1 / 21

Discrimination and victimisation challenges for migrant integration

Discrimination and victimisation challenges for migrant integration ‘Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual interaction requiring a greater commitment by the host community and immigrants’ Stockholm Programme. Policy background.

crevan
Download Presentation

Discrimination and victimisation challenges for migrant integration

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. Discrimination and victimisation challenges for migrant integration ‘Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual interaction requiring a greater commitment by the host community and immigrants’ Stockholm Programme

  2. Policy background • Conclusions of April 2010 EU ministerial conference on integration: “Ministers agreed to focus and explore the key aspects of integration as a driver for development and social cohesion by incorporating integration issues in a comprehensive way in all relevant policy fields and by giving particular attention to the following areas: Employment, education and intercultural dialogue”

  3. Policy background • Stockholm Programme: “The EU must ensure fair treatment of third country nationals who reside legally on the territory of its Member States. A more vigorous integration policy should aim at granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens. This should remain an objective of a common immigration policy and should be implemented as soon as possible, and no later than 2014.”

  4. Rights based approach • Rights – holders duty bearers • Traditional focus on ‘duty bearers’ in treaty monitoring (legislation, policies) • FRA: socio-legal approach examines both the legal and policy situation and rights holders’ experiences, perceptions and views to establish “how rights are fulfilled in practice on the ground” • This is done through massive EU-wide surveys

  5. EU-MIDIS • First EU-wide survey on immigrants experiences of discrimination, criminal victimisation and policing • 23,500 migrant/ethnic minority respondents • Different groups surveyed across Member States: • Roma • Sub-Saharan Africans • Central and Eastern Europeans • Turkish • Former Yugoslavians • North Africans • Russian • 5,000 majority population respondents in 10 MS

  6. The research • Largest minority groups (up to 3) surveyed in each MS • Self-identified migrant/minority background • Respondents: age 16+, in MS at least 1 year • Random sample of 500 – 1,500 respondents in each MS • Face-to-face interviews 20 to 60 minutes in homes • Fieldwork: From May – mid July + Nov 2008

  7. The issues Victimisation Experiences and Reporting Property crime Assault and threat Serious harassment Corruption Police stops/contact Border stops Respondent Variables Discrimination Experiences and Reporting Employment Education Housing Health + social services Consumer services General perceptions on discrimination in MS Rights awareness – complaints

  8. The findings • Average one in three respondents experienced at least one incident of discrimination in the past year • Mostly in employment and in services • Lack of awareness about legislation and services providing redress, support and advice - ‘accesstojustice’ • Main reason for not reporting discrimination or crime is that “nothing would happen or change” – one in three didn’t know how to go about reporting or where to report • Racial discrimination and racist crime are severely undercounted in official statistics

  9. The results Ten groups with the highest discrimination rates all areas (%)

  10. The results Ten groups with the highest share of not reporting discrimination (%)

  11. The results Reasons for not reporting discrimination – top 5, all domains (%)

  12. The results Awareness of any anti-discrimination laws (%)

  13. The results Awareness of an organisation where a complaint can be made (%)

  14. The results Groups with highest rate of racist crime victimisation - assault, threat or serious harassment (%)

  15. The results Reasons for not reporting to the police (%)

  16. The results Groups with the highest perception of police stopping them because of their immigrant or ethnic minority background (%)

  17. The results Groups with the rate of discrimination by school personnel – as a student or as a parent, in the past 12 months (%)

  18. The results Ten groups with the highest rate of discrimination by school personnel – as a student or as a parent, in the past 12 months (%)

  19. The results Reasons for not reporting discrimination by school personnel – top 5 reasons (%)

  20. Considerations • What is the actual impact of integration policies? • Do existing social policies have a strong commitment to non-discrimination, equality and social cohesion? Do they reach those who experience most discrimination? Do they target areas where most discrimination occurs? • Are actions to raise rights awareness effective? • Are Equality Bodies well resourced to be effective? • How can a public service cultureamong law enforcement be promoted to encourage reporting to the police?

  21. Thank you for your attention fra.europa.eu/eu-midis

More Related