temporary

employment

Participation in lie-

long learning

(LFS, AES)

Sel-reported unmet

need or medical

care (SILC)

Membership in trade

unions (survey)*

Public attitudes

to political leader

with ethnic minority

background (Euroba-

rometer)

Part-time

employment

Not in education,

employment or train-

ing (LFS)

Lie expectancy

(SILC)

Membership in politi-

cal parties (survey)*

Long-term

unemployment

Resilient students

(PISA)**

Healthy lie years

(SILC)

Political activity

(survey)*

Share o oreign-diplomas recognised

(survey)**

Concentration in low-perorming schools

(PISA)**

Housing cost over-burden (SILC)**

Retention o inter-

national students

(research)*

Overcrowding (SILC)**

In-work poverty-risk

(SILC)

Persistent poverty-

risk (SILC)

Zaragzaindicatrs

Prpse

dNewIndicatrs

Note: One star (*) marks indicators or which data needs to be collected or migrant sample sizes boosted.Two stars (**) mark indicators or which data is not available every year (ad hoc basis). The authors o this study propose a new

category o indicators o the welcoming society. It includes the already proposed Zaragoza indicators perceived discrimination,

trust in public institutions and sense o belonging.

In addition, in some countries and in some in-

tegration elds deeper analysis is undertaken

rom which others can learn.

40. An annual or multi-annual report on integra-

tion along the lines o Eurostats Statistical

Portrait would be a promising start. This could

be expanded to include more ocused contex-

tual inormation reecting the specicities o

the immigration population and the bene-

ciaries o specic policies in each country as

well as valuable inormation on integration

outcomes and policies at national and, where

possible, regional and local level. A next stage

can be when various types o analyses are

used to measure impact.


10/74

10

PRoPoSAL: AN INCREmENTAL APPRoACH To USING INTEGRATIoN INDICAToRS

WoRk IN PRoGRESS:

mAINTAIN THE bASELINE

SECoND oPTIoN:

bUILD oN THE bASELINE

THIRD oPTIoN: EvIDENCE-

bASED PoLICymAkING

Understanding the cntet

integratin statisticians,

researchers

Ipred annual pulicatin

EU indicatrs.

What: Indicator results on Eurostat

website & basic descriptive analy-

sis in a Statistics in Focus report

How: Eurostat updates the

results. Commission & Member

States consideration o ad-

ditional indicators; NSIs improve

data availability and quality

when possible (see Part II

Assessment)

Existing resources: Eurostat

& NSIs on-going work to main-

stream migrants in statistics,boost migrant samples,

& develop ad hoc modules

or surveys

multiannual integratin reprt

ased n indicatrs

What: In-depth descriptive analy-

sis o the integration situation

& dierent national contexts

How: Data disaggregated or

specic groups, monitored over

time, & compared between

immigrants & non-immigrants

with same demographic charac-

teristics (i.e. comparing like with

like through statistical controls).

Report can also include ad hoc

thematic chapters.

Existing resources: Examplesinclude 2011 Eurostat Statisti-

cal Portrait, 2012 OECD Settling

In, as well as national and local

reports

multiariate & lngitudinal

analsis

What: Analysis determines which

contextual actors have most/least

inuence on integration outcomes

How: Research analyses the

relationship between EU integra-

tion indicators and three sets

o actors (dierences in the

immigrant populations, general

policies & contexts, immigration

& integration policies). Longitudi-

nal data can also be analysed

where possible.

Existing resources: Existinginternational datasets on these

contextual actors, national

longitudinal datasets, national

multivariate analysis

Ealuating the results

plicies researchers

Cpare data n plicies

and utces

What: Analysis o the complex

relationships between integra-

tion policies & outcomes

How: Dene policies in terms o

intended outcomes on integra-

tion indicators; conduct bivariateanalysis & mutual learning

about how policies inuence

outcomes and/or how outcomes

are inuencing policies

Existing resources: Up-to-date

& comparable summaries o

policies through EU-unded

research, EMN, & EWSI

Gather cntetual data

n wh enets r plicies

What: In-depth descriptive

analysis o the implementation

o policies in the our indicator

areas

How: Gather and share statistics

on policy implementation, the po-tential and current beneciaries

Existing resources: Administra-

tive and ofcial statistics, EU-

unded research, EMN, & EWSI

Ecnetric causal

ealuatins plic ipact

What: Assesses prospective or

retrospective impact o specic

national policies on integration

outcomes

How: Evaluation studies done at

national level, sub-national level,or between countries, depend-

ing on the availability o data.

The Commission could provide a

review o such studies, exchange

on methods, & quality standards

Existing resources: Examples o

causal evaluations in EU and tra-

ditional countries o immigration.

Using targets t ipre

& ainstrea integratin

policy actors

keep integratin indicatrs

releant r EU targets

What: Europe 2020 targets are

basis or integration indicators

& thus can now be monitored

or immigrants

How: EU integration indica-

tors can be changed to reect

changes in Europe 2020 targets

and statistics

Existing resources: Coordination

among DGs & Eurostat

Calculate hw integratin

ipres EU targets

What: Calculations identiy areas

& countries where immigrants

are a major target group or

general policies

How: Statisticians calculate how

closing the gap or immigrants

helps EU countries meet their

targets or smart, sustainable,

and inclusive growth.

