1 / 18

LeCiM – Learning Cities for Migrants I nclusion

LeCiM – Learning Cities for Migrants I nclusion. Stories , results and lessons of the project in Budapest. Budapest Chance Nonprofit Ltd. Since 1996

alexis-woodard
Download Presentation

LeCiM – Learning Cities for Migrants I nclusion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LeCiM – Learning Cities for Migrants Inclusion Stories, results and lessons of the project in Budapest

  2. Budapest Chance Nonprofit Ltd. Since 1996 • The headquarter and three branch offices, visited by 3.000–4.000 disadvantaged job-seekers per a year, for job opportunities and advice • Target groups: permanently unemployed people, homeless people, mothers returning from childcare, Roma people, people with low level of education and career-starters • EqualOpportunity Office of Budapest (FEMI, since 2002): innovationcenterand coordinator of the equal opportunity policy of Budapest • Operates several employment and equal opportunity target projects in Budapest, with reliance on European Union and domestic funds

  3. Migrants in Budapest Demographical: • Foreigners with residence permit: ~74.000 (4,3%); foreign born citizens who obtained citizenship: ~50.000 (2,9%); refugees: a few hundred • Nationalities: ethnic Hungarians from neighbouring countries (39 000), Chinese (8 500), EU-15 nationals (8 000), other European (6 700), Asian (6 000), African (fewer) • Age and gender structure: ~ 85% 15-65 years, more men (different pattern than non-migrant society) Historical background: immigration in last 20 years, most of ethnic Hungarians and economic migration; Labour market situation in Budapest: better labour market opportunities than in country; activity rate of migrants is higher than that of the total population; Education: not lower, may be higher than local population – the labour market can’t react on it

  4. Urgent needs of migrants • Information (on social and healthcare services, housing...) • Adequate/client-tailored public services • Hungarian language knowledge/access to Hungarian language courses • Legal aid • Adequate housing • Educational needs • Employment-related needs • Pychological needs (and special needs of women) • Cultural needs, need for tolerance, for social networks

  5. Situation and needs of NGOs • Funding (asanytime, anywhere) • Logisticalneeds: easilyaccessible, well-locatedclient service offices and trainingrooms • Cooperationwithauthorities: • Protocolsontransferingcases (e.g. between Reception Centres and NGOs) • Coordinated team workincomplexcases (e.g. refugeefamiliesfacingwithmultipledifficulties) • Training • Langugelearning (Russian, Asianlanguages, Arabic, Persian etc.) • Communicationskills, conflict management

  6. Urgent needs of public authorities • Needfortraining • Sensitivisation / Consciousnessraising • Languagelearning (Asianlanguages, Arabic, Persian etc.) • Communicationskills, conflict management • Supervision (especiallyforthosewhoaredealingwithclients) • Promotingthedevelopment of professionalcompetences • Preventingburn-out • Needforcooperationwithotherauthorities and NGOs • Protocolsforinteragencycooperation, regularchannelsforinformationexcange • Cleardivision of thetasks, caseconferences

  7. Berlin Modell to Budapest Pro: • This supporting-form is easily available, could work in supporting young roma people. (Could adapt some parts of it later) Con: • Not similar situation: migrants in Budapest are higher educated, elder and have better labour market-situation than Berlin. • It seemed too expensive

  8. Dunkerque Modell to Budapest Pro: • NGOs needs help in logistical things, trainings, developing the organization Con: • Not similar situation: there’s not really NGOs of migrants in Budapest, migrants aren’t visible in cultural and political themes in Budapest, and we don’t know their exact needs on it yet.

