Status holders towards available or suitable jobs. The role of Dutch municipalities in labour market induction of status holders

Status Holders towards Available or Suitable Jobs

The role of Dutch Municipalities in Labour Market Induction of Status Holders

Master Thesis

Roos Hommes

March 2018

Status Holders towards Available or Suitable Jobs

The role of Dutch Municipalities in Labour Market

Induction of Status Holders

Roos Suzanne Hommes

S4836731

Radboud University

Nijmegen School of Management

Department: Human Geography

Specialisation: Globalisation, Migration and Development

Internship: Kennisplatform Integratie en Samenleving (KIS)

19-03-2018

Thesis Supervisor: DR. Joris Schapendonk

Second Reader: DR. Pascal Beckers

Preface

Since I was a little girl, I have been very interested in cultures, populations and other parts of the world. This made me want to travel. Though, it was not enough. I wanted to learn more about the world’s diversity. I found a match in ‘Human Geography-International Development Studies’ at the University in Utrecht. One of the studied phenomena was migration, which combined the world, the cultures, and the people. I migrated to South Africa to study in 2015. During this period abroad, the worldwide flow of refugees increased a lot. This was in large contrast with me travelling the world in freedom, while these people were forced to leave everything behind, and look for shelter somewhere else in the world. After I returned home, I started my master ‘Globalisation, Migration and Development’ at the Radboud University. The other side of migration, the receiving society, was also included. Leading perspectives in media framed refugees as people who come to Europe, or the Netherlands, to enjoy the welfare states at the expense of the native population. Whereas in my opinion, these people should be supported in building their lives in new, often unknown, circumstances. Therefore, I studied the situation in Dutch municipalities. Despite a national framework for the support of status holders, many diverse interpretations in local policies exist. This means that it depends on the municipality, in which ways status holders are supported. I have learned a lot while studying this phenomenon and have put the gained knowledge in this thesis.

Several people helped me along this road. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor Joris Schapendonk, who has supported me much this past year. When I was at a crossroad, he helped me choosing the right direction to go. I could not have written this thesis without his feedback and patient guidance. Also, all interviewees were of great help, without them this thesis would not have become this interesting. Furthermore, I would like to thank Corien Middelbeek for her feedback on my writing skills. This as well raised my thesis to a higher level. Also, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support, certainly in times when I got stuck. At last, I would like to thank all my coffee buddies who have spent many relaxing hours with me last year.

It only remains for me, to wish you much pleasure while reading my thesis.

Roos Hommes Utrecht, March 2018

Summary

The responsibility of labour market induction of status holders is decentralised to the local governments, which leads to different approaches among the Dutch municipalities. Three cases are selected with varying approaches in policy. The municipality of Rotterdam formulated a ‘work first’ approach for status holders, which focusses on a fast outflow of welfare payments towards an available job. The municipality of Deventer implies a ‘customized service’ approach, which considers the ambitions and skills of the status holder while matching them to a suitable job. The third case study is the municipality of Etten-Leur, which has included status holders in the ‘regular’ approach. This means that every unemployed citizen is treated equally, so they all receive ‘customized services’ or their trajectories are all focussed on ‘work first’. Employers of these three municipalities are interviewed, which enabled a comparison based on the policy formation and the implementation strategies. These two processes relate respectively to ‘legitimacy and support’ and ‘operational capacity’ of the strategic triangle. Thereby, these municipalities are put in the Dutch context through national numbers which are an outcome of a KIS-survey.

One of the conclusions is that the reality outlined in policy always differs from the reality in practise. In Rotterdam, the reality in practise shows that all unemployed citizens are guided within a work first approach, and a separate group for status holders exists to prevent that status holders fade into the background due to high caseloads. In Deventer, all unemployed citizens receive ‘customized services’ and similar to Rotterdam, it has a separate group for status holders. At last, a ‘work first’ approach is applied to all unemployed citizens in Etten-Leur. Though, status holders receive more personalized guidance in a separate group during the first six months of welfare payments. These separated groups for status holders accelerate the process of the outflow to work, and are considered as a contribution to the sustainability of the independency of status holders. Though, this last element is strongly connected to customized services as status holders are guided towards a job they like.

Policy is formulated by policy makers within the broader guidelines of the local and the national government. Often the alderman, who is responsible for labour market induction of status holders, has a large influence on the policy. The policy is implemented by street-level bureaucrats, also named ‘consultants’. The consultants experience freedom to guide status holders to work in different ways. It depends on the situation of the client which coping strategy they apply. Their work makes that they are situated between policy and practise. During this period of guidance, the consultants face several barriers, such as shortages of financial capacities and a lack of specified tools and education. These have a negative influence on a successful labour market induction, both to available, and to suitable jobs.

To be able to guide status holders to work, the consultants need information on status holders. Several systems have been initiated, but consultants mainly collect the information via individual conversation with the status holders. The frequency of these conversations differs much between municipalities, and is mainly based on the human capacities of the municipality. Besides personal information, the consultants argued that they need to have general background knowledge about status holders, such as information on their country of origin and on their culture. This enables consultants to take these facets into account while guiding the status holders to work. The municipalities of the three case studies do not provide this, and thus the consultants have taken the initiative to gain the needed information.

Another element of labour market induction is the cooperation with stakeholders, such as integration institutes, VluchtelingenWerk and employers. This is something which is emphasized in both literature as by Deventer and Etten-Leur. These two municipalities are creating a holistic network to be able to guide the status holders in the best possible manners. The municipality of Rotterdam does not emphasize cooperation as much as the other two cases do.

Another outcome of this thesis is that the employers are not much facilitated by the municipalities of Rotterdam and Etten-Leur. The municipality of Deventer facilitates more, but these cases as well as all Dutch municipalities could enlarge the facilitation of the employers, because of a current under- or misuse of European and national support. The facilitation in several manners needs to be improved, because a national majority, including the three cases, experiences shortages of available jobs for status holders.

A main conclusion is based on the evaluation of policy. At the moment, the policy in Rotterdam and Etten-Leur is incoherent to the implementation processes of the policy. This leads to the shortages

in capacities. A solution would be a holistic approach in which all stakeholders are involved. This network should include the provision of information to status holders as well as between actors, and it should combine all life domains of the status holders. To be able to create a network as such, a separate group with status holders is needed to concentrate all knowledge of consultants and stakeholders in one team. To conclude, points of recommendation for practise are outlined below. These are the result of this thesis, as it combines theories and empirical data.