Existing resources: EU OMCs

& Eurostat

Set specic natinal gals

& targets r integratin

What: Member States assess

indicator results & set their own

specic national goals & volun-

tary targets

How: Results assessed based

on best available multivariate

analysis & policy impact evalua-

tions; Member States learn rom

countries using targets

Existing resources: EU OMCs,

cooperation structures between

relevant ministries, and with

civil society


11/74

11

(1) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pd#zoom=100

(2) http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_s/1.28600!menu/standard/le/Indicators %20and %20monitoring %20o %20

outcome %20o %20integration %20policies.pd

(3) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/113591.pd

(4) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pd/en/10/st09/st09248.en10.pd

(5) Council document 9248/10. It should be noted that all Council conclusions stress that there is currently no unied

view among Member States on indicators in the area o active citizenship. Member States views dier in relation

to the dierent views, goals and regulatory rameworks o integration policies in the respective Member States. The

area o active citizenships is, however, an important area o development, considering that the participation o immi-grants in the democratic process as active citizens supports their integration and enhances their sense o belonging.

(6) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-009/EN/KS-RA-11-009-EN.PDF

(7) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-31-10-539/EN/KS-31-10-539-EN.PDF

(8) http://ec.europa.eu/home-aairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_ACT_part1_v10.pd

CHAPTER 1:

bacgrund n a pilt

prject t deelpand use Eurpean

integratin indicatrs

Indicators have gradually gained importance in

EU debates on general socio-economic partici-

pation and later on immigrant integration. The

Common Basic Principles or immigrant integra-

tion policy in the EU, adopted by the Justice and

Home Aairs Council on 19 November 20041,

stated among other things that developing cleargoals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms are

necessary to adjust policy, evaluate progress on

integration and to make the exchange o inor-

mation more eective.

In 2009, a German government conerence in Ber-

lin surveyed national experiences in monitoring

integration and integration policy, and the Swed-

ish Presidency Malm Conerence Conclusions2

dened a list o core areas and indicators, which

are based on the Common Basic Principles and EU

indicators in the EU2020 Strategy3

, covering ourcore areas o integration: employment, education,

social inclusion, and active citizenship. In each

area, Member States identied an initial set o a

ew core indicators that are simple to understand,

easy to communicate, comparable over time and

or which a certain outcome is desirable. The se-

lection o indicators was based on the availability

and quality o comparable data. In total, 14 core

indicators were proposed together with a ew in-

dicators to be developed, which Member States

also considered important to monitor although

comparable data was still lacking.

The 2010-2014 Stockholm Programme commit-

ted the European Commission and Member

States to develop a limited number o core indi-

cators about the results o integration policies.

The 2010 Zaragoza meeting4 o the ministers

responsible or integration agreed on these EU

indicators, which were then approved at the Jus-

tice and Home Aairs Council on 3-4 June 20105.

The Council also agreed or the Commission to

launch a pilot project with a view to the evalua-

tion o integration policies, including examining

the indicators and analysing the signicance o

the dened indicators taking into account the na-

tional contexts, the background o diverse mi-

grant populations and dierent migration and

integration policies o the Member States, and

reporting on the availability and quality o the

data rom agreed harmonised sources necessaryor the calculation o these indicators.

Eurostats 2011 pilot study6 addressed the avail-

ability and quality o data rom harmonised

sources or the calculation o the 15 indicators,

or which comparable data could be compiled. It

also published a statistical portrait o the rst

and second generation7.

The Commissions July 2011 European Agenda or

the Integration o Third-Country Nationals8 sees

common indicators as a way to systematically

monitor the integration situation and EU2020targets, enhance policy coordination and make

recommendations in dialogue with the Member

States. The Justice and Aairs Council o 13-14

December 2011 also again invited the Commis-

sion to urther develop a monitoring system in-

cluding appropriate data collection and analysis

to monitor the degree o integration (outcomes

o policies) based on agreed common indicators,

recognising the principle o subsidiarity. This has

been given a ollow-up by this 15-month project,

launched by the Commission to analyse the rel-

evance and results o these indicators, in line with

the aorementioned Council conclusions.


12/74

12

Using indicators

Indicators are a means to an end, a kind o lan-

guage through which all integration actors can

learn and communicate with a wider audience.

Integration indicators need to be careully se-

lected, understood and interpreted. This requires

on-going debate among participants who identi-

y, adapt and improve indictors where and when

required. For example, debates at the seminars

held or this project recognised the value o em-

ployment rates as indictor but highlighted that

the type o work is equally important as integra-

tion indicator. The EU Handbooks on Integration

speak o integration as a convergence o societal

outcomes o people with and without an immi-

grant background. Gaps between outcomes o

dierent groups in society are important driv-ers o social policies. This calls or a better un-

derstanding o the nature and size o the gaps

and o the means to close them, rom which

not only immigrants but also Europes increas-

ingly diverse societies benet. The gaps may

be bigger or smaller when people in the same

situation - whether they have or do not have an

immigrant background - are compared. Further

analysis may demonstrate that gaps between

certain groups within these two broad categories

are actually not as big as the global gures or

these categories suggest. This inormation maynuance the idea based on global gures that im-

migrants and/or that policies have ailed.