  9. Why we wanted the Bologna Modell to Budapest (PROs) • Both NGOs and publicauthoritiesneedcommunicationandcooperationtoeachother • There is someissuesonitalready: Local actionplanonequalopportunities, NGO Office and Migrant Office inMunicipality of Budapest • New local authoritywants (aswethougtbeforeelection) somecentralized and cooperativemethodin: socialsystem, publicemployingsystemandthesystemwhichsupportingminorities • Wecoulduseitonworkingwithothertargetgroups (especially Roma people) • Thiscooperative modell couldmake a cheaper and more efficientsystem (inlongtermperiod) onsupportingminorities • The modell involve and sensitizethecitizens(see: Antena)

  10. Bologna Modell to BudapestCONs Can’t see real cons before, only two important questions: • If the local authority want and could make really work a this kind of cooperation? • How we could involve them really into a this kind of project – because of carrying about migrants is not the activity of the LG only responsibility of the State Government

  11. First local workshop 2010. October Involved: about 10 stakeholders Theme: Summary on the project and the modell Expected outcome: stakeholders’ agreement on cooperation, common decision: what to adapt exactly Problems: • LG just changed 3 days before the workshop • Nobody saw the goals and the system of the new LG • Nobody represented the LG on the workshop • so we didn’t get our expected outcome Next step: meeting before the 2nd ws

  12. Meeting between workshops 2011. February With: 3 stakeholders Theme: Involving the LG: tell them why it should be good for them? Expected outcome: Collection of reasons and probable profits for involving the LG Outcome: • Done Main reasons in it: • 90% of migrants live here and use the health, education and social system of the capital • Professionals and insitutes (suppliers) haven’t prepared for working with migrants (not as a client, nor as a collegue) Next step: 2nd ws

  13. Second local workshop 2011. March With: about 10 stakeholders Theme: Summary on the project and the modell, working on the detailes of cooperation Expected outcome: agreement on cooperation Outcomes: • Probable detailes of the cooperation • Especially the system of Antenna and a consulting board for migrants Probably next steps: • agreement between NGOs • and a suggestion (based on the outcomes of the 2nd ws) to the LG • Training of migrants and after 3rd ws involve them in the consulting board and develop the Antenna system with them

  14. Between 2nd and 3rd workshopThe suggestion Main activity: Create a suggestion to the LG Points: • Set up a consultation board involve: NGO, LG, State Migrant Office, suppliers of social, helathcare and education system • Working on financial modells, common project, cooperation protocols and chanels of information exchanging • Involve migrant persons in this board and into the civil workshops of the Municipality (see above) • Sensitising suppliers of the capital and give them information on migrant issue to the (for helping them to work with migrants) • Insert migrants as a tagret group to the local actionplan of the capital for equal opportunities Undersigned by: 8 NGO and Budapest Chance NLtd.

  15. Between 2nd and 3rd workshopOther activities • Trying to involve migrants in our trainig on equal opportunity • Trying ask migrants about discrimination: stories and information-needs • Invited10 persons in last two activities, but it wasn’t succesfull (none of them came) Problem: • NGOs didn’t trust enough in LG and • They afraid that BPE try to get their business and their budget • Migrants wasn’t motivated enough to join, we think they couldn’t really see, what could be their prompt and future profit on it. Next step: 3rd ws

  16. Third local workshop2011. September With: about 10 stakeholders Theme: LG’s reaction on the suggestion of NGOs detailes of cooperation Expected outcome: • Agreement on cooperation between NGOs • LG promised to set the board up in next January Probably problems: • Afraid that LG’s political viewpoints overwrite NGOs professional viewpoints (threat) • We can’t finish in the term of this project, afraid the efforts could disappear after it (threat) • NGOs trust could be a weakness

  17. Probable outcomes till the end of the project and after Agreement/next steps: • Before January NGOs work out a plan of a common project on housing, employing and sensitising issues • Searching for calls and later: apply with the first common project • Keep this issue on the table of the LG • Ask the LG join in this project, and ensure the retention what need Other links: • Medical Graduate and Postgraduate Institute’s SIMIGRA project (help migrants who have medical degree to get a job) • Office of Ombudsman interested in the project • Representative of the LG joined to National Contact Point of the European Migration Network

  18. Thank you for your attention! Tea Erdélyi (Garadnay) garadnay@pestesely.hu +36 70 3363884

More Related