Public Deliverables

The following report explores and critically evaluates the latest methodologies applied to approach young migrants in vulnerable conditions and therewith provides an inquiry about relevant procedures for approaching the young while moving or staying. Given the strong emphasis in MIMY on using and furthering a participatory approach with young migrants, this report offers a general reflection on methodological issues researching young migrants in vulnerable conditions. During the methodological reflections, this report suggests that time in the life course perspective, the context in which young migrants in vulnerable conditions live, and empowerment should be considered primary layers when researching young migrants. In a final step, the reports offers an overview of the results of our comprehensive literature review regarding opportunities and challenges in participatory and action research methodology.

This report describes the dimension, characteristics and dynamics of youth migration to Europe, provides an overall perspective on the socio-economic integration of young migrants and explains the perceptions of the local populations on migrants. The report uses macro data available (mostly) in Eurostat databases, as well as micro-data (at individual level) retrieved from the European Social Survey (2010-2018), while focusing on four dimensions of migrants’ integration: (1) labour market integration, (2) education, (3) social inclusion and (4) housing conditions and health.

The report is structured in five chapters. The first one describes the magnitude of the number and flows of migrants, providing a perspective on the dimensions and dynamics of the main groups of interest. The second chapter looks at the integration of non-EU nationals in the European societies, following the four dimensions of integration previously stated. The third chapter describes the vulnerable youth in Europe, by looking at the multiple dimensions of individual integration. The fourth chapter focuses on TCN immigrants below the age of 30 and presents the main factors that are likely to increase the chances of living in vulnerable conditions. The final chapter presents the mainstream society’s attitudes towards immigrants. Using individual level data, the report shows how attitudes have changed during the past 18 years in MIMY partner countries.

More than 17 million people from countries with a low and medium human development index (HDI) live in in the EU28 countries plus Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway, most of whom in the United Kingdom (22%), followed by France (16%), Italy (12.3%), Germany (12.1%), and Spain (10%), while at the other end we find countries Central and Eastern European countries. The study also shows how the human geographies of migration have changed in Europe over the 2010s: at the beginning of the decade, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland or Czechia were among the countries that received most young migrants, while at the end of the 2010s we could find France, Sweden or the Netherlands (2.1).

The report not only looks at the dimensions and dynamics of youth migration in Europe, but also suggests steps for integration, with their subsequent specifics: the acquisition of citizenship, naturalization, or the acquisition of long-term residency permits, each of them described in detail (sections 2.2-2.6). The new emerging trends are highlighted, with an increased variation in destination countries.

The report contains an initial assessment of the available official statistical data on young migrants in the consortium countries: the values for the annual stocks and flows are publicly accessible, but more efforts are needed for providing detailed data on specific demographic, education and economic characteristics of recent youth migration (2.7).

The authors move on to tackle a challenging question: who are, actually, the vulnerable youth migrants in Europe (Chapter 3). The macro data analysis reveals that unemployment and low education lead to vulnerability, while there is a gap between natives and TCNs related to social inclusion and self-perceived health.

The micro data analysis (Chapter4) show that for TCN (Third Country Nationals) migrants, the main vector of vulnerability is the low income. The same is true for the housing conditions, which are worse for TCNs than for EU-migrants. Youth vulnerability is observed from a one-dimensional (migrant suffering due to only one of the four aforementioned dimensions of integration) or a multi-dimensional (suffering from more than one dimension of integration) perspectives, with youth in Spain, Portugal or Austria suffering most from multi-dimensional vulnerability.

The results show that coming from regions of the world where the dominant race is different from Europeans, being Muslim as well as being discriminated against all add to the chances of becoming vulnerable, especially to the chances of struggling with several disadvantages across the four spheres of social integration. Parent’s education (and how that education is transferred to the children) is also identified as an important factor of being at risk of vulnerability. Odd enough or not, citizenship, proficiency of the language of host country as well as the time spent in the country of destination are not decisive factors of vulnerability, but what is a major factor is whether the young migrant has a child of his/her own.

Regarding the perception of the local populations towards migrant youth (Chapter 4), the report starts from the consideration that the host country’s circumstances are a very important element of immigrant’s integration and while the institutional environment – labour market, education, housing – is a key to the smooth integration, less observed subtle and subjective elements, such as how natives think about immigrants, or how they perceive their roles also play a big part in how well the migrants will feel and live in the destination country. The data analysis shows that there is a clear East-West divide in both the perception of the consequences of immigrants as well as their rejection. Still nor the ‘West’ neither the ‘East’ is homogeneous in the evaluation of immigration and its consequences. In Western Europe there are countries where only a negligible share of the population considers that none of the TCN immigrants should settle (Germany, Norway, Sweden), while there are countries where a larger minority (10-21%) thinks this way. Also, differences in attitudes are significant in Eastern Europe: Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia are the most hostile, while northern countries (Poland, Lithuania) as well as ex-Yugoslav countries (Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro) are significantly more open to immigrants.

The report concludes that there is not a great surprise that social inclusion indicators show a similar pattern: a gap between TCN immigrant and native youth, with the former being in a more vulnerable position, exposed to the risk of poverty, to a large extent. Comparing countries, it becomes evident that in some countries poverty indicators are low for both groups (Germany, Sweden, Slovenia, and the Baltic countries), in others poverty is widespread among both groups, but affecting TCN immigrants to a greater extent (Greece, Cyprus, Spain), and there are countries where poverty among natives is not widespread but TCNs are greatly affected (Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, and even Norway).

The European landscape seems to be extremely diverse in terms of the dimensions and trends of the flows of migrants in vulnerable conditions: a small group of countries (Germany, Spain, UK) were targeted, while Eastern European countries were the least preferred. However, in all of the European countries there are indicators that suggest a lack of integration on one or several dimensions, as confirmed by both micro and macro analysis (37% of young migrants face the risk of vulnerability in one of the four dimensions and 21% face vulnerable conditions along more dimensions of social integration). Looking closer to the report’s results may be helpful in understanding the differences between European countries and also in designing integration policies adapted to the national contexts.

Young people are amongst the main catalysers of migration. They leave their home countries in search of work, to study or join their families. The most vulnerable ones are arguably those who were forced to migrate, fleeing from human rights violations, war, extreme poverty. In the context of the ‘migration crisis’ of 2015, asylum seekers were under the spotlight of the public and political discourse in many European countries, as their number increased significantly. Some politicians as well as media outlets often portrayed them as a threatening and disruptive force, capable of damaging the well-being and economic standing of European nationals.

Therefore, the aim of this report is to scientifically explore the potential impact asylum seeking youth presence and size may have on major economic and societal subsystems, in order to promote debates and discourse based on evidence rather than prejudice. The study, applies econometric modelling to investigate the potential systemic effects that the presence of young asylum seekers can have on macro-level structures such as education, the labour market and social welfare systems. Adding to previous research, this study focuses specifically on the potential influences of young asylum applicants, a group of migrants that is increasing in magnitude and in relevance across Europe and on which suitable statistical data are available.

The report is strongly intertwined with the first and second deliverables of MIMY’s Work Package2. The data used for the analysis draws from the data inventory complied by the consortium in D2.1 “Macro data inventory and documentation” as well as on macro (country)-level indicators on young asylum applicants and micro (individual) level data from the European Social Survey on third-country national (TCN) youth, to complement the analysis. The description and interpretation of the results is built on the findings of D2.2 “Public report on describing and comparing the dimension, characteristics and dynamics of youth migrants in European countries”. The study provided a description of the four dimensions of immigrants’ integration (employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship) in the EU on a macro level and an analysis of the factors of vulnerability using individual-level data in nine MIMY partner countries.

The number and share of young asylum seekers as well as their origins and backgrounds, largely varies across European countries. Thus, the current research first wants to geographically profiles young European asylum seekers, providing a description of young asylum seekers in Europe (2.1) as well as of the characteristics of destination countries using cluster analysis (2.2). Using panel data modelling, the study then proceeds to analyse the effects of young asylum seekers’ on the labour market (2.3), the education system (2.4) and social protection expenditures (2.5) of the receiving countries. Finally, to check the robustness of the analysis results a counterfactual impact assessment with individual data was conducted (3).

Applying the well-known migration model developed by Van Hear et al. (2012), section 2.2 offered a categorization of European countries by employing cluster analysis along the most important macro-economic and societal factors (acting as predisposing, precipitating, mediating factors). The result of the analysis grouped European countries into four clusters: (1) northern continental, Nordic countries and the UK, which offer the most attractive conditions for immigrants and asylum seeking youth in Europe; (2) Emerging destination countries with medium economic wealth, social inequalities and business freedom, which include countries of the former Communist Block (Poland, the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic, Slovenia), as well as Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Portugal and Spain; (3) economically and/or politically less attractive countries, such as Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, and (4) outliers such as Ireland and Norway.

