Refugees in the Netherlands: The
Effect of Policy Change on the Use of
Agency
A change in agency, caused by a change in asylum policy
Carli Beijer 10193014 University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Jeroen Doomernik Second reader: Anja van Heelsum June 2016
Abstract
This thesis researches the agency used by refugees to influence their integration process. This entails all behaviour from the moment of arrival in the Netherlands, with the aim of integrating into Dutch society. The integration process includes everything from receiving a residence permit, to learning the Dutch culture and language. The agency of refugees is researched in two timeframes, which had different asylum policies. With this information the following question will be answered: ‘How does change in the Dutch asylum policy influence the use of agency by a refugee in the integration process?’.
The outcome of this research will contribute to the knowledge of what type of policy will provide the desired result. The difference in policy entails obligatory integration classes and exams, type of housing and the time they have to wait for a residence permit. Assuming this desired result is to give refugees the opportunity to become active participants of the Dutch society. To answer this question, ten in-depth interviews are conducted. The ten respondents are divided into two cohorts. The first cohort includes refugees who fled their country of origin, which is either Iran or Bosnia, and arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995. The second cohort includes refugees who fled their country of origin, which is either Azerbaijan or Iran, and arrived in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2003.
The analysis of the data, conducted from the interviews, show that all refugees use agency to influence their integration process, regardless of the type of policy.
However, a difference is found in the focus of the agency. This focus shifted towards another indicator, as the asylum policy became more restrictive.
Table of content
1. Introduction.………...1 2. Theoretical framework.………...6 2.1. Integration.………...6 2.2. Agency of integration.………...9 2.3. Structure of integration………...14 3. Methodology………..22 3.1 Research methods….………22 3.2 Operationalization………....22 3.3 Sub question….………243.4 Respondents and recruitment….………..25
3.5 Data analysis….………...25 3.6 Ethical accountability………...25 4. Results………26 4.1 Research process...………....26 4.1.1 Cohort 1…..………..27 4.1.2 Cohort 2…..………..27
4.2 Forms of agency: cohort 1…..………..28
4.3 The effect of agency on the integration process: cohort 1….………..31
4.4 Forms of agency: cohort 2………37
4.5. The effect of agency on the integration process: cohort 2….……….40
4.6 Comparing cohort 1 and 2………46
5. Conclusion………..48
5.1 Answering the research question...……….48
5.2 Discussion………50 6. Bibliography………...51 7. Appendix………53 7.1 Operationalization scheme..……….53 7.2 Respondents overview……….57 7.3 Coding schema……….58
1. Introduction
In December 2015 dozens of refugees walk the street in Heumensoord to protest the bad conditions of the refugee camp that is their home. The banner they carry states: ‘75 days squeezed in tents, no procedures’. According to these refugees the current living situation was causing mental and physical traumas among them. Therefore, they were asking for clarity concerning the asylum procedure and demanding better living conditions. When the situation did not change, they protested again in the
beginning of 2016 (Gelderlander, May 20161).
What is interesting about this situation is that these refugees used everything in their power to influence their situation, which they found unacceptable. These actions are a clear form of agency; agency can be defined as all conscious behaviour in order to achieve a certain goal (Giddens, 1984, p.7-9). The asylum policy at that time stated a maximum waiting period of six months, however after these terms were not met, they extended it from six to fifteen months. The execution of the asylum policy could have motivated the refugees to eventually protest on the streets. Is this behaviour caused by this specific policy execution or do refugees always use agency to influence their situation?
As a result of the protests the refugees were able to speak to the mayor of Nijmegen and were eventually moved to another asylum centre. Does this indicate that agency can influence the integration process? According to Ghorashi (2005) the welfare state can make migrants, and thus refugees, dependent on government support and facilities, thereby transforming them from active participants into passive dependants of the states (Ghorashi, 2005, p.195). This raises the question whether refugees should receive that much government support or if acting independently would result in a better integration?
To answer these questions this research will look at two groups of refugees, who arrived in the Netherlands during different asylum policies. The first group arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995. The asylum policy at that time had a relatively short procedure, of approximately one year, and integration was not yet
1 http://www.gelderlander.nl/cm/2.1808/regio/nijmegen-‐e-‐o/nijmegen/we-‐
are-‐human-‐asielzoekers-‐heumensoord-‐lopen-‐protestmars-‐1.5529163, last consulted on 27 May 2016
obligatory. The second group of respondents are refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2003. The stricter asylum policy at that time allowed fewer refugees into the country and had a longer asylum procedure. In addition, the obligatory integration was implemented in asylum policy in 1998. Making integration obligatory by taking classes and an exam could have an influence on the agency used by asylum seekers.
This thesis will focus on the effect of policy change on the behaviour of refugees and will eventually answer the question: ‘How does change in the Dutch asylum policy influence the use of agency by a refugee in the integration process?’. To explore this subject, a theoretical framework will discuss previous research within this subject and will provide models to analyse for data analysis. The data will be collected by means of in-depth interviews. In these interviews, the effect of the use of agency on the integration process will be researched. The focus of the interviews will be on the different forms of agency that are used by the refugee and the different levels of integration. Subsequently, the results of the analysis of the two cohorts will be compared. These results will show the effect of change in asylum policy on the use of agency.
2. Theoretical framework
Since 2014, a large group of refugees has come to the Netherlands to seek asylum. Fleeing their home country to escape violence, Europe could give them the opportunity of a better life. Arriving in the Netherlands, asylum seekers have the right
to get shelter and basic needs are provided (COA, 20162). However, along with these
rights come many rules and policies. Because of these policies the living conditions for refugees are not always optimal and the asylum procedure can take a long period of time. But what can refugees do to improve the integration process, independently of the Dutch asylum policy. In other words, how can refugees use agency to influence their living situation in the Netherlands? To be able to research the use of agency in the integration process of refugees in the Netherlands, there are a few concepts that need to be made clear. First of all an explanation of the term integration will be provided. What is integration and when is someone considered integrated in the Netherlands? Furthermore, the Dutch immigration system for refugees will be made clear. Finally, agency as a concept will be explained.
2.1 Integration
To be able to research the role of agency in the integration process of refugees in the Netherlands, a definition of integration has to be established. “Integration is a chaotic
concept, a word used by many, but understood different by most” (Robinson 1998, in
Ager & Strang 2008, p.167). Although defining integration is difficult, it is necessary to provide a working definition of integration, providing all readers with the same understanding of the concept. To be able to create a working definition, a number of definitions will be consulted, from which one definition will be formed.
Definitions that are given by NGO’s and refugees elaborate on the responsibilities of the refugee. “For example ECRE (1998) refers to ‘the
establishment of a mutual and responsible relationship between individual refugees, civil societies and host states’. It is also recognized that integration requires from the refugee ‘a preparedness to adapt to the lifestyle of the host community”(Baneke 1999,
in Ager & Strang, 2008, p.176). Another definition states that“Integration is a long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long- long-
term two-way process of change, that relates both to the conditions for and the actual participation of refugees in all aspects of life of the country of durable asylum as well as to refugees’ own sense of belonging and membership of European societies”
(ECRE, 1999, in Ager & Strang, 2008, p.177).
Putting the most important factors of both definitions together, a working definition is created, namely: Integration is a long term mutual and responsible relationship between individual refugees, civil societies and host states, that relates both to the conditions for and the actual participation of refugees in all aspects of life. Following this definition, how is the integration system in the Netherlands organized. According to Klaver (2015), integration is a very important part of the protection of refugees. She researched the socioeconomic integration of refugees in the Netherlands. The right to sustainable integration is included in the 1951 refugee convention of the UNHCR. The right to integration is also emphasized in the European regulations. For instance, all EU member states should provide appropriate programs to facilitate an easy integration process for refugees. Furthermore, refugees should, equally to all citizens, have access to education, health care, social services and services to foster a better position on the labour market. In short, integration is just as important as providing shelter, in the discussion on the protection of refugees (Klaver, 2015, p.101).
Regarding these EU convention guidelines, what is the current integration position of refugees in the Netherlands? After a request for asylum has been granted, refugees have to face the challenge of building a life. Research shows that refugees have a big social economic disadvantage, which is characterized by low labour market participation rates, high dependency on social support and a considerable chance of poverty. Especially acquiring a good position in the labour market can be difficult, since refugees have a great disadvantage when it comes to social networks, relevant work experience, schooling, language, and health issues as a consequence of traumatic experiences (Klaver, 2015, p.102-103).
Numbers show that labour participation rates are as high as the rates of non-western immigrants, namely about 45 per cent in 2013. Their dependence on social support is almost 40 per cent, compared to respectively 12 per cent and 2 per cent for non western-migrants and native Dutch. Almost all refugees are aid dependent when they receive their legal status and it proves to be very difficult to change this situation.
Research shows that the longer someone lives in the Netherlands, labour participation increases slowly and aid dependence decreases slowly (Klaver, 2015, p.103-104).
Furthermore, refugees that are employed often have vulnerable positions, characterized by high numbers of part time or temporary contracts. This type of jobs provides little opportunity to decrease the aid dependency. It also leads to a low-income position for refugees. According to the basic needs criteria, approximately 25 per cent of refugees in the Netherlands live in poverty. When this poverty covers a prolonged period of time, this can have negative consequences for participation in society. Thus in general, refugees have difficulties with building a stable life, allthough difference in background can have some different outcomes. Asylum seekers that came from countries such as China, Burundi and Sierra Leone have a bigger chance on finding a job, because they arrived here at a younger age. Therefore they are educated in the Netherlands, which gives them a better chance to finding a job (Klaver, 2015, p.105-106).
Klaver (2015) explained the general socioeconomic position for refugees that are integrating into the Netherlands, but how can integration be measured? To be able to measure integration, a number of integration indicators can be used, which are provided by Ager and Strang (2004). They researched the perception and needs of refugees in the integration process. They developed a model in which they use ten indicators that both measure and influence the level of integration. These indicators are divided into four categories: ‘means and makers’, ‘social connections’, ‘facilitators’ and ‘foundation’.
The first category ‘means and makers’ consist of the four key factors of the integration process. The indicators are: employment, housing, education and health. The second category is ‘social connections’ and consists of all social relations and networks a refugee can have. The indicators are: social bridges, these are all relations with non-refugees, social bonds, these are relations with people from the same background, and social links, and these are all relations that can help refugees access direct services. The third category is facilitators, these are necessary to access the means and markers and social connections indicators. The indicators of this third category are language and cultural knowledge, and safety and stability. The final category is foundation with the indicator ‘rights and citizenship’. This should be provided by the government and influences all other indicators (Ager & Strang, 2004, in Gokoelsing, 2013, p.10-11).
The indicators provided by Ager & Strang make it possible to measure integration. The working definition that was provided earlier showed that integration is dependent on multiple factors, of which one was the active participation of the refugee. To determine the how much influence a refugee can have on the integration process, in the next paragraph the concept of agency will be discussed.
2.2 The agency in integration
In this thesis the use of agency will be researched among refugees in the Netherlands. To be able to do this, the concept of Agency should be made clear. However, agency is difficult to understand when seen independently from its counterpart, structure. According to Giddens (1973) structure and agency together form the perennial debate on which perspective provides the best solution for a problem. Structure is completely external to the behaviour of an individual and consists of all mechanisms that serve to shape social society. Structure can thus be seen as containing a certain kind of power over individual behaviour (Giddens, 1973, p.16-18).
In contrast to structure, there is agency. Giddens (1984) states that agency is the conscious behaviour of an individual, with a certain goal. When acting is subconscious it is not the use of agency, but merely an automatic response. Agency is the acting of individuals with the incentive of what the outcome of the action will be. Agency also requires having the possibility to act and thereafter choosing to do so. Based on this, agency brings a certain kind of power, given that the agent was able to choose to act differently (Giddens, 1984, p.7-9). Thus, when looking at the agency of refugees in the integration process, there should be thought of all conscious actions and decisions that are made with a certain goal. This goal can be integration, or merely acceptable living conditions.
Structure and agency cannot be separated from each other, because both concepts contribute to the shape of society. Furthermore, one follows from the other and they complement each other. In short, individuals are allowed to act from a certain incentive, but their behaviour is bound by the rules of society. Individuals live within a social structure that simultaneously forms and limits their actions. Subsequently, structure cannot exist without the individual, because the agency of the collective of individuals is what forms the structures. There is a constant interaction and therefore an eternal relation between structure and agency (Demmers, 2012,
p.118-120). Therefore this theoretical framework will not only explain the agency side, but also the structural side of integration.
As marked by Giddens (1984), agency requires the possibility to act. Sen (1979) also talks about this possibility in his capability approach. The approach consists of four factors that help to achieve a certain capability. Capabilities are the need for individuals to achieve a certain state of well-being. If the individual reaches this state of well-being, he or she will be able to do and be what he or she wants. In this research the desired capability is a refugees integration in Dutch society. The four factors that support this capability are agency, resources, freedom and functionings (Gokoelsing, 2013, p.12).
Agency is, as explained earlier, the ability of an individual to pursue a certain goal or way of living. Agency can be used to achieve functionings. Functionings are valuable beings and doings that help reach the capability, for instance sleeping and learning. However, to achieve these functionings an individual needs freedom and some resources. Freedom is necessary for choosing a capability and resources are necessary to achieve the functionings, for instance a place to sleep or to study. From this follows the conclusion that agency on it’s own is not enough to reach a capability (Gokoelsing, 2013, p.12-13).
To see if the Dutch asylum policy provides refugees with the other factors, the research of Ghorashi (2005) will be discussed. She explains the effect of a welfare state on the ability of migrants to be active participants. Since the Netherlands is a welfare state, this theory might be able to explain if refugees have the resources and freedom to use their agency in reaching their capability. Ghorashi’s general conclusion is that the restrictive asylum policies of the Netherlands have an overall negative effect on the lives of asylum seekers. These effects start with the negative connotations that are linked to the word refugee. Refugees are perceived as helpless victims, which make them necessarily a problem for Dutch society (Ghorashi, 2005, p.185).
Furthermore, the use of the concept ‘forced migration’ eliminates the factor of choice, which leaves people to believe that refugees do not have agency. Because asylum seekers are made helpless, they are made passive and dependent on aid from governmental and nongovernmental organizations. This reinforces their incapability and creates a hierarchical relationship between the giver and the receiver. This creates a feeling of superiority for Dutch citizens, over the asylum seekers. According to
some citizens, refugees should be grateful for being able to live here. Additional to these feelings, the welfare system makes refugees dependent on the government and thereafter blamed for their dependency. The asylum policies in the Netherlands decide that asylum seekers are not allowed to work or find a place to live on their own, until they received an official refugee status. They are not allowed to build a life (Ghorashi, 2005, p.186-187).
This process can take up to several years, during which asylum seekers are not allowed to work, learn the language or be socially involved in society. These restrictions have very negative consequences for this group for several reasons. First of all, refugees with traumas should not be limited in their space of movement, because then they are left with their traumatic memories. Secondly, if refugees are not able to build a life, they cannot forget about the past. To do this they should be able to become active participants. Otherwise they are not able to deal with their feelings of guilt and powerlessness. Finally, in these years of insecurity, refugees past dangers and fears stay more vivid than necessary. This shows that seclusion and forced passivity that is created by the Dutch welfare system wastes the first and most important years of the lives of refugees (Ghorashi, 2005, p.190).
Furthermore, dependency creates dependency. This means that after all those years; it is very hard for refugees to live independently later on. Not only because they lose their motivation, but also because they feel blamed for wasting their time. The result is that they lose the self-image as an independent active person. The feeling of worthlessness combined with the painful experiences when first coming to the Netherlands result in an unwelcome feeling. Refugees often think that they do not get a chance to show what they are capable of (Ghorashi, 2005, p.191).
Ghorashi identified multiple negative effects of the welfare state on the lives of refugees in the Netherlands. The first few years after arrival can be difficult, especially while living in an Asylum Seeker Centre, where there is limited privacy. Once a refugee is rejected, they can feel unwanted and view themselves as second-rate citizens. Not only for refugees, but also for regular citizens, prolonged periods of uncertainty, social exclusion, rejection, discrimination and lack of perspective can create these negative feelings. Furthermore, refugees have to adapt to minimal privacy and sharing their living space with strangers. So how do refugees cope with these negative effects? Kramer & Bala (2004) created a model of four different coping styles that are used by refugees (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.34).
Kramer & Bala’s model first identifies five relevant domains that contribute to the finding meaning in life. The domains are: self-image, social contacts, activities, perspective and balance. Self-image includes the way refugees look at themselves and the way they think other people see them. Social contacts are often limited for refugees. They miss their family members, have almost no contact with native Dutch because of the language barrier and are not always able to make new contacts. Activities are important to feel meaningful. The access to meaningful activities is however difficult because of the language barrier, but sometimes refugees create their own activities. Perspective is the attitude that refugees have towards the asylum procedure and towards the prospect of the rest of their lives. Finally balance, this is a dynamic process that changes the way a refugee thinks and feels, influenced by life experiences (Kramer & Bala, 2004,p.35).
Based on the different outcomes of the former five domains, Kramer & Bala created four different patterns of coping, namely the drifter, the hibernator, the fighter and the explorer. They note that people can generally not be reduced to one single pattern, but often combine multiple coping styles. New experiences, time and different environments influence the selection of a coping style. The first coping style is the drifter pattern, which is characterized as passive and pessimistic. Drifters are refugees who believe they are not able to influence the outcome of events. They will drift in directions that are determined by forces beyond their control. Drifters feel ineffective and experience life as chaotic. They will have suffered many losses and disruptions in life. Drifters do not see a way out and often feel desperate and worthless. In some cases, refugees thought about taking their own life. They have limited social contacts and activities through a lack of energy and trust. Their balance is often negative, however they do receive a lot of support from others (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.36-37).
The next coping style is the hibernator pattern, which is characterized as passive and accepting. For hibernators time seems to be frozen. They remain in their current situation, while waiting for the future. Hibernators cling to who they were and what they had in the past and try to hold on to this image. They make few new contacts and when they do they will often choose familiar people, for instance people who are from the same country or are living in the same unit as they do. Hibernators perceive the situation as temporary and are therefore able to accept these current
conditions. Refugees who fit this pattern try to avoid change and their balance is neutral (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.37).
The third coping style is the fighter pattern; this coping style is featured as active and narrow-minded. Refugees that fit the fighter pattern are active and always looking for opportunities to better their situation. As long as fighters are in control their self-image is positive. Their focus is on the outside world. Fighters are often involved in activities and easily make new contacts; these can be for instrumental purpose or as handles in their strive for rights and justice. Fighters look for attainable goals, however they can become narrow-minded because their focus is on one goal only. This narrow-mindedness can make them vulnerable because when they lose control their balance will be negative (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.37).
The final coping style is the explorer pattern, which is characterized by active participation and flexibility. Explorers are open to new options and opportunities. They are able to preserve a positive self-image on a temporary basis, or in certain areas of functioning. Their active participation and flexibility shows in their ability to change strategies to achieve a goal or even changing the goal itself. Explorers think in alternative perspectives. They have a positive balance because they are able to (re-) interpret situations and find meaningful contacts and activities (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.37).
So the four different coping styles are clear, but how do they relate to each other? To be able to explain this, Kramer & Bala identified three dichotomies within these different coping styles. These dichotomies are chaos versus coherence, internal versus external locus of control and low versus high degree of flexibility. The first dichotomy ‘chaos versus coherence’ determines to what extend refugees find their experiences comprehensible, manageable and meaningful. Coherence can be described as a global orientation that expresses a feeling of confidence towards 1) experiences from internal and external environments, which are structured, predictable and explicable 2) the availability of necessary resources 3) the worthiness to invest in challenges. The drifter pattern is the only coping style that perceives its experiences as chaotic. The three other coping styles fit the coherence description (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.38).