Points of recommendation for practise

o Try to include the ambitions and wishes of status holders as much as possible in the labour market induction. This is considered to be an essential element for a sustainable outflow.

o Do not include status holders in regular trajectories. Best is to guide them in a separate group, with specialised consultants.

o Provide general information about the backgrounds to this specified team for status holders. Such as cultural differences, possible traumatic experiences, and information about the countries of origin.

o Provide an overview of information to both status holders and employers.

o Create a chain of stakeholders (around a status holder), and formulate which tasks belongs to which actor. Make one of the actors the coordinator in order to supervise the process as a whole. This combines several life domains, enables integrated trajectories, and is part of a holistic approach.

o Plan regular meetings with all actors, including the policymakers, coordinators, and consultants. This should enable fast adjustments to the policy, and coherency between policy and implementation.

Table of contents

1. Introduction 10

1.1 Motive and Context 10

1.2 Scientific and Societal relevance 11

1.2.1 Scientific relevance 11 1.2.2 Societal relevance 12

1.3 Research objective and Research questions 13

1.4 The role of the municipality 14

1.5 Thesis structure 15

2. Theorizing policy formation and implementation 17

2.1 Multi-level governance 17

2.1.1 Centre-local relations 17

2.2 Local governance 18

2.2.1 Policy formation and local approaches 18 2.2.2 Policy implementation in the local context 23

2.3 Conceptual framework 25

3. Methods 28

3.1 Case studies 28

3.2 Research methods 28

3.2.1 Literature and Document analyses 29 3.2.2 Survey of KIS 29

3.2.3 Interviews 31

3.3 Quality of the research 32

3.3.1 Reliability 32

3.3.2 Authenticity 33

4. The circumstances of the different approaches 34

4.1 Who is in charge of labour market induction? 35

4.2 Three perspectives on labour market induction 36

4.2.1 Rotterdam’s approach; work first 36 4.2.2 Customized services in Deventer 37 4.2.3 Specialized before regular trajectories in Etten-Leur 38 4.2.4 Opportunities for dual trajectories 39

4.3 Conclusion 41

5. Implementing the approaches in practise 43

5.1 Treatment of clients 43

5.2 Encountering barriers in practise 45

5.2.1 Financial choices and high caseloads 47 5.2.3 Lack of specified tools and education 49

5.3 Conclusion 50

6. Knowing the clients 52

6.1 Information provided by other actors 53

6.2 Moments of contact 54

6.3 Getting to know status holders’ backgrounds 57

6.4 Conclusion 59

7. Cooperating instead of hampering involved actors 61

7.1 Improve to a well-oiled machine 61

7.1.2 Creating a working chain 63

7.2 Local labour market 66

7.3 Conclusion 69

8. Conclusions and Reflections 72

8.1 Support for policy 72

8.2 Implementation with the operational capacities 74

8.2.1 Evaluation and coordination 75

8.3 Reflections 77

References 80

1. Introduction

1.1 Motive and Context

The most recent research on employment of new status holders1 in the Netherlands was conducted by the Sociaal-Economische Raad (Social-Economic Council, SER), in December 2016. This research showed that little is known about the current, socio-economic situation of status holders. However, data of previous periods illustrate that status holders are, compared to other population groups, more often unemployed which subsequently leads to dependency on welfare payment. In 2014, it was found that 46% of status holders were unemployed (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). This number illustrates the great share of unemployment among this specific group. In public debate, this is often seen as pressure on, and a burden for, the host society (Auer, 2017). SER (2016) argued that (paid) employment is an important indicator for a successful integration process. It can lead to financial independency and will lower the needs for welfare payment. Furthermore, the report stated that more guidance is needed in order for the labour market integration of status holders to succeed. Factors such as population group characteristics (i.e. a lack of language proficiency) and insufficient labour in municipalities, have been denoted as the causes of the poor labour market induction of status holders. This research will focus on the contributions of the municipalities in the labour market induction of status holders. The concept of labour market induction refers to ‘all steps towards labour as mainstream as possible’. Auer (2017) described this as a ‘key challenge’ for policy makers.

In 2016, the Dutch organisation Kennisplatform Integratie en Samenleving (Knowledge platform Integration and Society, KIS) conducted a survey among all Dutch municipalities (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). The aim was to analyse the support of municipalities in the employment processes of status holders with a (temporary) residence permit. The outcomes of the survey described the situation in 2016, and it was found that municipalities need more knowledge on status holders as a group and of their opportunities. In order to compare the activities of municipalities and to notice the extent of progress, the survey was repeated in 2017 (Razenberg, Kahmann & De Gruijter).

An interesting outcome of the surveys (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016; Razenberg et al., 2017) is that one out of six municipalities had (already) developed a policy regarding the labour market induction of status holders, and that 53% of the municipalities was developing plans regarding the issue in 2016 (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). In 2017, 56% of the municipalities had a (temporary) policy concerning the labour market induction of status holders, whereas 44% did not have such a policy (Razenberg et al., 2017). Furthermore, in 2016 only 16% of the municipalities had enough information on characteristics of status holders to be able to guide them to the labour market, and 60% of the municipalities indicated not to have enough information (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). In 2017, these numbers improved to respectively 24% and 50%. According to the 2017 survey, one of the main constraints in status holders’ labour market induction is language proficiency. Another constraint is the unfamiliarity of the employer with the status holder and the unfamiliarity of the status holder with the Dutch labour market (Razenberg et al., 2017).

This master thesis started with these quantitative studies, as it aims to gain in-depth information on the role of Dutch municipalities in labour market induction of status holders. It is a qualitative research on three Dutch municipalities; Rotterdam, Deventer and Etten-Leur. The outcomes of the second survey of KIS (Razenberg et al., 2017) found three approaches of municipalities’ labour market induction policies. Some municipalities (21%) have a ‘work first’ approach (Attachment C1), in which the focus is on status holders obtaining employment as soon as possible, and in which status holders’ ambitions and skills are deemed irrelevant (De Lange, Besselsen, Rahouti & Rijken, 2017)Secondly, 61% of the Dutch municipalities has a ‘customized’ approach, which means that the trajectory is personalized, and the aim is to find status holders a suitable job. In the third category, the status holders are included in regular trajectories and not in separated target groups. This approach is implemented by 18% of Dutch municipalities (Attachment C1). These regular trajectories treat every unemployed citizen equally, and the focus could be on ‘work first’ or ‘customized services’. Most municipalities within this category apply a ‘work first’ approach. The same categorisation is used in this master thesis to be able to combine the outcomes of the second survey and this qualitative research. The main research question

is: What are the different approaches of the municipalities of Rotterdam, Deventer and Etten-Leur to stimulate labour market induction of status holders, and to what extent do they lead to diverse outcomes? The concept of ‘approaches’ in the main research question entails the division between the focus on work, customized services or the regular trajectory, and the reasons behind these approaches. The diversity in outcomes is connected to the implementation of policies. The main research question will be answered based on four sub questions, that will be introduced and explained in Paragraph 1.3. 1.2 Scientific and Societal relevance

1.2.1 Scientific relevance

This research is relevant for science for several reasons. Caponio and Borkert (2010) have written a book in the field of policy making for immigration. They described that little research has been done in this field. Moreover, immigration policies on a municipality level have especially been understudied. This makes that the theorising aspects are not (yet) covered in literature. Furthermore, the high influxes of refugees in Europe, have made the topic even more relevant and of great appearance (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). To overcome this, more empirical research is needed to be able to combine various aspects into theory. From a policymaking perspective, the local level represents a crucial dimension for the study of policy processes, since it is at this level that policy is brought into practise and that citizens become involved. It entails the combination of decision making processes and action, in relation to some collective issues (Caponio & Borkert, 2010). Auer (2017) argued six years later that immigration policies, and specifically labour market induction, are still understudied aspects. Moreover, little empirical evidence exists on integration policies and the challenges that status holders face during the labour market integration. These challenges are, for example, embedded in legal and administrative constraints and the small offer of suitable jobs for status holders.

A couple of studies (e.g. Korac, 2003; Auer, 2017; Bergfeld, 2017; De Vroome & Van Tubergen, 2010) are embedded in the domain of integration in general and labour market integration specifically. However, these studies focus on settlement experiences, language skills, trade unions, health problems, and admission and integration policies, respectively. Furthermore, De Vroome and Van Tubergen (2010) noticed that the few existing studies on status holders are restricted to the United States, Canada and Australia, and that they all report the economically disadvantaged position of status holders. In their study on economic integration of status holders in the Netherlands, they mentioned that the Dutch cultural, economic and political situation offers a different and more homogeneous context than the ‘traditional immigration countries’ do. Furthermore, they suggested that policy makers should facilitate and stimulate status holders to obtain education in the Netherlands, as it was found that the more, longer, and higher a succeeded education in a host society is, the more chances status holders have on the labour market.

Bloch (2008) also studied labour market integration. She conducted a survey among 400 status holders in the United Kingdom, and found high levels of unemployment. She emphasized the contradictions found in integration policies, and she highlighted the employment and the unemployment levels of status holders. Furthermore, she showed that status holders want help and advice in finding a suitable job. Bloch (2008) found that policy interventions can contribute to this, and that it will work best if status holders’ human capital and ambitions are not neglected. However, she stressed that more research on the subject was needed. Another example is research on Denmark done by Liebig in 2007. He described differences in unemployment rates between the native born Danish population and immigrants. Following his work, the Danish population reformed their municipality structure and strengthened the role of these institutions in the process of labour market induction. Subsequently, municipalities were able to tackle the pitfalls they noticed in practise more easily.

Bevelander and Lundh (2007) studied labour market integration as well. They focused on the relation between local conditions and the labour market integration of status holders in Sweden. Besides individual and human capital characteristics of status holders, they emphasized the importance of looking beyond the national level and zooming in on the local and regional level. This included the structure of municipalities and the factors related to the local labour market and to local economic conditions. However, as this was a quantitative study, no explanations were provided regarding the outcomes.

In 2015, Fuller published an article about status holders’ diversity opting for pathways towards the labour market upon their arrival in the country of destination. Often-mentioned phenomena in this debate are the context in which status holders reside in the receiving country, and the consequences these contexts have on the successful induction of status holders in the labour market. Media and governments are important actors in the judgements, discriminations and prejudices as well. Fuller (2015, p. 392) states: “The findings reported here, underscore the importance of complementary research on how various external actors in the settlement process influence immigrant strategies.” Ager and Strang (2008) specified several core sectors, namely housing, health, employment and education, which are important for the guidance of status holders in the field of language acquisition, _{civic orientation and} orientation on the labour market (De Vroome & Van Tubergen, 2010).

Furthermore, the Dutch department of the International Organisation for Migration has led a European project from 2016, which is called ‘Skills2Work’. The goal of this project was to create a European network with stakeholders, such as municipalities and employers, which aimed to provide good practises within Europe and to contribute to sustained and early job-matching of migrants, including status holders. Therefore, it created a Pathfinder which assisted stakeholders in an early validation of status holders’ formal and informal skills. Within this niche, this project also contributed, directly and indirectly, to a better understanding of the policies and regulations regarding skills and integration of status holders (IOM, 2016; IOM, 2017; IOM-Nederland, 2018). Such platforms and initiatives are very useful for all involved actors and scholars, because it enables the exchange of information and experiences. In this way, it also contributes to the establishment of academic literature regarding this relatively new topic.

In summary, after careful inspection of the existing literature on status holders’ labour market induction, and a conclusion on what is yet missing from this literature, the scientific relevance of this master thesis can be stated as followed: the outcomes of this research will contribute to the qualitative knowledge on the role of local governments in labour market induction of status holders.

1.2.2 Societal relevance

A relevant social aspect is drawn by Auer (2017). He stated that refugees often experience financial and societal pressure, which ‘force’ them into low-skilled jobs. In the Netherlands, status holders receive a welfare payment. People therefore, are not stimulated to look for a job, since the welfare payment is higher than a first salary. This is called a ‘poverty trap’ (Korac, 2003). Several researches described this trap as being ‘unfortunate’, because the skills of refugees are often needed in the receiving society (Korac, 2003; Auer, 2017; Bergfeld, 2017). This is confirmed by the IOM and its earlier mentioned project, Skills2Work. The ‘Pathfinder-tool’ helps all stakeholders with establishing the labour market induction of status holders in a structured manner (IOM, 2016; IOM 2017). At the moment, all Dutch municipalities have created and formulated their own approaches and tools (Razenberg et al., 2017). This means that the Skills2Work project partly overlaps this thesis. However, the project differs from this thesis in that it collects good practices in Europe, whereas this thesis describes the practises of three selected municipalities. So, these two studies will complement each other in establishing an overview of what is being done in the field of labour market induction of status holders.

In the German system, it are mostly trade unions which are in charge of the labour market induction. Some could be a helping hand in creating a curriculum vitae and in treating the status holders like any other employee. This means a ‘whole worker approach’ which includes the workers’ home, community and working life. Often this approach is based on the assumption that if all above-mentioned elements are included, the status holder will mentally grow and thereby, his or her capacities at work will grow as well. This will strengthen the self-esteem of the status holder, and will have positive effects on the work career (Bergfeld, 2017). However, according to Bergfeld (2017), the German trade unions are currently exploitative, racialized and gendered and therefore it does not provide a fertile soil for a ‘whole worker approach’. Thereby, some stakeholders do not have the resources to take these three facets of life into account and are mainly focused on financial benefits. In this light, arguments arise that the state is ‘perfunctory’ and is not enough supporting the unions, in both financial matters and in human resources (Bergfeld, 2017).

In the Netherlands, municipalities are responsible for labour market induction, of which two-third argue that there are too few available jobs which match to the unemployed citizens. Another

phenomenon is that only a small part of employers is willing to open up to this group (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). Caponio and Borkert (2010) therefore argues that local stakeholders should be involved in the policy formation processes. As said before, a chain of all stakeholders on all levels, could provide efficient means of merging all knowledge and noticing any gaps between the actors involved. Moreover, to the benefit of the status holders a clear system will appear in which job acquisition is better facilitated. Overall, it will enlarge the access to information and decrease barriers such as bureaucratic practices.

In the Netherlands in 2015, 13% of people, who were starting to receive welfare payments, were born in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eritrea. Most status holders in the Netherlands are born in one of these countries (SER, 2016). Critics of this welfare system state that these payments create a passive and dependent society. They state that it will cause marginalization of the receiving groups instead of more equality (Valenta & Bunar, 2010). Furthermore, data of Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Central Statistical Office, CBS, 2017) shows that 4.9% of native Dutch inhabitants were unemployed, and 13.2% of non-western migrants (between 15 and 75 years old) were unemployed in 2016. Among this group, there are many status holders but data for this specific group is not available (SER, 2016; CBS, 2016).

The societal relevance overlaps with the relevance of the KIS survey of 2016 (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016), as it will contribute to the knowledge on the role of municipality in the labour market induction of status holders in the Netherlands. Municipalities have to deal with growing numbers of status holders and have to pledge2 to help people acquire a (temporary) permit of residence in the process of finding work. Every municipality is allowed to find its own way in doing this, as long as it falls within the Dutch requirements, which are determined on a Dutch national level (Rijksoverheid, 2017a). This makes it interesting to study different local policy formation, and implementation processes and to compare them. It is furthermore interesting because municipalities differ across contexts. Aspects such as political colour, local labour market characteristics, and the number and characteristics of inhabitants, might all play a role in establishment of labour market induction policies. Due to these different sizes and circumstances, one single blueprint for all municipalities does not suffice.

By contributing to the two KIS surveys with a qualitative research in three municipalities, these municipalities get an insight on how their policies develop and what outcomes these produce. The three municipalities fit within the categories which are an outcome of the second KIS survey, namely the ‘work-first- approach, the ‘customized service’ approach and the ‘regular trajectories’ approach (Razenberg et al., 2017). A description of these three case studies, and especially municipalities’ good practises, might provide a tool for other Dutch municipalities. These practises then might become leading in policy formation and implementation processes in other (Dutch) municipalities.

1.3 Research objective and Research questions

The aim of this research is to describe the different approaches of the three municipalities, the motivations behind these approaches, and the outcomes in practise. The results of this study give insights in the role of the municipality in the labour market induction of status holders and thereby the outcomes of this study will contribute to the knowledge on approaches of the three typologies of municipalities and their role in an effective labour market induction of status holders.

The main question for this thesis is: What are the different approaches to stimulate labour market induction of status holders of the municipalities of Rotterdam, Deventer and Etten-Leur, and to what extent do they lead to diverse outcomes? The concept of ‘approaches’ in this question entails more than policies. It includes practises and concrete implementation as well. It will be outlined in relation to other concepts in the conceptual model (Chapter 2). The methods used for answering all sub-questions will be explained in Chapter 3. Four sub-questions are listed to answer the main question. The first and second sub-question illustrate the policy formation and implementation processes. The third and fourth sub-question, on the other hand, are parts of the implementation process, which will be elaborated on more in separated chapters. So, the three latter sub-questions are related to each other instead of being additional. Some overlap exists, but each sub-question, and so each result chapter, has its own accents.

2

In 2015 the Participation Law was introduced. This contains the responsibility of the municipality for the labour market induction of people with a distance to the labour market (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2016a).

- What are the different approaches to stimulate labour market induction of status holders in the municipalities of Rotterdam, Deventer, and Etten-Leur?

- How are the approaches implemented and which constraints are experienced during the implementation of the policies in the municipalities of Rotterdam, Deventer and Etten-Leur?

- What information do the municipalities of Rotterdam, Deventer, and Etten-Leur have and what information do they need on status holders?

- To what extent do the municipalities of Rotterdam, Deventer, and Etten-Leur cooperate with other stakeholders?

1.4 The role of the municipality

In 2006, the European Council decided to decentralise national integration plans, because the results were disappointing. An important aim is to use local knowledge on strategies to be able to develop effective integration policies. The European Union has funds to stimulate this. At the moment, the policies regarding all refugees arriving in Europe involve the responsibility of municipalities. Thus, a brief overview is given on the decentralisation of responsibilities and on the challenges municipalities face. Furthermore, their positions and the regulations which concern the labour market induction of status holders in the Netherlands are also included.

All incoming refugees will be divided by the European Union (EU) among all member states. In September 2015, they all agreed on the relocation of maximum 160.000 asylum seekers, until September 20173. It is an adjustment to the ‘Dublin III Regulation’ which entails that the EU member state in which the migrant enters the EU first, is responsible for this person. In other words, the refugee has to request asylum in that country (Poptcheva, 2015; Bordignon & Moriconi, 2017). This placed border member states, such as Greece and Italy, under high pressure, because they will receive most asylum applicants and will be responsible for all of them. The relocation agreement of 2015, alleviates this burden and guarantees a more equal division of responsibility (Poptcheva, 2015; Rijksoverheid, 2017b; Dijkhoff, 2015). Regarding the Netherlands, this entailed the arrival of 3800 asylum seekers from Greece and 2150 asylum seekers from Italy between September 2015 and September 2017, making the country responsible for the asylum procedures of these individuals (Rijksoverheid, 2017b). In the Netherlands, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) decides on the basis of the asylum applications, who receives a status and who has to return to the country of origin. Refugees will be granted a status if their country of origin is not safe enough to return to. Before they receive the decision of the IND, they live in asylum centres in the Netherlands (Rijksoverheid, 2017c).

The Dutch Ministry of Safety and Justice announces biannually the total number of refugees the Netherlands will shelter, and how they will be distributed among all municipalities, which is based on the amounts of inhabitants in each municipality. These are binding numbers, but municipalities often experience difficulties because of shortages in the house and labour markets (SER, 2016). The municipalities have the responsibility to take care of these status holders, in the field of housing, education, health (care and prevention), and participation and work (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2016a). The responsibility to contribute to the labour market induction of status holders was set in the Participation Law in December 2015. This law concerns the support for parts of the population which have a certain distance to the labour market. This can include physically or mentally disabled people, as well as status holders with a diversity in characteristics and difficulties related to labour (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2016a).

The cabinet and the association of Dutch municipalities (VNG) wanted to combine participation and social guidance, under the guise of ‘staying is participating’. In the opinion of the VNG and the Cabinet, it is crucial that status holders participate fully and independently in the Dutch society. Factors that can contribute to this are, for example, having a job or following an education. To finance this extra task, the municipalities receive 2.730 euros per status holder instead of 1.000 euros which they received before this new law was established (De Lange et al., 2017). However, other studies show that many Dutch municipalities do not have a ‘target group policy’ (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016; Razenberg et al., 2017). This, in combination the varying support systems among municipalities, enlarge the

3

Although this relocation program is generally accepted by EU institutions, the reality is different and the countries of first entry still carry the burdens (Bordignon & Moriconi, 2017).

difficulties and complexities of handling the labour market induction. Furthermore, many municipalities have integrated the integration policies in regular policies, and thereby the budgets made available for specific population groups are integrated as well (SER, 2016). This means that status holders do not get any extra, or special treatment or guidance. Most recent data, of 20124, shows that status holders from non-western countries have a three times higher unemployment rate than the native Dutch part of the population (SER, 2016). Caponio and Borkert (2010) stated that targeting all ‘groups’ within one policy is rarely effective for reducing inequalities. However, targeted policies do not necessarily reduce inequalities either. A solution they suggest is the replacement of stigmatizing categories, by more general categories, such as ‘youth’. Though, these categories should be different at the policy formation and the implementation level, based on its applicability.

Caponio and Borkert (2010) related this struggle for policymakers with the omnipresent local attitude by native Dutch towards immigration issues, namely ‘Not In My BackYard’ (NIMBY). The attitude of citizens towards the shelter of immigrants could be positive, though they might prefer another location than their own municipality. According to Caponio and Borkert (2010) an overarching, national or international, policy should guarantee that all municipalities are contributing to this current situation of immigration. Thereby, due to the high media coverage on the topic of migration, and the mainly negative attitudes regarding migration among the receiving population, local migration policies are a challenge to formulate. As local governments are closer to the population, they tend to be more vulnerable for its opinions.

Another complicating factor is that the responsibility of labour market induction lies with municipalities, while they do not bear the responsibility of the integration process (Engbersen et al., 2015; SER, 2016; Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016; Razenberg et al., 2017). This responsibility shifted from the national government to the status holders themselves. Status holders are still financially supported by the state, but only for mandatory integration courses. Additional trainings, such as language or interview trainings (sollicitatietrainingen), are still an option for immigrants, but these have to be paid by immigrants themselves. Municipalities fear for the outcomes of this policy approach, because many immigrants will need these trainings, but will not be able to pay for them. Therefore, local governments are often creating and financing local initiatives to fill these gaps (Gebhardt, 2014; Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2016). Thereby, according to Razenberg and De Gruijter (2017) municipalities have to create networks of stakeholders which will guide status holders to work or an education. Through a network of employers, involved institutions and the municipality, all parties will be able to gain and exchange information on this new group of employees and students. A study of SER (2016) shows that status holders do not often hold positions at municipalities or educational institutions. Many other countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and Germany, have centralized the power by financing integration programmes, and they have reinstated the national governments as being responsible for integration. However, some local authorities have more power and room for manoeuvre than do governments within national frameworks (Emilsson, 2015). Caponio and Borkert (2010), furthermore mentioned, the differences in experiences regarding immigrants, integration, and a multicultural society. This in combination with the bargaining and negotiating processes between central and local bodies, which continues to be present in most systems, makes practices vary a lot and clear boundaries are found not to exist (Bevir, 2009; Emilsson, 2015).

1.5 Thesis structure

As outlined in this chapter, this thesis compares the approaches and implementation of three Dutch municipalities, which will be compared to the Dutch percentages of the KIS-survey (KIS, 2017; Razenberg et al., 2017). Firstly, a theoretical framework will be provided to form the academic background of this thesis. The conceptual framework at the end of Chapter 2 will integrate the research questions with the theoretical concepts discussed. Chapter 3 will then explain the methods used for this thesis. Subsequently, the context and the policy formation processes of the three municipalities will be outlined in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 will deal with the implementation strategies. Chapter 6 zooms in on the information about the status holders, and Chapter 7 will show the cooperation with stakeholders. These results are based on the document studies, the interviews, and the outcomes of the second KIS

4_{This is written at the beginning of 2017.}

survey (Razenberg et al., 2017; KIS, 2017). The aim is to give an outline of the daily situation, including barriers and chances for policy implementation and challenges faced by the three different types of municipalities. Lastly, Chapter 8 will discuss the conclusions and reflections of this thesis.

2. Theorizing policy formation and implementation

This chapter will explain the mechanisms of policy making processes. First, multi-level governance with centre-local relations is outlined. Subsequently, the local context with policy formation and implementation processes will be zoomed in on. The processes are formulated by policymakers and then implemented by street-level bureaucrats. Furthermore, other stakeholders, such as employers, also have an influence in the local context. This will be explained, and this chapter will end with a conceptual model in which the interlinkages between the main concepts in this study and the research questions are illustrated.

2.1 Multi-level governance

In the Netherlands, multiple levels of governance exist. Horizontal as well as vertical power relations interact. These interactions vary greatly in their extent of complexity, depending on the task division and appointments made (Bevir, 2009). In the context of this research, the municipality level and local implementation actors are of most importance as they both influence the integration process of status holders. The national state has set laws, within which, or sometimes beyond, the policymakers of the municipality act. These policymakers and the implementers, the so-called street-level bureaucrats, execute the policy.

Bevir (2009) explained that the boundaries and jurisdictions might change in multi-level governance when a policy requires it to. Often power is transferred from the national state to sub-national, regional, and non-state actors. This increases interactions and corporations between and within all levels of government and private actors. Hepburn and Zapata-Barrero (2014) explained that in the case of immigration, most changes happen at the local level. Status holders live in a municipality and impact their direct surroundings. The authors state: “the primary reason why regions have been steadily gaining powers over migration is because many sub-state policy areas ‘overlap’ with issues of migration” (Hepburn & Zapata-Barrero, 2014, p.4). These sub-state policy areas are, for example, education, housing, and labour. Advocates of this decentralisation argue that the outcomes of a policy are more efficient and better implemented when the local government is in charge. It also enlarges the flexibility of the policy processes, because of negotiation options with other involved actors. Some conclude: “policies have always been made and implemented within complex networks of actors drawn from various geographical levels” (Bevir, 2009, p. 136).

2.1.1 Centre-local relations

A whole spectrum of administrative and political relationships between the centre and local government exists between centralization and decentralization. The extreme at the side of centralization is that power is centralized at the state level. At the other extreme, decentralization, there is freedom to develop policies at the local level. In the political realm, this means that powers and responsibilities are transferred from the centre to the local levels, and in the administrative realm, local bodies or special agencies receive tasks and duties. This means that local governments are most determinative in the policy formation processes (Bevir, 2009). Common among welfare states are more centralized structures, and common among neo-liberal systems is autonomy for local governments or even markets. However, a difference exists between marketization and decentralization. The first is focused on getting more (economic) power to non-state actors. Arguments for marketization often concern the enlargement of democratic participation, and the freedom in choice of goods and services. Decentralization, on the other hand, is concerned with transferring political power to local government bodies. In this way, power and authority are brought closer to the population which in turn is expected to have a positive influence on the level of efficiency and democracy in politics (Bevir, 2009).

Many right and left-wing parties are in favour of decentralized elements in governance. Both advocate this because they are in favour of good governance, accountability, and democracy. The right-oriented parties, furthermore, emphasize the positive effects of marketization. They want less interventions from governments and more free choices within market forces. However, many neo-liberal governments are in favour of creating new patterns of regulations besides the decentralization practices. This can be done by economic, normative or coercive means, such as providing funds, or establishing persuasion laws and regulations for policy formation and implementation. For example, local bodies can have more power, but within stricter regulations of financial support (Emilsson, 2015). Some argue

that decentralization is a method of getting eventually more power at a higher level of governance. For example, because the central government has more resources, it can use these to support or withhold the local governments from formulating and implementing certain policies (Bevir, 2009). Emilsson (2015) termed the national regulations ‘steering instruments’; which guide the local governments in formulating and implementing integration policies, while Gebhardt (2014) named these regulations ‘hard’ national policies which set guidelines, categories for migrants, and linked duties. The local governments often have ‘softer’ inclusion policies, which take the wellbeing of the society more into consideration. These power divisions, or persuasive manners, can also be applied to the local government, policymakers, and street level bureaucrats. Examples are the privatisation of integration institutes, regulations of the municipality, or the division of expenditures on capacities. Overall, it will either limit or facilitate the work of street-level bureaucrats.

Many cities and countries differ a lot in their perspectives on the integration of status holders. Municipalities feel responsible for local living conditions for all its citizens. Gebhardt (2014) related this to the differences between national policy and local policy, as well as the differences among local policies. The context of formulation and implementation is crucial for the processes. The national strategies are often inflexible and cannot be adjusted to the local settings. Thereby, the national government is unable to coordinate and monitor all integration programs on the local level, which makes the strategies set by state entities inefficient in practise.

2.2 Local governance

In the Netherlands, the formation and implementation of policies are decentralized. The municipalities create these approaches on the local level. A universal policy is not an option and thus the local approaches differ. Caponio and Borkert (2010, p. 132) described this as the “relationship between policy and practise.” The more they work together, and if policy formulators know what happens ‘on the streets’, the more the implementation will be consistent with the policy.

In every state, the system of levels of government differ. Often the political and administrative local powers, are appointed to one level under the state level. In the Netherlands, political regions are between the levels of the county and the town, which is the municipality. These entities used to be formal and institutional, and placed in a hierarchical chain as the local government. Which meant that the municipality had the power to make decisions. Nowadays, this is less fixed and interactions between these levels of government, and with non-state actors, are more common. These are respectively called vertical and horizontal relationships. So, local government shifted more towards local governance. This means that the local governmental actors still have responsibilities, but are more dependent on other actors in the ‘policy-playing-field’ and so the municipality is no longer able to make integration decisions by itself. An advantage of having local governments is the opportunity to include citizens’ public opinion and to represent them in the local policy process. This can be seen as a disadvantage as well, because all counterparts want to have a say in the process as well. New challenges are to cooperate well with each other and to act within the inflexible national rules (Bevir, 2009).

Furthermore, Caponio and Borkert (2010) stated that the local approach depends both on their representatives’ preferences in national politics regarding the topic, migration and integration, as well as on their own local context of institutions, and opportunities and chances. The fact that the municipalities in the Netherlands are responsible for the labour market induction of status holders makes it an interesting level because it combines decision and implementation at the same level. Both are dynamic processes in which, at this level, often the same actors are involved. It transforms policies and makes reinterpretations of policies and execution possible. In these processes, local authorities are autonomous in the way that they act within the Participation law. According to De Lange et al. (2017), the extent of success in labour market induction is dependent on the policy formation and implementation within this law. The approaches of one municipality can be in favour of status holders, while approaches of another municipality may create difficulties for status holders (Caponio & Borkert, 2010).

2.2.1 Policy formation and local approaches

During the process of public policy formation, the aimed outcomes are leading. These outcomes of policy have to serve society. However, in the public sector the value of policy outcomes is difficult to

measure. Outcomes in the private sector are better to measure because these are financial profits. In an attempt to enlarge the ability to measure the public value, the public-sector applied more private concepts, such as the targets of a more efficient and effective approach of work. As a result, it demanded adjustments in processes and practices of the civil servants. In some situations, civil servants were better able to secure these new ways of work than in other situations. For example, street-level bureaucrats who guide unemployed people to work, could monitor the outflow of welfare payments in order to measure efficiency. The higher the percentage of people becoming independent, the more efficient a street-level bureaucrat works. Furthermore, the public-sector deals with a great variety of ‘customers’, all citizens are considered as ‘customers’, and thereby with a great variety of interests (Moore, 2013).

Therefore, Moore (2013) created a way of formulating policy while taking public value into account. This is called ‘The Strategic Triangle’ which, as its name implies, combines three elements in the process of policy formation; legitimacy and support, the operational capacity perspective, and public value (Figure 2.1). It illustrates the assumption that politicians have to take into consideration local characteristics (Agnew, 2014). This research will only focus on Legitimacy and Support, and Operational Capacity, because of the focus on policy formation and the policy implementation. The public value aspect is less included in these processes. Therefore, this research is focused on the perspective and activities of the municipality, and as Mintrom and Luetjens (2017, p. 8) argued, “public value should drive all policy design and public management efforts.” At the moment this does not happen often, and it is more seen as an opportunity for improvement.

The legitimacy and support element stands for the freedom public managers to develop public policies. For example, a public manager can base new policies, or adjustments to policies, on laws. The leading political parties in a municipality will determine the focus in policies. Their parties’ interests and the voices of their voters will be aligned to get elected for the next period. Then their negotiation processes and persuasion attempts for new policies will have more positive outcomes (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017). The idea of which departments and what actions should be involved in formation and implementation processes differs among policymakers (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017), but overall it is deemed necessary to cooperate with different types of policymakers, as situations differ and multiple perspectives are needed. This is a way of combining resources, efficiency, and disciplines (Noordegraaf, 2015). Furthermore, on the local level it is also important to include the values of the citizens to enlarge the legitimacy and support for policymakers and their policies, mainly because citizens and stakeholders want to recognize their public value in policies (Moore, 2013). Agnew (2014) described this as giving local characteristics political meaning. It is an active policy formation process in which the public values are being recorded in policies. However, these public values are often not clearly formulated (Moore, 2013), and they change over time (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017) and between situations (Noordegraaf, 2015).

An account of public values helps to pay attention to the public’s values and to construct concrete goals. It makes an abstract element as ‘public value’ more concrete and forces public managers to give a definition of the public value. According to Moore (2015) the public value is the purpose of formulating policy in a certain context. This element is the impact of policy in society. The account has a balanced scoreboard with the benefits and cost dimensions of the public value involved, and abstracting the value into separated elements makes it more accessible. By including all dimensions of the value, the account gives a full overview of it. Therefore, the public value account is dependent on context, and so changing contexts ask for changing public value accounts. An example of a changing context is the increased influx of refugees. In this case, the extent of decentralisation determines the Source: Based on Moore, 2013, p. 103

extent of responsibility on each level of government, and similarly for each issue related to this increased influx. So the context is partly formed by national and local regulations. Often this is formally recorded in law (Moore, 2013). Denmark, for example, has invested a lot in a monitoring system to get an idea of the integration performances and on effective policies (Liebig, 2007). Bloch (2008, p. 35) emphasised this by saying that “constant research and evaluation are necessary to assess the impact of the ever-changing policy context.” Also, a public value account will aid both the creation and mobilization of legitimacy and support on the local level, and it will enlarge the transparency of the policy formation process. Thereby, it opens up discussions on policy goals among different departments (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017). The final account could be used as a tool for holding public manager accountable for the outcomes of a policy in society. That is, after the introduction of a new public policy, public managers will be held accountable for the outcomes of the policy (Moore, 2013). Overall, this account integrates public manager’s search for legitimacy and support from both citizens, and actors within the authorizing environment (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017).

Besides the legitimacy and support perspective, the operational capacity perspective holds that a public manager needs to take the capacity of the municipality into account in order to accomplish the conceived public value and to implement the policy. The actors within the operational capacity perspective execute policy, which is done by means of public resources in a system of public policies and procedures which lead to social outcomes and interactions with citizens. With the help of the public value account, insight is gained regarding what is needed to achieve a particular change. The account will include the intended results in society, as well as the organisational structure and performance of the change. Furthermore, the account can also show which cooperation is needed and which stakeholders should be involved. If a public value asks for the involvement of a diversity of stakeholders, both public and private, the policymaker has three options regarding legitimacy and support. Firstly, the extra capacity needed can be bought by means of contracts or grants. Secondly, a private actor could be compelled or required to cooperate in a public policy, or thirdly, a policymaker can rely on the willingness of private actors to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) without paying or forcing them to do so (Moore, 2013). Mintrom and Luetjens (2017) and Caponio and Borkert (2010) furthermore argued that policies’ effectiveness will improve if local factors and associated stakeholders, such as NGOs, immigrant associations, and experts, are included in the policy formation process. The decentralisation of policy formation and implementation increases the ability to use local knowledge for these processes, to which stakeholders could contribute with more specific, street-level, knowledge (Bevir, 2009).

From the perspective of a status holder, their own capacities and knowledge are most important in the process of finding work. Policy interventions can help status holders to activate these intrinsic factors. The interventions, strategies, or programs can help status holders getting ‘job-ready’ by giving them advices and guidance. However, the role of the municipality is to counter discrimination and racism among employers, in media coverage, and in policies (Bloch, 2008). De Lange et al. (2017) argued that the intensity with which status holders should be guided also depends on status holders’ level of education. For example, someone who is lower educated could use extra help, while a higher educated status holder needs more trust and less pressure from the municipality. Bloch (2008, p. 34) summarizes: “Employment strategies such as language training, local work experience and information need to be developed alongside systematic responses such as qualification recognition, the reinstatement of the right to legal employment for asylum seekers, addressing discrimination from prospective employers, and improving service delivery and outcomes. (…) Tackling discrimination and structural barriers.” Every municipality has formulated its own approach for achieving this. Three different approaches for labour market induction are outlined below.

As soon as possible financially independent; Work first

One of the possible approaches is often described as ‘work first’. Originally this is an American approach to get people from welfare payments to paid work. The main goal is to get people to work as soon as possible, regardless of work experiences, education, and ambitions. Critics of this approach mention the lack of sustainable focus, which entails that the chances of quitting the job and becoming dependent on welfare payments again are higher because people do not match their job. So, the long-term outcomes are often overlooked (De Lange et al., 2017; Grootjans et al., 2015). However, sometimes

a short course or training is possible to match the labour market opportunities, because people not only want to work for money, but also for personal growth. Though, this aspect is not always taken into account. Municipalities with this strategy, often use financial triggers to stimulate unemployed people, in this case status holders, to find a job. For instance, some municipalities (temporary) lower their welfare payments to avoid people from abusing it (De Lange et al., 2017).