The panel regression analysis found no impact of asylum-seeking youth on youth unemployment rates (2.2). In other words: the number of young asylum seekers living in the country does not seem to have any effect on the likelihood of young nationals to be unemployed. As a robustness check of our conclusions, a counterfactual assessment was conducted for comparing labour market integration of young migrants with similar young natives (3). The results show that we cannot claim that young migrants are more likely to be unemployed compared to young natives, as initially hypothesized.

When considering welfare systems (2.4), the econometric modelling found a small positive effect of the share of asylum seekers on social protection expenditures: an increase of 1% of the share of young asylum seekers in the total young population is associated with an increase of 1.3% in the social protection expenditures per capita. Also, worth mentioning that there is no common system of social protection spending in the European Union and most of the European states do not account for specific social protection expenditures related to the asylum seekers.

Finally, the macro panel data modelling aims at identifying the potential effect on education (2.3). No statistically significant effect could be established between the proportion of young asylum seekers and the education system of the host country, measured by the NEET rate or by the early leavers ratio. The effects of immigration on the receiving country’s education system depend greatly on the characteristic of the immigrant population (their income, their attitude towards education).

Our results lead to several possible policy implications that could be useful for stakeholders and policy-makers:

• Firstly, we have demonstrated the lack of effect of the share of asylum seekers on national labour markets and education systems. This suggests that fearing a pressure on economies and societies that might arise due refugees’ inflows reported in some part of the public discourse, is not backed up by scientific evidence.
• Secondly, the social protection expenditures are slightly affected by the share of asylum seekers in young population. This reflects the efforts made for implementing social protection and integration policies, mostly in the European countries receiving high numbers of migrants. Such integration policies need to be further sustained, as the inflow of young immigrants may create benefits and respond to labour force shortages in many countries.
• Finally, the economic integration through labour market participation is crucial, for both TCNs and young natives. The two groups of young individuals, natives and TCNs, have similar likelihood to being unemployed, even if they have different sorts of vulnerabilities and TCNs are vulnerable on multiple dimensions compared to natives. In this sense, an integrated policy approach may be useful for more effectively tackling the problem of youth unemployment in Europe.

Looking to the future, we want to acknowledge that the methodological approach taken in our analysis (macro-econometric modelling) despite offering the great benefit of identifying systemic effects, is quite broad and thus not able to detect local effects. Considering smaller geographical units (local areas), where asylum-seeking youth actually reside (often with some geographical concentration) and where they benefit from local services, may yield to complementary, detailed and focused results on the effect of asylum seekers on major societal structures as well as on the influence local actors and institutions have on migrant youth integration process. This is the focus of WP5 and WP6 of the MIMY project, examining the Effects of Local Actors on migration and integration dynamics (WP5) and Assessing the critical role of the local population (WP6) respectively, using qualitative methodologies.

This report presents earlier research about past experiences and resilience of young vulnerable migrants and their integration trajectories in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Categorisations of “vulnerable groups”
In this earlier research, certain groups of migrants are considered “vulnerable”. This report recollects a number of different categorisations of young migrants who are in some way identified or labelled as “vulnerable” in research to various extent.

These are the most extensively researched categorisations in the included countries:

• Asylum seekers
• Refugees/refugee youth
• Unaccompanied migrants/minors

These categorisations were also to some extent researched in the included countries:

• Third country nationals
• Young undocumented migrants
• Young stateless migrants

Additional categorisations that were discussed as experiencing variously vulnerable conditions in the reviewed research include:

• LGBTQIA+ refugees
• Victims of trafficking
• Women migrating alone
• Labour migrants, education migrants
• Family migrants
• Irregular migrants
• Rejected asylum seekers
• Beneficiaries of international protection
• Recently arrived migrants

This list is heterogenous and complex and is an indication of the large variation and range of different categorisations that potentially can be the focus of research within the MIMY project. The “vulnerable conditions” (that differently categorised young migrants experience) are very different and could arguably be understood as a continuum of vulnerabilities. However, it is important to remember that comparisons of the “severeness” of different vulnerabilities are often part of the governing of different groups categorised as vulnerable.

“Vulnerable conditions” in focus
In the earlier research reviewed in this report, certain areas of concern, or “vulnerable conditions” are the main foci.