The second dichotomy is internal versus external locus of control. This refers to a refugees believe in his or her ability to influence the outcome of events and thus their level of control. In an asylum seeker centre, refugees have less control than the
average Dutch citizen has. Drifters and hibernators feel dominated by external sources of control, which indicates limited internal control. Hibernators do believe that they have some limited influence on their direct surroundings, however, not on the outside worlds. Fighters and explorers believe that they have a lot of control and are able to influence the outcome of events. Fighters have a strong sense of internal control, because they feel that justice is on their side. Explorers see control and influence as relative concepts and appreciate the limitations of it (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.38).
The final dichotomy is flexibility versus plasticity. This is an index of individual manifest and change potential. Flexibility is necessary to adapt to new situations. Flexible people are able to revise their self-image, add new elements to their identity, make new contacts and find activities. With a broader perspective refugees are able to see more possibilities. Fighters and explorers are more flexible than drifter and hibernators. Fighters focus on finite goals while explorers change their targets, choices and strategies (Kramer & Bala 2004, p.38).
The agency part of the integration process is made clear, namely all conscious decisions and actions with a certain goal, with the side note that agency alone is not enough to achieve a certain capability. An agent needs freedom and resources to accomplish agency and functionings. Furthermore, according to Ghorashi the Dutch welfare system does not provide the freedom or the resources for refugees to use agency. Resources are missing because of seclusion and forced passivity, freedom is missing because are not allowed to work, learn the language or be socially involved in society. The model of Kramer & Bala identifies four patterns of how refugees cope with a prolonged period of uncertainty. Especially this last model can be useful for analysing the use of agency. However, as explained earlier, structure and agency are inextricably intertwined. Therefore, the structure side of integration will be explained in the next paragraph.
2.3 The structure of integration
In the previous paragraph, the agency side of integration has been explained. However, agency does not exist without structure, therefore the structure of integration will be discussed in this paragraph. First Merton’s (1938) vision on anomie will be explained to show the influence of the lack of structure on behaviour. Thereafter Penninx’ (2005) theory on the different dimensions of integration will be
discussed. Then a model of integration indicators, provided by Ager & Strang (2004), will be discussed. Finally the Dutch policy on asylum and integration will be explained.
As explained in the previous paragraph, structure consists of all rules and policies, norms and values, and culture and religion that serve to shape social society and is external to any individual behaviour (Giddens, 1973, p.16-18). Although structure is external to the individual behaviour, it does influence one another. Merton (1938) explains how social structure can create nonconformist behaviour. According to Merton, social order functions as a device for managing impulses and processing social tensions. However, social structures can have the effect on certain persons in society to behave in nonconformist rather than conformist ways. The cause of this behaviour lies within a number of important elements of social and cultural structures (Merton, 1938, p.672).
The first element is ‘culturally defined goals, purposes and interests’. These interests involve prestige and sentiment; they constitute designs for group living and are sometimes related to original drives of men. The second element of social structure is regulatory norms. These define, regulate and control the acceptable modes of achieving these goals. However, there can develop a disproportionate stress upon the values of certain goals, whereby the institutionally appropriate means of achieving these goals becomes less important. This is the point where nonconformist behaviour arises (Merton, 1938, p.672-673).
This nonconformist behaviour Merton calls ‘anomie’. This term actually originates from the theory of Durkheim and is defined as ‘an absence of norms or a fundamental conflict over society basic values’ (Slattery, 2003, p.22). Anomie is caused by a lack of coordination of the means-and-goals. A function of social organization is to regulate behaviour, however, if the elements of the structure are dissociated, the effectiveness of the coordination is limited and anomie, or cultural chaos is created (Merton, 1938, p.682).
Merton’s theory is based on general social structures. However, this could be further specified to the structure of integration. According to Penninx (2005) the structure of integration consists of integration processes and the related policies. He also provides a definition of integration: integration is ‘the process of becoming an accepted part of society’ (Penninx, 2005, p.141). It should be noted that it is a process and not an end situation, and that there are no particular requirements for acceptance.
