Civil society enablers and barriers - Comparative Approach

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11230%2F19%3A10409622" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11230/19:10409622 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sirius-project.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/WP4_Civil%20society%20enablers%20and%20barriers_SIRIUS_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" >https://www.sirius-project.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/WP4_Civil%20society%20enablers%20and%20barriers_SIRIUS_FINAL.pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Civil society enablers and barriers - Comparative Approach

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The SIRIUS research project explores the enablers and barriers of labour market integration for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (MRAs). Our research is organized into several work packages, and this report details the findings of the fourth SIRIUS work package, focusing on the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the labour market integration (LMI) of MRAs. Our report examines the positions of CSOs and their perception by MRAs in the SIRIUS partner countries, namely the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, and thus our findings reflect experiences across a wide variety of different national contexts. Our findings suggest that CSOs can work as important actors enhancing not only integration into the labour market but also integration through the labour market. CSOs are important language course providers, and thanks to their social, legal, and administrative guidance, CSOs help MRAs in overcoming ineffective administrative and legal structures. These activities are provided by the majority of CSOs across SIRIUS countries. Several CSOs in these countries also assist MRAs with the recruitment process. Moreover, by providing mentorship, training programmes, volunteering, or even direct employment, CSOs contribute to the development of MRAs&apos; skills and competencies and provide platforms to enhance the agency and autonomy of MRAs. However, such a capacity is unevenly spatially distributed, it is rather rare in the Czech Republic and Denmark, it is somewhat developed in the United Kingdom, and more strongly developed in Finland, some areas of Italy, among the solidarity movement organisations of Greece, and in the Canton of Geneva in Switzerland. Moreover, CSOs either individually or collectively, frequently raise the problematic situation of illegal practices on the part of employers, exploitation, human trafficking, or underpaid wages. Last but not the least, CSOs help to mitigate and, often together with MRAs, struggle against the hostile context of a widespread atmosphere of xenophobia. we have identified five different CSO positions which differ in their autonomy and dependence on the state, their capacity to instigate MRA agency, and their participation in decision-making processes, lobbying, or advocacy. Taking into account the heterogeneity of CSOs across and within national contexts, we view these five different CSO positions as (1) uncritical extenders, (2) pro-active service providers, (3) autonomous co-producers, (4) innovative and creative CSOs, and (5) alternative CSOs. First, CSOs are in a position as extenders of national integration policies. Working as extenders, CSO involvement in labour market integration is often determined by the funding provided by the state, which co-opts the CSO migration-focused sector. CSOs uncritically approach state-driven policies in this case. Second, similar to uncritical extenders, pro-active service providers remain significantly dependent on the state; however, their autonomy and critical capacities are higher. On the one hand, these CSOs are heavily dependent on public funding and provide a spectrum of services defined by the state. However, in their everyday operation, they are sensitive to human rights and sociocultural matters and situate labour market integration in the context of broader societal integration. Third, some CSOs operate as autonomous co-producers of labour market integration services. These CSOs still benefit from public funding; however, they can operate with greater autonomy and are more actively engaged in defining the labour market integration agenda. Similar to pro-active service providers, they embrace the holistic vision of integration, and the labour market represents just one sphere in which integration takes place. Fourth, another type of CSO, established especially in the recent post-2014 context, are innovative and creative CSOs. These CSOs view MRAs as active actors, as partners, and they push MRAs toward social and economic innovations. MRA agency here is significantly reinforced. These organisations are highly autonomous, independent of the state, and commonly economically self-sustainable. Finally, alternative CSOs deliberately operate with autonomy, independent of established institutional structures. Their financial independence is very similar to creative and innovative CSOs. However, they work against rather than alongside the public administration and the state. We have identified several external enablers facilitating the role of CSOs in MRA labour market integration initiatives. First, an important role is played by the state, which in