Types o analysis

Descriptive analyses provide by disaggregating

statistical data - a more detailed and complete

picture o diversity among immigrant communi-

ties and o Europes societies. Indeed, the report

demonstrates that countries are dierent but

that these dierences are oen due to the same

types o actors, which are more present in some

countries than in others. Descriptive analysesacilitate mutual understanding and learning

among integration actors at various levels o

governance. As a starting point and basis or

comparing notes internationally, they can en-

hance the understanding o national and local

situations.

Aggregate-level correlation (bivariate) analysis

can identiy whether various potential actors

are related to integration outcomes in a statisti-

cally signicant way. This analysis tests widely-

held assumptions about integration outcomes.Bivariate (correlation) analysis demonstrated the

signicance o the EU indicators or many na-

tional policies. Countries integration outcomes,

as measured by the EU indicators, are in part

related to their national contexts, including their

national policies. The bivariate analysis provided

a basic method to identiy any signicant rela-

tionships between the situation o immigrants

and dierent national policies.

The value o such analysis is that individual sets

o inormation are not any longer seen in isola-

tion but are linked and that, consequently, com-

prehensive policy approaches can be considered.

For example, analysis can demonstrate that high

or low employment rates are correlated with

high or low educational attainment. Without

even knowing what precisely inuences what, it

can become clear that the two go together and

may reinorce each other and that action on both

ronts could be needed. Scientically speaking

such correlations gain validity when the analyses

include many countries and dierent periods otime. Multivariate analysis helps users to estab-

lish which o the actors is most or least related

to integration outcomes. The value o such an

analysis is that it can identiy determining ac-

tors. For example, it can help to explain high or

low scores or immigrants in employment, edu-

cational attainment, social inclusion and active

citizenship. Is that because o their immigrant or

socio-economic background, o being a man or

a woman, or being young or old? Or is it a mix?

Do policies play a role or not and i so what role?

The policy implications are not difcult to imag-ine. However, the higher the ambitions to nd

out these relationships the more sophisticated

the methods must be and the more disaggre-

gated data need to be and or a bigger num-

ber o countries. This notwithstanding countries

can gather enough o the same data and use

the same technique to carry out similar analy-

ses nationally and compare results internation-

ally. Again this will give validity to the results.

In this way international comparative research

can enhance the understanding o integration

dynamics and help to ocus and target policies

nationally and locally.

The Zaragoza indicators reconrmed

This report reconrms that the Zaragoza indi-

cators are relevant or the integration o im-

migrants and consequently or policy-making at

various levels o governance. It demonstrates

that the various actors are oen related and

that dierent categories o immigrants are di-

erently aected. Some categories are aected,

irrespective o a national context (women, or

example) or seize certain opportunities (or ex-ample, more immigrants rom lower developed

countries acquire citizenship than rom other

countries). Individual countries may nd that

they are an exception to a general tendency in a

certain area. Further analysis may show that this


13/74

13

may occur in a limited number o countries and a

limited number o areas. This exercise is useul,

since it raises and answers questions why that

is the case and what countries can do to avoid

that situation or, as the case may be, to arrive at

that situation.

The research and discussions at the seminars

not only provided urther clarication o the

Zaragoza indicators but also saw the emergence

o a consensus o what they actually mean and

can do to inorm policies. A number o additional

indicators were put orward or consideration.

However, on active citizenship and social inclu-

sion more work needs to be done. It is recognised

that issues o long-term residence and naturali-

sation are important integration matters and can

be captured by indicators. For citizenship acquisi-tion, it must be claried whether this is a societal

outcome indicator, a policy indictor or a measure

o openness o receiving societies, or actually all

o them. Moreover, the term active citizenship

is more oen associated with civic and political

participation which are recognised as useul in-

tegration indicators but require more debate and

research. Gaps also exist in other areas and more

indicators may have to be developed to ll them.

In the end, any kind o international comparative

exercise will need to rely on a limited number

o indicators. During the consultations, the de-velopment o indicators o a welcoming society

was suggested. They could include: awareness

and experience o discrimination, comort with

diversity, trust in public institutions, and sense

o belonging.

Data sources

The Zaragoza indicators are based on high

quality international data sources. These data

sources are without doubt the best ones avail-

able or developing and using integration indica-

tors. Representatives o Eurostat were present atall seminars explaining how this EU department

is working together with national statistical in-

stitutes to collect and harmonise data. Several

improvements regarding data availability and

reliability are already being discussed and taken

orward by Eurostat and national statistical insti-

tutes. Data harmonisation and improvement at

the international levels need good coordination.

Eurostat has set priorities or mainstreaming mi-

gration statistics into general data collections9.

Immigrant integration and the Europe 2020

Strategy

The research and seminars leading to this report

linked immigrant integration indicators with the

indicators that are being developed and used in

the Europe 2020 Strategy, in particular in the

open methods o coordination on employment,

social inclusion and education. Representatives

o the various Commissions departments, in-

cluding some o those involved in the implemen-

tation o this Strategy, were present at all three

seminars. It became clear that the Strategy is

also important or the integration o immigrants.