Valenta and Bunar (2010) studied the labour market integration in Sweden and Norway. Here ‘work first’ focuses on increasing the human capital of status holders. Furthermore, the policy has been broadened to include proactive ‘facilitators’. These entail language and cultural knowledge, stability and safety, information programs and work permits (Emilsson, 2015). These countries experienced that housing assistance and trainings alone, will not lead to successful refugee integration. The countries recognized the importance of cooperation with local and regional stakeholders. Therefore, they signed agreements with all involved actors to make the strategy work. In this way, Sweden was able to create enough jobs to get status holders to work. Nevertheless, labour market induction processed slowly. This was mainly due to a lack of supra-local coordination, because all municipalities had to create and innovate their own policies and programs (Emilsson, 2015). An adjustment made on these inefficiencies by the Swedish government included allowing asylum seekers to work straight after applying for asylum. In this way, no time is lost due to the process of waiting, which is the case in the Netherlands, where asylum seekers officially have to wait for six months5 (De Lange et al., 2017). Engbersen et al. (2015) used this as guise for their campaign ‘No time to lose; from shelter to integration of asylum seekers’. The faster this process goes, the more advantages there are. For example, the faster the process, the higher the motivation levels of status holders will remain, which in turn leads to the maintenance of knowledge and skills.

Another example is the Danish government. It can be considered progressive as it has a Ministry for Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (Liebig, 2007). Most regulations regarding these topics are organised nationally, but the Ministry has provided guidance for smaller municipalities which are inexperienced concerning integration measures. This guidance includes the provision of consulting services and examples of good practises. Arhus is an example of a bigger and experienced municipality. It has created an approach in which five facets in life are combined, such as employment (Liebig, 2007). This Danish program is financed by several stakeholders, as well as the local and national governments. Municipalities are financially stimulated to get a migrant to work by receiving a financial bonus upon successful completion of this tasks. This stimulates the use of the ‘work first’ approach, but the aim is to construct a coherent integration approach at the municipality level (Liebig, 2007).

In the Netherlands, the ‘first work’ approach is not always as straightforward as it sounds. As said before, some municipalities focus on paid work for status holders as soon as possible, while other municipalities are willing to offer a short training trajectory before a status holder obtains paid work. This can be a way to cater to employers who take a risk by offering jobs to status holders6

.

Some employers offer work-study trajectories to educate status holders in their sector. De Lange et al. (2017) noticed a possible risk of doing so, namely that ofeducating a group of people but not being able to offer them a paid job afterwards. Employers can prefer alternating with unpaid employees instead of one permanent employee.

A critique to this approach is based on ‘differentialism’ or ‘segregationism’ (Dekker et al., 2015). Considering status holders as a separated group, will cause them to stay within these institutionalized boundaries. Irrespective of the successfulness of an integration program, it cannot make these boundaries disappear. Instead it will create a society in which groups live alongside one another. The message of these critiques is to handle status holders as humans, just like all other citizens, and guide them to work in sectors with a great diversity of people. A comparison is made with the guest workers from the 1960s and 1970s. These people have worked in sectors containing mainly other guest workers, which has been found to have hindered their integration in several European countries (Dekker et al., 2015).

5

Migrants are allowed to do paid work in the Netherlands after they have received their permit, and so become status holders. Then they will receive a Burger Service Number (BSN) which is needed for the administration when a citizen works. When a migrant has to wait longer than six months, they are formally allowed to receive a BSN by European Law (De Lange et al., 2017).

Customized services

Another common strategy is based on customized services. The Netherlands are officially required to treat status holders equal to native citizens. This means that they should have the same opportunities in the areas of work, education, extra trainings, internships, and work experience places. Thereby, they have to be guided and coached equally by the so-called street-level bureaucrats. However, the European Union has required the Netherlands to simplify the access to the labour market for status holders (De Lange, 2017). So, these European guidelines separate status holders from other citizens. However, De Lange et al. (2017) concluded from the report of De Rekenkamer (The Court of Auditors), that not all Dutch municipalities are meeting the restrictions imposed by the European Union.

Other municipalities, which offer an individual approach, created several methods to take away the barriers obstructing the labour market induction of status holders. For example, assessments were put in place to get an insight in the competences and ambitions of status holders. However, information about their personal circumstances, such as trauma’s, integration problems, and family reunion issues, is also needed. The assessments can be taken by COA, the municipality, or a social service, and can be obtained through an online tool or via individual conversations. Either way, it will contribute to finding suitable jobs, instead of matching status holders to random available jobs (De Lange et al., 2017; Grootjans et al., 2015). Though, it has to be taken into consideration that some of the topics might be very sensitive.

De Lange et al. (2017) argued that customized services are needed because groups of status holders are divers in themselves. Some status holders have a larger distance to the labour market than others. Furthermore, the barriers to the labour market vary in type as well, due to the differences between status holders, some might need an additional language training, an education, an internship, a short course, or a combination of these. An individual approach is needed to meet these needs. Multiple municipalities have case managers or consultants who work on this individual approach. Some are employed by the municipality, other municipalities have outsourced these tasks (Razenberg et al., 2017). Although many municipalities do not have a target policy, they often offer special treatments. De Lange et al. (2017) described this as thinking out of the box, working together, and offering customized services.

Other customized services are, for example, work-study trajectories, often called dual trajectories. These dual trajectories contain two different trajectories which are followed simultaneously, such as a combination of work and education, education and integration, or integration and work, which vary in content as well. These trajectories need to be customized to be able to adjust and combine personal trajectories (De Lange et al., 2017). For example, some go to school four days a week and have a related job for one day a week, while others prefer to learn while working (Razenberg et al., 2017). The main advantage is that more will be learnt and accomplished in less time. Furthermore, the skills and knowledge of status holders will not fade. Despite the time component being an advantage, many experts prefer integrated trajectories. These are simultaneous as well, but are aligned and supplementary. Thereby, they often combine more than two trajectories. An argument for this approach is that status holders will reach a higher level of language proficiency in less time, due to speaking Dutch every day. Furthermore, the jargon of the working sector is obtained more easily than when one only receives regular language trainings. Another element of integral trajectories is the cooperation with other involved actors, which need to work together to enable the integrated trajectories for status holders (Razenberg et al., 2017; De Lange et al., 2017; Engbersen et al., 2015; SER, 2016).

Similar to the critique put forward for the ‘work first’ approach, the customized services could cause ‘differentialism’ or ‘segregationism’ (Dekker et al., 2015). If status holders receive special treatments, a stereotype with institutionalized boundaries might appear. Proponents of the approach, on the other hand, are the ‘multiculturalists’ who see cultural pluralism as a positive characteristic of a place and who emphasise the benefits of the skills, knowledge, and potentials of status holders for a municipality. Every population group has its own identity which should be respected. Thereby, multiculturalists acknowledge the history and special situation of status holders and advocate that status holders need customized services. If they are treated as other citizens, they will stay, or lack, behind in society (Dekker et al., 2015).