all SIRIUS countries significantly subsidises a number of guidance and educational services provided by CSOs. Second, CSOs commonly benefit from funding and expert-driven support from transnational governmental and inter-governmental institutions. Third, existing and newly developed transnational horizontal networks between national and civil society transnational actors serve as an important resource for knowledge and information exchange as well as a tool for sharing innovative practices. Lastly, the context of developed cooperative and social entrepreneurship culture often enhances the effectiveness of integration programmes. CSOs have the potential to enable the labour market integration of MRAs through their internal capacities in ten clear ways that we can identify. First, flexibility and a lower degree of bureaucratisation compared to public administration allow CSOs to account for the specific needs, aspirations, and experiences of individual MRAs. Second, compared to public services, CSOs frequently have stronger potential to understand the personal needs of MRAs. Third, CSOs work as important enablers of labour market integration due to their networking capacity. CSO representatives function as brokers who help MRAs connect with public officials, employers, trade unions, politicians, and even with (although very rarely) journalists. Fourth, in addition to social networking, CSO representatives ensure cultural mediation, supporting MRAs both culturally and linguistically. Fifth, CSOs provide space for the involvement of MRAs in the organisation which fosters their agency. Sixth, MRAs appreciate the psychological benefits which come with the personalised approach taken by CSOs. Seventh, some CSOs provide expert knowledge, gather evidence, and participate in research projects. Eighth, a number of CSOs apparently provide MRAs with valuable sources of soft knowledge and enhance their orientation on the labour market. Ninth, CSOs are important as reflexive actors in the policymaking process, providing input that is however only taken into consideration sporadically rather than systematically, but can still generate policy change through advocacy. Finally, CSOs also contribute towards the protection of the rights of MRAs by articulating issues such as human trafficking and the illegal conduct of employers. In their work with labour market integration, CSOs do not function exclusively as enablers; their functioning is determined by external pressures and can be limited due to internal restrictions which hinder their integration initiatives. CSOs, in their labour market integration initiatives, encounter eight clear barriers that we have identified. The first barrier is related to public funding. Considering the instability, temporality, and uncertainty of the state support of CSOs, the dependence on funding influences the very existence of civil society organisations. A second barrier is how the subsidising of CSOs by public administrations influences their agenda, defines the target groups, or determines the nature and spectrum of the provided services. Third, some CSOs highlighted the problem of co-optation of the originally non-governmental nature of integration services of the state. Fourth, the sphere of CSOs can sometimes similarly be co-opted and strategically misused by private business providers. Fifth, the distrust and suspicion of MRAs would also suggest there are a series of sociocultural barriers influencing the interaction between CSOs and MRAs. Sixth, the insufficient use of CSO services is also determined by culturally-based individual perceptions, some MRAs would perceive a free service as a symptom of their own personal failure. Seventh, some MRAs would understand the CSO guidance on offer as lacking expertise and being &apos;insufficiently professional&apos;. Finally, the success of integration programmes is hindered by the fact that NGOs are awarded very little recognition from policymakers. As regards the internal barriers hindering CSO labour market integration, we have identified seven distinct hurdles. First, the effectiveness of integration services can suffer from the low engagement of MRAs in CSOs. Second, labour market integration services have been hindered due to the lack of experience and know-how of some CSOs. Third, some CSOs and their employees tend to operate in a &apos;professional bubble&apos;, which prevents them from considering the individual situations of MRAs holistically. Fourth, the excessively professionalised ethos of CSOs is sometimes closely intertwined with the implementation of accountability measures, based on quantification and inadequate attention given to the nature of activities. Fifth, the capacity of CSOs to understand the personal needs of MRAs and to foster their agency is marginalised by the pressures of bureaucratisation and institutionalisation. Sixth, the previously mentioned dependence on external funding can influence the internal nature of CSOs and undermine the contentious and transformative character of organisations. Finally, the manifest example of internal barriers is represented by CSOs who embrace perspectives opposing integration. In fact, the post-2014 context contributed to the emergence of CSOs with anti-migration perspectives.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Civil society enablers and barriers - Comparative Approach