More attention would need to be paid to the po-

sition o immigrants in the various implement-

ing mechanisms. Importantly, this Report shows

that improving the outcomes or immigrants willsignicantly contribute to achieving the Europe

2020 Strategys overall goals, thus showing

how mainstreaming immigrant integration can

be made benecial or immigrants and society

as a whole. The use o integration indicators at

national and EU levels develops through an in-

cremental approach The report outlines dier-

ent options or the use o integration indicators

at national or EU level where appropriate. Policy

actors can use this inormation as they consider

what inormation they need to understand their

national context, evaluate their policies, and usetargets to improve integration.

(9) See or instance: European Commission, Working Group on Migration Statistics 2012: Migration Statistics Main-

streaming: Implementing the ESS Programme or the Development o Migration Statistics, Luxembourg, 25-26

April 2012, Eurostat, Doc. ESTAT/F2/MIGR(2012)07.


14/74

14

CHAPTER 2:

What inuences igrant

integratin utces?

In the analysis report we present three dierent

tpes actrs that inuence integration out-

comes10. First we look at the immigrant popula-

tion and individual actors.11 Secondly we consid-

er general policies and actors associated withthe macro-level structure o receiving societies

with regards to the labour market, education

systems, social policies and the political context.

Thirdly, we look at migration and integration

policies and actors related to specic migration

and targeted integration policies. Individual-level

actors have been explored most extensively

by research as large-scale surveys and admin-

istrative data make available suitable sources

or analysis. In comparison, general policies and

context as well as migration and integration poli-

cies remain under-researched as suitable data ismore difcult to obtain and statistical analysis

more demanding.

Clearly, the situation o immigrants across coun-

tries is rather dierent, as well as their situa-

tion in comparison to non-immigrants. However,

the projects analysis has ound some evidence

that countries with better social inclusion out-

comes (e.g. income) are also the countries with

better education outcomes. In countries where

the dierence in reading perormance at age

15 between oreign-born immigrants and non-

immigrants is larger, the share o oreign-bornimmigrants below the median income level is

higher. We also nd that in countries where a

higher share o oreign-born immigrants have

below median incomes compared to non-immi-

grants, they tend to achieve basic education a

lot less than non-immigrants.12 This also means

that there may be an underexplored overlap be-

tween dierent areas o integration, such as em-

ployment, education, social inclusion and active

citizenship. It is important to consider all areas

relevant or integration and analyse the links be-

tween the dierent areas. Outcomes in one area

may very well have positive or negative eects

on the other.

Not one single set o actors is able to explain

the situation o immigrants or all dierences

between immigrants and non-immigrants in EU

countries. For example, socio-economic status

and residence inuence education and employ-

ment outcomes to a large degree. However, the

social status cannot explain everything. The

reading perormance o 15 year old oreign-bornimmigrants rom the same country o origin and

with similar background varies across dierent

EU countries. The second generation also show

large education gaps even though they were

born in the country o residence and have equal

residence periods. Accounting or social status

reduces the education gap between immigrants

and non-immigrants signicantly in many coun-

tries, however, dierences remain. This means

that other actors such as general policies and

national context as well as specic immigration

and integration policies shape integration out-comes.

2.1 migrant ppulatin

The rst set o actors that directly inuence

integration outcomes relate to the immigrant

population. This is to say that the composition o

the immigrant population in a country will have

an impact on integration outcomes. The compo-

sition o migrant populations is shaped by many

actors (e.g. history, geography and migration

policies).

Migrant population actors can be distinguished

as degraphic (gender, age, amily status, citi-

zenship, country o birth (rst or second genera-

tion), country o birth o the parents, length o

residence/and age o arrival), sciecnic

PART 1: Analsis

(10) In the context o migrant integration indicators, the term outcome describes a (statistical) result o a certain

indicator, usually measured in rates. Outcomes are compared between immigrants and non-immigrants (gaps).

In general, outcomes o indicators can describe the situation o integration o immigrants in a certain area o

society.(11) I not indicated otherwise, the term immigrant generally includes both rst or second generation and both EU

national or Third Country Nationals.

(12) For a ull list o correlations between indicators, see the annex. These calculations are provided by David Reichel

rom the International Centre or Migration Policy Development.


15/74

15

(13) More national research has also ocussed on social capital (contacts, networks) and cultural characteristics (reli-

gion, attitudes towards receiving societys norms and values) as relevant actors or migrant integration.

(education, employment, income, occupation,

level o development o country o origin) and

scicultural characteristics (mother tongue,

language acquisition).13

2.1.1 Which igrant ppulatincharacteristics inuenceeplent utces?

With ew exceptions rom southern EU coun-

tries and EU-12, the rst and second genera-

tion is generally less likely to be employed than

the non-immigrant population. In general, im-

migrant men achieve similar employment rates

than non-immigrants. The overall dierence can

largely be explained by low rates or women, es-

pecially rom outside the EU. Highly skilled im-

migrants are more likely to be unemployed thanlow skilled immigrants. Highly skilled immigrants

are also more likely to be overqualied than non-

immigrants, especially i they were born outside

the EU.

Age, residence, gender

Just like or the non-immigrant population, em-

ployment outcomes improve with working age

and residence. Nevertheless, equal years o

residence do not erase the disadvantage o im-

migrants (migrant penalty). Second-generationimmigrants with equal residence than non-im-

migrants show relatively lower outcomes on the

labour market in many EU-15 countries.

Womens labour market outcomes are usually

lower than mens, especially when they were

born in non-EU countries. Foreign-born immi-

grant women between 20-29 years are more

likely to be married and have children than non-

immigrant women in most EU countries. The

projects analysis shows that countries where

there are more oreign-born immigrant house-

holds with one or more children, oreign-bornmigrants are also more likely to be at risk o

poverty. Countries where ewer oreign-born

migrant women have primary education than

non-immigrants, oreign-born immigrant women

also have lower employment and labour market

outcomes. This is not the case or men. Children

have a greater negative eect on labour market

participation o oreign-born immigrant women

than on non-immigrant women. Across some EU

countries, the risk o being unemployed and not

in education is higher or emale children o im-

migrants than or males, with the exception o

the Scandinavian countries. This suggests that

males continue to be the sole breadwinner more

oen in immigrant amilies than in non-immi-

grant amilies. When they work, oreign-born mi-

grant women are twice as likely to work in low

skilled proessions as migrant men according to

the OECD. This gender gap does not exist or the

non-immigrant population in many EU countries.

The policy implications could be that general la-

bour market policies are made more suitable to

support younger and more recent immigrants.

Targeted labour market programmes and train-

ings could ocus on low skilled and long-term un-

employed immigrants, in particular women with

children. A review o the impact o amily ben-

ets and o gender equality legislation on im-migrant women could lead to policy adaptations.

Education

Lower educational levels explain a large part

o the dierences between employment out-

comes o immigrants and non-immigrants. The

gaps reduce when accounting or education

and socio-economic position o the parents. For

some groups, the employment rate o non-EU

immigrants is up to ve times higher than or

non-immigrants. Access to and quality o earlychildhood education, avoiding social segregation

in schools, allowing high permeability between

school tracks and supporting immigrants be-

ore and during the transition phase into higher

education can help to enhance the qualications

o immigrants and break the link between the

socio-economic status o immigrants with their

parents.

Whereas unemployment tends to be higher or

the low-educated or both migrants and the

native-born, dierences with the non-immigrant

population are most pronounced or the highlyeducated. In many EU countries, low-educated

immigrants have a higher employment rate than

their native-born peers. This is particularly vis-

ible in countries that have had signicant low-

educated labour migration over the past decade.

In contrast, in all countries with signicant im-

migrant populations the highly educated immi-

grants have lower employment rates than the

highly educated native-born. This could mean

that the migrant penalty is actually increasing

with higher skill levels.


16/74

16

Job quality

Employment is not enough to provide equal op-

portunities or immigrants. Narrow employment

gaps can hide other issues o immigrant integra-

tion, such as the quality o work. Work quality

is usually measured by temporary employment,

low-skilled employment, part-time-employment,

public sector employment and over-qualication.

In addition to age, educational attainment is clear-

ly an important determinant or accessing higher

skilled, better paid jobs. However, higher skills

also lead to increased risk o being overqualied.

On average, there is virtually no dierence in the

likelihood to be overqualied between immigrants

rom high-income countries and the native-born.

Eurostat showed that the risk o over qualicationis particularly high or recent immigrants rom

non-EU countries. Their ormal qualications are

thus highly discounted in the labour markets o

high-income EU countries. The discount is mainly

observed or those who have obtained their quali-

cations in low-income countries. In contrast, im-

migrants trained in the country o residence have

similar over-qualication rates than the native-

born and always lower than those who have

acquired their qualications abroad according to

the OECD. Easier and more accessible recognition

procedures, equivalence courses and Europeancooperation could acilitate the recognition o

qualications and skills or immigrants.

2.1.2 Which igrant ppulatincharacteristics inuenceeducatin utces?

Education outcomes vary considerably across

country and across dierent indicators. In most

EU countries, the rst and second generation

have on average lower educational attainment,

leave school early more oen and perorm worse

in reading at the age o 15. The educational dis-advantage is less pronounced in terms o ter-

tiary education (e.g. university).

Residence

The OECD ound that years o schooling in the

country o residence is a relevant actor or the

reading perormance o migrant students at age

15. First-generation students who arrived in the

country at a younger age outperorm those who

arrived when they were older. Education systems

are better able to improve student perormancewhen they have a longer opportunity to shape

the learning outcomes o immigrant students.

The policy implication could be that general edu-

cation policies accommodate recent immigrants

by providing homework and other general school

support or the young, language tuition or all,

equivalence classes and access to lie-long learn-

ing or adult immigrants. Targeted policies can e-

ectively tackle longer settled groups with lower

achievement.

Socio-economic background

Parents education and socio-economic position

are one o the key explanatory actors o the

lower outcomes o immigrants observed in EU

countries, especially or the second generation.

Bivariate analysis shows that there is a clear re-

lationship between the average socio-economic

status o the oreign-born population and un-

derachievement in education. Immigrants per-

orm worse in countries where the oreign-bornimmigrant population is on average poorer

than the total population. Foreign-born resi-

dents in richer and more equal societies oen

have a lower socio-economic status than the

native-born; by extension, their children oen

have higher rates o underachievement. Central

and Southern European countries tend to have

oreign-born populations with a similar i not

higher socio-economic status compared to

the native-born and, thus, little-to-no-gap in

achievement between oreign- and native-born

students. Socio-economic status and educa-tional level o parents appear to explain almost

all the educational disadvantages o children

o immigrants rom high-income countries, but

only hal o the disadvantage o the children

rom lower-income countries. To reduce the link

and decrease socio-economic segregation in

schools, various measures can be introduced,

such as increasing the hours spent in school,

improving the quality o teaching, delaying the

age o tracking and supporting students beore

and during the transition into higher education.

Smaller classes and parental involvement pro-

jects have proven eective in many cases toboost outcomes o immigrant children.

Language spoken at home

The language spoken at home has an inuence

on the education o immigrants. Students that

speak the language o instruction at home are

much more likely to perorm better in schools.

In this regard, getting parents more involved

in their childrens education has proven to be

an eective strategy to improve education out-

comes o children.

Other socio-cultural actors that inuence edu-

cation outcomes reer to dierent national, reli-

gious or ethnic backgrounds (sometimes called


17/74

17

cultural proximity). Some researchers nd that

immigrants general attitudes towards educa-

tion and motivational orientations may support

or hinder the integration process. Cultural ac-

tors have also been used to account or dier-

ences in school success between immigrant

groups. This research oen ocuses on the rela-

tively high achievement levels o inuence rom

some Asian countries and lower achievement

levels o immigrants rom Muslim-majority

countries.

2.1.3 Which igrant ppulatincharacteristics inuence scialinclusin utces?

Social inclusion is a broad and interconnected

area including poverty, income, health and hous-ing. On average, oreign-born immigrants are at

a higher risk o poverty, have lower incomes and

more oen live in overcrowded housing. Instru-

ments o social inclusion include social policies

(e.g. benets, spending, taxes) and housing pol-

icy (e.g. availability o social housing and com-

petitiveness o housing market).

As is the case or non-immigrants, common socio-

demographic characteristics improve social inclu-

sion outcomes over time. The projects bivariate

analysis suggests that higher age, income, educa-tion, employment and duration o residence are all

associated with better social inclusion o oreign-

born immigrants in terms o higher incomes and

lower poverty risk.

Household composition

We ound a strong inuence o household com-

position on the income o the oreign-born pop-

ulation. Foreign-born amilies without children

have similar incomes compared to the total

population. However, the income gap is larger

or oreign-born immigrants with children. Chil-dren widen the dierence in incomes between

oreign-born immigrants and the total popula-

tion. The same pattern applies to poverty risk.

The oreign-born are more likely to be at risk o

poverty compared to the native born when they

have children. More research is needed on the

impact o amily-related benets, amily struc-

ture and poverty on immigrant integration.

2.1.4 Which igrant ppulatincharacteristics inuence actiecitizenship utces?

Currently, naturalisation rates, long-term residence

rates, and immigrants among elected representa-

tives have been proposed as relevant EU active

citizenship indicators. Available research ocuses

on naturalisation and other orms o political par-

ticipation such as voting, volunteering and mem-

bership and or participation in organisations. There

is very limited international research on long-term

residence. Some case studies have collected inor-

mation on immigrants in elected ofces.14

Based on data rom the European Social Survey

(ESS), researchers ound that immigrants po-

litical involvement in terms o membership andvoting in the EU is generally lower than among

native-born. However, a dierent picture emerg-

es when observers take into account inormal

participation in humanitarian aid, human rights,

and immigrant rights movements where partici-

pants are oen not registered as members. On

average, voter turnout in elections shows lower

participation o immigrants compared to non-

immigrants in EU countries. However, this gap is

reduced signicantly when the results are con-

trolled or age and education.

Employment, education, amily status

Citizenship is the prerequisite or voting at the

national level in nearly all EU countries and at

the regional level in the majority o EU countries.

Analysis based on ESS data also indicated that

citizenship increases other orms o civic partici-

pation (e.g. helping others in society). The main

individual predicators o naturalisation have been

rst identied in the United States and largely

conrmed in national and comparative studies in

Europe. Rates are higher among the second gen-

eration, especially o mixed parentage. Participa-tion oen increases as immigrants spend more

time in the country and naturalise. Duration o

residence and marriage are the only signicant

determinants o naturalisation or immigrants

rom both developed and developing countries.

Other relevant individual-level actors include

employment, income levels, education, language

ability, amily status, and social contacts.

(14) See, Bird et al (2011), Morales et al (2011) in the urther reading list and a graph rom Kirchberger et al (2011)

in the annex.


18/74

18

Country o origin and language skills

Several studies have ound that immigrants rom

lower developed and politically unstable coun-

tries are more likely to naturalise. Recent analysis

showed that oreign-born immigrants rom low-or-

medium-developed countries are on average ve

times as likely to naturalise as immigrants rom

highly-developed countries. In most EU countries,

people rom developed (especially EU) countries

tend to naturalise less because they have less in-

centives to acquire the citizenship o another EU

country. In addition, educational attainment and

speaking the countrys language at home increases

the likelihood to naturalise or immigrants rom

developing countries, but has no eect on immi-

grants rom developed countries. Low-educated

immigrants rom a high-income country are morelikely than their highly educated counterparts to be

nationals. On the contrary, among immigrants orig-

inating rom a lower-income country, those that

are highly educated are more likely to be nationals

than their low-educated counterparts.

Residence

In most EU countries, immigrants (sel-reported)

electoral participation increases the longer they

have settled in the country. According to the OECD,

in Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and theUnited Kingdom, long-term residents voter turnout

is more than 10 percentage points higher than the

turnout o immigrants in general. Furthermore, in

several countries Hungary, Israel and the United

Kingdom participation rates or long-term resi-

dents appear higher than those o native-born.

Subjective actors

More subjective indicators, such as sense o

belonging, interest in politics, experience o

discrimination and trust in political institutions

have been mentioned in the context o activecitizenship. More research is being done on the

question how these subjective indicators may also

inuence more objective active citizenship indi-

cators, or example, voting and membership and/or

participation in organisations. This research is still

at the beginning. So ar, there are mixed results

about how these indicators are related to the

various orms o political participation.

2.2 General plicies

and cntetThe second set o actors that inuence integra-

tion outcomes are general policies and context.

This set o actors takes into account dierent

national contexts across the EU. Broadly dened,

they include labour market structures and eco-

nomic growth, the education system, the welare

system, the housing market, and public opinion.

In general, less is known about the relative im-

portance o macro-level actors compared to

well-researched individual level actors.

Explaining macro-level actors

Labour market actors include economic growth,

occupational sectors, occupational conditions,

minimum wages, and labour laws. Employment

rates in relation to overall economic growth give

an indication whether immigrants benet equally

in good times or suer disproportionately in bad

times. The employment sectors can inuence

immigrants employment rate as sectors that re-

quire less qualications and social skills (i.e. agri-cultural sector) are oen easier or immigrants to

access. However, skill-demanding labour markets

and the less accessible high skilled jobs increase

the risk o over-qualication or immigrants. The

projects bivariate analysis suggests that oreign-

born immigrants are disproportionately aected

by part-time and temporary work. They seem to

be the rst one in and out o the labour market.

In this regard, employment protection legislation

a measurement o how easy rms can hire and

re workers - can have an impact on immigrant

employment. In theory, tight labour laws decreasethe propensity o companies to hire workers. This

could disadvantage immigrants in competition

with non-immigrants.

Education systems are very diverse across the

EU. Dierent systems impact the perormance

o immigrants. Some o the better researched

characteristics o education systems are access

and availability o early-childhood education, the

age o ability grouping (tracking), socio-econom-

ic composition o schools, the diversication o

schools tracks, and public spending on education.

Others may be mandatory school years, graderepetition, class sizes, number o school hours

and centralised curricula. In some cases, these

aspects have helped immigrants to overcome

their oen unavourable socio-economic back-

ground and discrimination in order to achieve

higher qualications.

Basic income and housing are essential human

needs. They are regarded as prerequisites or

structural integration in society. The link between

welare systems, housing and migrant integration

remains under-researched. So ar, considerablymore attention has been paid to employment and

education. Some countries measure the uptake o

social services o immigrants. Other research has

looked at how social transers aect the poverty

risk o immigrants compared to non-immigrants.


19/74

19

Social transers include amily related benets,

housing benets, age-related benets, unemploy-

ment benets and social assistance. The extent to

which EU governments provide these benets is

reected in overall social spending as percentage

o GDP and general welare generosity indices.

The housing market is closely related to social

issues. Are immigrants living in overcrowded ac-

commodation, how many own property, how rel-

evant is social housing in a country, how much

do immigrants spend on rent relative to their in-

come? The answers to these questions have an

inuence on the social inclusion o immigrants.

Lastly, public opinion can inuence integration

outcomes. Public opinion can be considered an

umbrella term reecting the more subjective

indicators o receiving societies. This can bemeasured through public attitudes, (awareness

o) discrimination and media discourse. In some

countries, surveys indicate high levels o anti-

immigrant attitudes. Surveys and experimental

studies have shown high degrees o discrimina-

tion against immigrants, especially in schools

and at the work place. Several international

studies have also analysed the media coverage

o immigration and integration issues. They o-

ten nd a negative bias o migrant integration

issues in many EU countries.

2.2.1 Which cntet actrs inuenceeplent utces?

Presumably, a positive economic situation over-

all will benet immigrants. More growth is likely

to increase migrant employment. Generally, the

projects bivariate analysis has shown that em-

ployment rates o oreign-born immigrants are

better in countries where non-immigrants also

have higher employment rates. However, while

immigrants take advantage o economic op-

portunities in good times, the nancial crisis has

shown that immigrants are the rst to exit thelabour market when times are more difcult. Im-

migrants were aected most by the economic

downturn in once booming new countries o im-

migration. In addition, regional and local dier-

ences in the labour market inuence integration

as immigrants ace very dierent opportunities

in dierent places. Immigrants oen move to

places due to existing social networks, not nec-

essarily due to labour market needs.

Employment sectors

The projects bivariate analysis shows that coun-

tries with larger agricultural sectors tend to have

narrower gaps in emale employment rates and

somewhat narrower gaps in male employment

rates. Foreign-born non-EU immigrant women

are also less active compared to non-immigrant

women in countries with larger service sectors.

This suggests that service unrelated work (ag-

riculture, industry) is avourable or the employ-

ment o non-EU immigrant women. On average

across the EU, immigrants are overrepresented

in low-skilled sectors such as construction, ac-

commodation and ood services and underrep-

resented in higher skilled jobs including public

sector jobs. The second generation are less l ikely

to work in public administration, health and so-

cial work or education than non-immigrants. In

some countries, these public sector jobs repre-

sent a large share o the labour market, oer-

ing stable work conditions. Large dierences in

employment rates with ospring o native-born

in Belgium and Spain are partly explained by

the low share o employment in the public sec-tor among native-born ospring o immigrants.

Public sector employment targets and inorma-

tion campaigns can increase application rates

o eligible immigrants. This has the potential to

enhance the employment situation in addition to

raising public awareness o diversity.

Country o origin, legal restrictions, minimum wages

The general level o development o the country o

residence matters. There are greater dierences

in labour market participation between the gen-eral population and the non-EU-born in countries

with higher levels o human development. Legal

restrictions to access to labour markets or amily

and humanitarian migrants in some countries can

have an eect on employment outcomes.

There is some evidence that minimum wages set

too high or excessively restrictive employment

protection legislation could increase the level o

structural unemployment and make it especially

difcult or new arrivals to nd work.

Discrimination and public opinion

One context actor that has yielded more re-

search results is discrimination. The most con-

vincing studies o the occurrence o discrimina-

tion are eld experiments, which test the actual

behaviour o employers seeking to ll job vacan-

cies. Job seekers with oreign names have to

submit twice as many applications to be invited

or an interview than other job seekers with the

exact same qualication. Studies on discrimina-

tion in the labour market in Belgium, Denmark,

France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom

and the United States ollowing a standard

procedure or correspondence testing developed

by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in

1992, showed similar tendencies.


20/74

20

Based on the projects bivariate analysis, we nd

that countries where oreign-born immigrants

have lower integration outcomes, the awareness

o discrimination among the general population

is higher. The projects analysis ound that lower

levels o labour market participation or non-EU-

born women and men are associated with great-

er public awareness o discrimination against

oreigners. However, the direction o causation

is not clear. Foreign-born immigrants may have

lower outcomes because they are being discrim-

inated against or, they are being discriminated

against because they have lower outcomes. In-

terestingly, the countries with higher awareness

o discrimination are oen the countries with

more inclusive integration policies, in particular

strong anti-discrimination laws and extensive la-

bour market integration policies. We also oundthat countries with high support or equal rights

or legal immigrants also adopt more inclusive

integration policies. This indicates that countries

with greater challenges to integrate immigrants,

higher perceived levels o discrimination and

more avourable attitudes towards immigrants

are also the countries that adopt more ambitious

anti-discrimination and labour market policies.

Some have argued that public opinion, indeed,

can be relevant or employment outcomes o

immigrants beyond discrimination on the labourmarket. Anti-immigrant perceptions restrict gov-

ernments ability to promote high-skilled labour

migration which European companies are in

need o.

Discrimination awareness training or employ-

ers, anonymous job applications, strong imple-

mentation o ant-discrimination legislation and

public anti-discrimination campaigns have the

potential to reduce the impact o discrimination

and negative public opinion on employment o

immigrants.

2.2.2 Which cntet actrs inuenceeducatin utces?

The type o education system matters. The

level o underachievement among immigrant

students and the general population are linked.

As a general trend, the share o underachievers

among oreign-born immigrant students is high-

er in countries with more underachievers within

the general population. We have also ound that

the share o the oreign-born with a university

degree is higher in countries with more universi-ty graduates within the general population. More

migrants leave school early in countries with a

larger share o early school leavers within the

general population. This perormance correla-

tion across all our education indicators implies

that the general educational system is a major

actor or the general population, including or

migrants. Where the general population ares

better, migrants generally also do better.

Overall perormance o education system

The projects bivariate analysis has ound that

higher levels o spending on education as per-

centage o GDP is associated with higher reading

scores o 15 year old immigrants. While rates

or oreign-born immigrants might generally be

higher in countries that spend more on educa-

tion, the dierences between oreign-born im-

migrants and non-immigrants are also larger.

The dierence (gap) between oreign-born im-

migrants and the general population is greaterin countries with greater levels o wealth and

equality within the general population. There are

oen more underachievers among oreign-born

immigrant students than among the general

student body in countries where natives have

a relatively high socio-economic position. This

nding suggests that a country with a wealthier,

equal, and educated general population will be

more likely to have greater student achieve-

ment gaps between the general population and

oreign-born immigrants. In poorer and more un-

equal societies, native students are oen just asaected by underachievement as migrant stu-

dents. Even though migrants generally do better

in countries where everybody does better, the

dierences between migrants and natives ap-

pear to be larger in countries where the general

population has better conditions or high peror-

mance. Generally, this analysis nds dierent

situations in many North and Northwest Euro-

pean countries in comparison to many Central

and Southern European countries.

School segregation

School segregation can be considered one rel-

evant actor inuencing the education o immi-

grants. Several studies show that students with

an immigrant background tend to ace the double

challenge o coming rom a disadvantaged back-

ground themselves and going to a school with a

more disadvantaged prole (measured by the av-

erage socio-economic background o a schools

inuence) - both o which are negatively related

with student perormance. While there may be a

negative eect o ethnic segregation, it appears

that its impact is considerably smaller than the e-ect o the socio-economic position o the parents.

This means that the issue is not ethnic segrega-

tion o schools but socio-economic segregation.

There is evidence that the outcomes o immigrant

8/22/2019 Final Report on Using Eu Indicators of Immigrant Integra

final report on using eu indicators of immigrant integration june 2013 en

Documents