These are the identified primary areas of concern in earlier research:

• Life course and impact of legal status
• Accommodation
• Language and education
• Labour markets
• Migrant health
• Identity and intergroup contact
• Support structures and local participation
• Trafficking
• Discrimination and racism

This list does not represent all contexts through which young migrants’ vulnerabilities is likely to emerge/be produced, but it indicates key areas that is likely to emerge within the MIMY project. Below, the key findings of earlier research within each area is summarised.

Life course and impact of legal status
Some of the research discussing life course and impact of legal status speak more or less directly to the topic of this report of integration processes over time, resilience and vulnerability. It highlights different individual and structural aspects of how migrant youth trajectories in host countries are experienced. It both gives broad examples of “successful integration” of different groups over time and discuss the main problems young migrants encounter during their life courses in their host societies that in most cases relate to the other areas of concern identified in this report. The importance of legal status is a theme that runs through most of these other areas as well and a precarious legal status has detrimental effects on most aspects of migrant youth’s “integration trajectories”, one can conclude from the literature reviewed.

Life course and impact of legal status

Some of the research discussing life course and impact of legal status speak more or less directly to the topic of this report of integration processes over time, resilience and vulnerability. It highlights different individual and structural aspects of how migrant youth trajectories in host countries are experienced. It both gives broad examples of “successful integration” of different groups over time and discuss the main problems young migrants encounter during their life courses in their host societies that in most cases relate to the other areas of concern identified in this report. The importance of legal status is a theme that runs through most of these other areas as well and a precarious legal status has detrimental effects on most aspects of migrant youth’s “integration trajectories”, one can conclude from the literature reviewed.

Accommodation

Accommodation is a key issue for young people in general and the reviewed literature both highlights the difficulties many migrants meet in initial accommodation centres but also the impact different housing regimes have for young migrants – especially as they transition from initial accommodation into more long-term arrangements within local communities. Accommodation is not only about physical locations but also about how a “sense of home” is established and negotiated, research shows.

Language acquisition and education

Language acquisition and education is the only area of concern that was discussed in all country reports from the MIMY members that this report is based on and lack of access to education was identified as a main source of migrant vulnerability overall. Schools are also identified as a key meeting point where young people can establish new contacts with other youth. The need for separate classes for newly arrived young people to enable effective language learning has an unfortunate side effect of increased school segregation. For some international students in Eastern Europe primarily, poverty and discrimination are sources of increased vulnerability, according to the literature reviewed.

Labour market

Labour market inclusion is another key issue in almost all of the reviewed literature. Young migrants are very often employed below their education levels in low wage jobs. Some of the literature point out young migrants as over-represented among young people not being in employment, education or training (NEET). Several studies discuss the multitude of experiences of discrimination from different actors on the labour market that young migrants have. In some countries, unaccompanied youth do better on the labour market than other categorisations of young migrants who have received protection.

Migrant health

Migrant health issues are prevalent in the literature, especially in relation to mental health such as PTSD and depression. Access to health is hindered by a multitude of reasons, but the resilience of young migrants who have experienced severe hardships is also a focus in much of the literature on migrant health. Precarious legal status is also highlighted as specifically detrimental to the mental health of young migrants across Europe.

Identity and intergroup contact

Identity and intergroup contact are highlighted as important for integration processes but different kinds of support are often necessary to enable young people from different backgrounds to meet and grow relationships, according to the literature. School and leisure activities are central for these processes, according to the reviewed studies – again highlighting the importance of education in young migrants’ “integration trajectories”.

Support structures and local participation

Support structures and local participation are discussed in much of the literature, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors. Much support was initiated after the 2015 events but was later reduced and researchers have highlighted the need for support structures to reflect on how it meets the actual needs of young migrants. Categorisations of “unaccompanied minors” or “newly arrived” etc. also risk being part of a stigmatization of young migrants in different contexts. Community involvement and activism are sources of well-being for migrants, research shows, and migrant associations are highlighted as a key context where young migrants are provided support and also labour market access to a certain extent.

Trafficking

Trafficking is a critical source of migrant vulnerability and irregular migrants are especially at risk of being victims of forced labour, according to the literature. However, research also discusses how representations of vulnerability in this context also risks masking structural factors of inequality and individualizing the persons instead of addressing structural issues such as unequal access to resources. Further, trafficking policies often primarily aims to reinforce state power through return and reintegration programs, rather than supporting individual migrants, research has argued.

Discrimination and racism

Discrimination and racism are recurrent problems that tamper young people’s “integration trajectories” across Europe. Many different actors in society, also in “multicultural” contexts, can be sources of discrimination and racism. Research about unaccompanied minors especially show how derogatory understandings and representations of this migrant category in society have negative effects on young migrants. Unfortunately, these issues continue to influence the everyday lives of young migrants across their “integration trajectories” and throughout their life courses.

Organisations and services play a key role in supporting migrants’ processes of integration. The services available to young migrants can provide important insights in a given context. This report provides a mapping of local service provision that relates to young people aged 15-29 facing conditions of vulnerability, who were born outside of the European Economic Area (i.e. Third Country nationals), and currently reside in either England (UK), Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Romania, or Sweden. This mapping is situated in the early stages of the research project ‘EMpowerment through liquid Integration of Migrant Youth in vulnerable conditions’ or MIMY. The mapping will share a brief picture of the landscape of services young migrants are engaging with. The aims of the report are: firstly, to inform the project’s development; and secondly, to provide to wider stakeholders a comparative picture of integration services across the countries involved in the MMY project.

The mapping underpinning this report was undertaken by the national partner institutions within each of the nine MIMY countries from September to December 2020. This was a desk-based review, using web-based searches to identify services related to young migrants’ lives. This report describes the emerging picture of service provision in each country, and 18 case study locations – two within each country. This report is a horizon-scanning exercise to identify initial themes, trends and questions, which will be compared to the realities gleaned from stakeholders and young migrants in subsequent stages of empirical research.

Looking in: local service provision for young migrants
For each of the nine MIMY country contexts we have developed country profiles that look ‘in’ at the landscapes of service provision that Third Country young migrants in vulnerable conditions are building their lives in. The profiles introduce two contrasting cases for each country. More established migrant destination countries of England (UK), Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and to an extent Italy, include a set of contrasts in terms of urban and rural contexts, centre-periphery, and old industrial areas compared to more dynamic cities, reflecting a wide variety of integration contexts. In Hungary, Poland and Romania, the focus is on contrasts in relation to capital cities, and reflects the concentration of services and migrant populations in urban centres in these contexts. Following a description of the 18 case study locations and an overview of the wider socio-political context for integration, for each case study pairing, we share the following:

• Insights into how young people are being constructed and framed by services, the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion at play, including in relation to migratory status and intersectional dynamics such as gender and age. This provides insight into broader conditions of vulnerability.
• What support is being provided, and how and what the entry points are for accessing services. This includes consideration of differences in approaches by sector, whether services take a holistic approach, or work separately, and the themes/issues/services that are grouped together. We generate specific insight into the domains or processes of integration being engaged with.
• Whether and how issues around gender are being addressed, and what considerations are being made regarding the inclusivity of services, including in relation to language. This reflects the commitment in MIMY to address issues of social inequalities that create barriers to access for different young migrants.
• What specific sector dynamics or structural factors are impacting provision, including information on the levels at which services are operating, and the funding dynamics at play.

Looking across: a European service provision landscape
Looking across the nine MIMY countries, and 18 case studies, we provide a synthesis of the patterns and differences in local service provision. This analysis is based on data from very diverse contexts, and so we guard against any over-generalisations.

Differences in place and space:

Service-provision in urban areas targets young migrants on issues of integration, and addresses issues of exclusion. Rural areas are structured around mainstream state-led or specialist services for resettled refugees or dispersed asylum seekers. Neighbourhood-level services are mostly concentrated around faith or diaspora organisations in cities, and informal community groups in rural areas. Cities with emerging third sectors are more dependent on international actors and external sources of funding, and rural areas are also visibly impacted by changing funding landscapes.

Political economy factors:

Services are impacted by changing structural conditions, including flows of migrant populations, and histories of migration and integration. Political narratives and ideologies shape hostile environments, perceptions of ‘vulnerability’ and construct some countries as transitory. This impacts the scope and scale of services. There is a tension between labour market integration as a key goal, and the potential neoliberalisation of refugee integration. Certain sectors that can have a role in facilitating integration are often not positioned as integration services, such as business, research, the arts and activism.

Time, change and uncertainty:

Access to services is impacted by migration status and time, with early stages of settlement prioritised in state services. State integration programmes tend to be premised on stability, not accounting for people moving on. Third-sector, migrant-led and faith organisations often provide longer-term, wider support, without placing conditions on access to services. However, services face uncertainty due to funding crises, amplified by COVID-19. Young migrants’ complex realities are in tension with linear notions of transitions (to adulthood and in migrant status) in formal programming.

The structures of integration:

Holistic integration services focus on key structural domains of integration - housing, health, immigration advice, education, employment and language learning. Our mapping only found support directly targeting young migrants in urban centres with strong third sectors. Wider service provision also focused on those six structural domains. There is an emphasis on education and employment in both the state and third sector, and in community-led services at the neighbourhood level. Housing and homelessness services reflect the different conditions of vulnerability migrants face. Legal advice is oriented towards complex immigration cases and human rights. Language provision is offered through a spectrum of services, which can be grouped under structural (labour market integration, or education), advocacy (migrant-led support and interpretation), and social relationships (community activities, sports, arts and youth centres).

Addressing inequalities and barriers to access:

Third-sector, community, migrant-led and faith organisations work to address barriers to access in mainstream services. Healthcare provision for example tends to target migrants specifically. Other services address complex social issues including violence, homelessness and destitution. Mental health services provide examples of services changing to meet the needs of (young) migrants. Provision in the third sector exemplifies the ways integration services are addressing issues of discrimination through targeted inclusion initiatives and advocacy, e.g. for LGBTQI+ migrants. Initiatives exist that foster identity and belonging for diverse migrants, including the freedom to engage in cultural expression. There is a strong focus on engaging women and addressing issues of gender inequality, which overlap with work on gender-based violence.

Targeted vs mainstream approaches:

Services targeted to young migrants provided by the state are connected to migratory status, and attached to certain conditions. Where third-sector support services target migrants and young migrants directly, they are often inclusive of ‘all migrants’, address specific conditions of vulnerability, and promote belonging and cohesion. Mainstream services for young people are connected to transitions to adulthood in relation to education and employment, largely provided by the state. Access to these services becomes differentiated in relation to migrant status at age 18. Individual casework support often underpins this journey, with third-sector services supporting youth over 18 as their relationship with state services changes, and on more complex immigration issues. Mainstream services also incorporate social welfare support, which is differentiated by status. Third-sector, faith and community services targeting broader social issues such as poverty and destitution are accessible to young migrants and local populations.

Participation, cohesion and belonging:

A large area of direct engagement with young migrants is in the spheres of active citizenship and social cohesion. Active citizenship promotes young people’s participation through social action. This is different to the more normative civic education approach of formal integration programmes. Government-led participation work invites migrants into committees such as youth and integration councils. Migrant-led and youth services support young people to raise their voice on the issues affecting them, and to claim rights, often in partnership with specialist third-sector organisations. Youth projects focus on building cohesion and exchange between different social groups, including through sport, arts and leisure, with an emphasis on intercultural engagement in urban areas. Belonging is also being built through intercultural exchange, and expression of culture and faith.

An emerging picture of the migrant youth integration sector:

This European service landscape shows how the realities of migrant youth and the conditions of vulnerability they are navigating are being met in diverse ways. We see at the aggregate level, that beyond the structural domains of integration, wider themes of social connections, facilitators of integration, and the foundation of rights, are being reinforced. We also see an emphasis on overcoming barriers to access, addressing inequalities, building active citizenship, social cohesion and belonging. This reflects an understanding of integration that addresses the wider structures driving inequality of opportunity and outcome for migrant youth.

Looking ahead: empowering integration for migrant youth
We conclude the report by outlining a set of considerations for research, policy and practice, which aim at fostering knowledge creation in support of processes of empowerment and integration for migrant youth. The considerations are as follows:

Research

• How do young migrants’ place-based relationships interact with services and access to opportunity structures?
• To what extent are services structured by assimilationist or ‘whole society’ conceptualisations of integration? How and why?
• Are services structured around time-bound or processual conceptualisations of integration?
• Who is excluded from different services and why? What are the implications for integration? Where are the voices of young migrants facing social inequalities?

Policy

• What is the relationship between integration policies and services provided to young migrants?
• What can we learn from resonance or dissonance between integration policies and services, and can this drive bottom-up policy change?
• What is the influence of political-economic context? What lessons can be learned from the past?

Practice

• How do services understand youth and integration? How does this impact their work?
• To what extent are access and inclusion being addressed within service provision?
• Which sectors are positioned as having more relevance in service provision? Why?
• What role do young people play in shaping integration processes and related service provisions?