Popis výsledku anglicky

The SIRIUS research project explores the enablers and barriers of labour market integration for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (MRAs). Our research is organized into several work packages, and this report details the findings of the fourth SIRIUS work package, focusing on the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the labour market integration (LMI) of MRAs. Our report examines the positions of CSOs and their perception by MRAs in the SIRIUS partner countries, namely the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, and thus our findings reflect experiences across a wide variety of different national contexts. Our findings suggest that CSOs can work as important actors enhancing not only integration into the labour market but also integration through the labour market. CSOs are important language course providers, and thanks to their social, legal, and administrative guidance, CSOs help MRAs in overcoming ineffective administrative and legal structures. These activities are provided by the majority of CSOs across SIRIUS countries. Several CSOs in these countries also assist MRAs with the recruitment process. Moreover, by providing mentorship, training programmes, volunteering, or even direct employment, CSOs contribute to the development of MRAs&apos; skills and competencies and provide platforms to enhance the agency and autonomy of MRAs. However, such a capacity is unevenly spatially distributed, it is rather rare in the Czech Republic and Denmark, it is somewhat developed in the United Kingdom, and more strongly developed in Finland, some areas of Italy, among the solidarity movement organisations of Greece, and in the Canton of Geneva in Switzerland. Moreover, CSOs either individually or collectively, frequently raise the problematic situation of illegal practices on the part of employers, exploitation, human trafficking, or underpaid wages. Last but not the least, CSOs help to mitigate and, often together with MRAs, struggle against the hostile context of a widespread atmosphere of xenophobia. we have identified five different CSO positions which differ in their autonomy and dependence on the state, their capacity to instigate MRA agency, and their participation in decision-making processes, lobbying, or advocacy. Taking into account the heterogeneity of CSOs across and within national contexts, we view these five different CSO positions as (1) uncritical extenders, (2) pro-active service providers, (3) autonomous co-producers, (4) innovative and creative CSOs, and (5) alternative CSOs. First, CSOs are in a position as extenders of national integration policies. Working as extenders, CSO involvement in labour market integration is often determined by the funding provided by the state, which co-opts the CSO migration-focused sector. CSOs uncritically approach state-driven policies in this case. Second, similar to uncritical extenders, pro-active service providers remain significantly dependent on the state; however, their autonomy and critical capacities are higher. On the one hand, these CSOs are heavily dependent on public funding and provide a spectrum of services defined by the state. However, in their everyday operation, they are sensitive to human rights and sociocultural matters and situate labour market integration in the context of broader societal integration. Third, some CSOs operate as autonomous co-producers of labour market integration services. These CSOs still benefit from public funding; however, they can operate with greater autonomy and are more actively engaged in defining the labour market integration agenda. Similar to pro-active service providers, they embrace the holistic vision of integration, and the labour market represents just one sphere in which integration takes place. Fourth, another type of CSO, established especially in the recent post-2014 context, are innovative and creative CSOs. These CSOs view MRAs as active actors, as partners, and they push MRAs toward social and economic innovations. MRA agency here is significantly reinforced. These organisations are highly autonomous, independent of the state, and commonly economically self-sustainable. Finally, alternative CSOs deliberately operate with autonomy, independent of established institutional structures. Their financial independence is very similar to creative and innovative CSOs. However, they work against rather than alongside the public administration and the state. We have identified several external enablers facilitating the role of CSOs in MRA labour market integration initiatives. First, an important role is played by the state, which in all SIRIUS countries significantly subsidises a number of guidance and educational services provided by CSOs. Second, CSOs commonly benefit from funding and expert-driven support from transnational governmental and inter-governmental institutions. Third, existing and newly developed transnational horizontal networks between national and civil society transnational actors serve as an important resource for knowledge and information exchange as well as a tool for sharing innovative practices. Lastly, the context of developed cooperative and social entrepreneurship culture often enhances the effectiveness of integration programmes. CSOs have the potential to enable the labour market integration of MRAs through their internal capacities in ten clear ways that we can identify. First, flexibility and a lower degree of bureaucratisation compared to public administration allow CSOs to account for the specific needs, aspirations, and experiences of individual MRAs. Second, compared to public services, CSOs frequently have stronger potential to understand the personal needs of MRAs. Third, CSOs work as important enablers of labour market integration due to their networking capacity. CSO representatives function as brokers who help MRAs connect with public officials, employers, trade unions, politicians, and even with (although very rarely) journalists. Fourth, in addition to social networking, CSO representatives ensure cultural mediation, supporting MRAs both culturally and linguistically. Fifth, CSOs provide space for the involvement of MRAs in the organisation which fosters their agency. Sixth, MRAs appreciate the psychological benefits which come with the personalised approach taken by CSOs. Seventh, some CSOs provide expert knowledge, gather evidence, and participate in research projects. Eighth, a number of CSOs apparently provide MRAs with valuable sources of soft knowledge and enhance their orientation on the labour market. Ninth, CSOs are important as reflexive actors in the policymaking process, providing input that is however only taken into consideration sporadically rather than systematically, but can still generate policy change through advocacy. Finally, CSOs also contribute towards the protection of the rights of MRAs by articulating issues such as human trafficking and the illegal conduct of employers. In their work with labour market integration, CSOs do not function exclusively as enablers; their functioning is determined by external pressures and can be limited due to internal restrictions which hinder their integration initiatives. CSOs, in their labour market integration initiatives, encounter eight clear barriers that we have identified. The first barrier is related to public funding. Considering the instability, temporality, and uncertainty of the state support of CSOs, the dependence on funding influences the very existence of civil society organisations. A second barrier is how the subsidising of CSOs by public administrations influences their agenda, defines the target groups, or determines the nature and spectrum of the provided services. Third, some CSOs highlighted the problem of co-optation of the originally non-governmental nature of integration services of the state. Fourth, the sphere of CSOs can sometimes similarly be co-opted and strategically misused by private business providers. Fifth, the distrust and suspicion of MRAs would also suggest there are a series of sociocultural barriers influencing the interaction between CSOs and MRAs. Sixth, the insufficient use of CSO services is also determined by culturally-based individual perceptions, some MRAs would perceive a free service as a symptom of their own personal failure. Seventh, some MRAs would understand the CSO guidance on offer as lacking expertise and being &apos;insufficiently professional&apos;. Finally, the success of integration programmes is hindered by the fact that NGOs are awarded very little recognition from policymakers. As regards the internal barriers hindering CSO labour market integration, we have identified seven distinct hurdles. First, the effectiveness of integration services can suffer from the low engagement of MRAs in CSOs. Second, labour market integration services have been hindered due to the lack of experience and know-how of some CSOs. Third, some CSOs and their employees tend to operate in a &apos;professional bubble&apos;, which prevents them from considering the individual situations of MRAs holistically. Fourth, the excessively professionalised ethos of CSOs is sometimes closely intertwined with the implementation of accountability measures, based on quantification and inadequate attention given to the nature of activities. Fifth, the capacity of CSOs to understand the personal needs of MRAs and to foster their agency is marginalised by the pressures of bureaucratisation and institutionalisation. Sixth, the previously mentioned dependence on external funding can influence the internal nature of CSOs and undermine the contentious and transformative character of organisations. Finally, the manifest example of internal barriers is represented by CSOs who embrace perspectives opposing integration. In fact, the post-2014 context contributed to the emergence of CSOs with anti-migration perspectives.

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50401 - Sociology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

R - Projekt Ramcoveho programu EK

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů