M U L T I W E L F A R E Comparing how local welfare systems respond to immigration

1. MULTIWELFARE Comparing how local welfare systems respond to immigration Ferruccio Pastore and Irene Ponzo Seminar on «Migrants and Welfare» Centro Einaudi, Torino, 13 June 2013

2. What we are presenting • Main results of a comparative empirical study on how local welfare systems respond to immigration (viewed as major exogenous transformative factor, in a context of wider and more complex transformations) • A privately funded study, where the funders are themselves part of the research object • An interdisciplinary and collective research project (the team)

3. Exogenous (demand-side) transformative factors of local welfare systems: a recursive interaction New changes in demand for welfare Changes in demand for welfare And so on… Local welfare system Changes in supply of welfare

4. on the backdrop of our research… Pre-crisis decade: South European labour immigration boom Crisis  slowdown in arrivals, but net migration still positive and comparatively high Closure of long-term planned admissions BUT - continuing regularisations (2009 and 2012) continuing family regroupments (140,000 new permits, -21% on previous year) TO SUM UP: Changes in composition, steps back in integration Growing pressure on welfare

5. Our territorial and thematic focus Local welfare systems, functionally identified (on the basis of the criterion of relative autonomy of local systems) Two largest immigration basins in Piedmont (one of the main receiving regions in Italy) Asymmetrical comparison: City-level in torino, Province-level in cuneo (why comparing apples and pears makes sense) Thematic focus on social policies (one of the areas where migration-induced transformations have been most precociously evident)

6. Our analytical tools (I):welfare mix, broadly meant PRIVATE NON-PROFIT PRIVATE FOR- PROFIT PUBLIC PRIVATE NO-PROFIT COMMUNITY- BASED SEMI- PUBLIC NON-PROFIT (foundations)

7. Our analytical tools (II):A classification of welfare services/ provisions based on relation with immigrant beneficiaries Migration-blind Universalistic Migration-sensitive: Incorporating specific devices or approaches aimed at facilitating access for immigrant minorities Migrant-specific: Access formally restricted to foreigners/immigrants

8. Methodological choices Methodological strategy apt to analyse a situation in turbulent, unplanned and largely unforeseeable evolution: strong empirical focus mix of qualitative and quantitative methods participatory approach THEREFORE: Quantitative analysis of demographic data Quantitative analysis of data on welfare providers Qualitative analysis of interviews with key actors Discussion with local Steering groups made up of experts and practitioners

9. Starting with demographic data (indicators of potential demand)In Turin the demographic weight of immigration is higher than in Cuneo Share of foreign residents on total (31 Dec. of each year) Source: Istat Demo – Own elaboration

10. Settlement processes are advanced in both territories Born in Italy as % of foreign residents (Istat – Demo, own elaboration) Acquisitions of citizenship as % of foreign residents (Istat – Demo, own elaboration)

11. Inflows remain sizeable in spite of the crisis New foreign residents (registrations from abroad) – Absolute values, 2002-2010 Source: Istat Demo – Own elaboration

12. Levels of diversity (in terms of national origin) are similar in the two territories Composition of foreign population by citizenship – Percentages at 31 Dec. 2010 Province of Cuneo Municipality of Torino

13. What about the actual demand of welfare? A comparison between the two target areas

14. MORE IMMIGRANT BENEFICIARIES IN CUNEOThe share of foreign beneficiaries of public social provisions is higher in Cuneo than in Turin Share of foreign beneficiaries of public provisions (%) Source: Regione Piemonte – Relazione Enti Gestori dei Servizi Socio-Assistenziali - Own elaboration

15. MORE WELFARE-CONSUMING IMMIGRANTS IN CUNEO?The share of foreigners who benefit from public social provisions is higher in Cuneo than in Turin Share of residents who benefit from social provisions by nationality (%) Source: Regione Piemonte – Relazione Enti Gestori dei Servizi Socio-Assistenziali - Own elaboration

16. FALSE EXPLANATIONSContrary to widespread beliefs, the differences between Cuneo and Turin can not be explained just with:1. Immigration stocks and inflows2. Amount of public expenditure for migrant-specific provisions

17. IN FACT, expenditure for migrant-specific social provisions is lower in Cuneo than in Torino Public expenditure for migrant-specific provisions, 2010 Source: Regione Piemonte based on ‘Indagine Istat sugli interventi e servizi sociali dei comuni singoli e associati’ - Own elaboration

18. OUR EXPLANATIONSDifferences between Cuneo and Turin seem to depend mainly on:1. Composition of public expenditure for migrant-specific provisions and per capita-cost of migrant-specific provisions2. Types of local welfare mix: size and indipendence of no-profit welfare providers and funders

19. In Cuneo migrant-specific expenditure is concentrated on cheap services addressing not marginalised migrants Composition of public expenditure for migrant-specificprovisions, 2010 Municipality of Turin Province of Cuneo Source: Regione Piemonte su dati Indagine Istat sugli interventi e servizi sociali dei comuni singoli e associati  - Own elaboration

20. The outsourcing of social provision managementto no-profit organisations is higher in Torino than in Cuneo Share of social workers employed in contracted no-profit organisations Source: Regione Piemonte – Relazione Enti Gestori dei Servizi Socio-Assistenziali Own elaboration

21. In the immigration policy area, public contributions to no-profit associations are generally higher, particularly so in Torino Public expenditure for social provisions and the share given to no-profit associations by policy sector, 2010 Source: Regione Piemonte su dati Indagine Istat sugli interventi e servizi sociali dei comuni singoli e associati - Own elaboration

22. Expenditure by bank foundations is higher in Torino than in Cuneo Municipality of Torino Province of Cuneo Source: Relazioni annuali delle fondazioni – Own elaboration

23. What is changing with the crisis? 2 preliminary hypotheses 1. The growing ‘projectification’ of welfare has its pros and cons An increasing use of calls for projects – as a way to fairly distribute insufficient resources? – seems to produce: Innovation Increasing investments in fund-raising and accounting activities by welfare providers Obstacles to empowering strategies

24. What is changing with the crisis?2 preliminary hypotheses2.Even ‘light welfare mix’ solutions are increasingly under strain Care workers applying for support to find a job at the desk «Sportello Assistenti familiari» in Reggio Emilia Families applying for mediation to find a (migrant) careworker at the desk «Sportello Assistenti familiari» in Reggio Emilia Source: Sportello Assistenti Familiari Reggio Emilia, report 2012

25. TO SUM UP: Welfare provisions on offer locally differ widely by: Type of provisions (mediation and orientation services vs. accommodation) Primary targets (less or more disadvantaged) Nature of providers (with a wider or smaller role played by no-profit sector) Demand is dependent upon supply, particularly in terms on composition of local welfare and of expenditure A more sophisticated qualitative analysis of the interaction of demand and supply as a possible new research step