Furthermore, integration takes place on multiple levels, namely the local, national and regional level. The structure of integration can have multiple typologies. Penninx explains these typologies by dividing integration policies into three dimensions (Penninx, 2005, p.137).
The first dimension is the legal/political dimension. This implies the level of access to the political system and the rights and duties an immigrant has when integrating into a country. The second dimension is the socio-economic dimension. This entails all social and economic rights, in labour and housing, and all government support and benefits an immigrant receives when migrating into a country. The final dimension is the cultural and religious dimension, which entails the right to organise and recognition of a culture or religion. These three dimensions can be used to design six possible models for evaluating and categorizing integration policies. These six models will be shown in figure 1 (Penninx, 2005, p.139).
Figure 1: Six possible models of integration policies, source: Penninx, 2005, p.139)
Figure 1 shows one clear distinction between inclusive and exclusive policies. That distinction is based on the legal-political dimension. An example of a type 4, exclusionist policy is the Dutch guest worker policy from before the 1980’s. Because guest workers were expected to return to their home countries, they were not part of the Dutch political community. However, they did have equal socio-economic rights and were encouraged to retain their culture and religion. When it became clear that the migrants were not returning, the Netherlands changed the typology of their
migrant policy. The first step was to provide formal citizenship for the migrants and their children, so more inclusive policies could be created (Penninx, 2005, p.139).
According to Penninx, typology three does not exist in Western Europe, because liberal democracies do not allow inequality for individuals who are regarded full members of political society. However, in practice typology three regimes can exist, seen that discrimination and racism are present in countries like the Netherlands and such high principles of equality are sometimes ignored in practice. Another distinction that Penninx identifies falls within the inclusive typologies one and two. Type one policies embrace multiculturalism and diversity. Type two integration policies are primarily based on the expectation of assimilation, meaning that a migrant will adapt to the culture of the receiving country. The Netherlands presented itself in the 1980’s as to being a multicultural society, where immigrants are able to become equal citizens and groups have the right to be culturally different (Penninx, 2005, p.140).
This cultural difference, together with physical appearance and difference in religion, are often the basis of making newcomers ‘the other’. This creates in- and out-groups. When arriving in a new country an immigrant has to find both a physical and social/cultural place in society. When immigrants feel different, it is even more important to find that place and become accepted. This explains the definition provided by Penninx ‘a process of becoming accepted part of society’. This open definition of integration covers all three dimensions of becoming accepted: legal/political, socio-economic and cultural/religious. The first ‘legal/political’ dimension affects migrants in two different ways: first of all their legal position and related legal rights have positive and negative consequences on an immigrant’s behaviour and efforts to integrate (Penninx, 2005, p.141).
Long periods of waiting and uncertainty, through for example the procedure of getting a residence permit and the lack of access to the political system and decision-making, can have negative effects for the immigrant/s preparedness and effort to integrate. From this can be concluded that exclusionary policies have negative implications on integration processes. The other way around inclusive policies can have beneficial effects on integration processes. Though policies play an important role in integration processes, integration knows two relevant actors: the receiving society and the immigrant. The interaction between these two actors is what creates the integration outcome. An important note is that these actors are not equal partners,
due to unequal levels of power and resources. This inequality can be seen in the policy incentive, which is based on the demands of the dominant party: society, rather than on participation, negotiation or agreement of the immigrant group (Penninx, 2005, p.142).
The process of integration does not only take place on the level of the individual migrant, who’s integration can be measures by housing, job, education and social/cultural adaptation. The integration mechanisms work on the individual, organisational and institutional level and while these differ from one another, their results are integrated. Institutional regulation creates opportunities and scope of action for organisations. Institutions and organisations together form the structure that defines the opportunities and limitations for individuals. Individuals are also able to mobilise and change the landscape of organisations and contribute to changes in institutional arrangements. However, examples of the latter are rare, because of uneven levels of power and resources. Finally, Penninx identifies the importance of the time factor, which explains that first and second generation immigrants adapt in a different manner (Penninx, 2005, p.142).
Thus institutions and organisations together form the structure and this structure defines the opportunities and limitations for individuals. What this structure looks like for an asylum seeker arriving in the Netherlands has changed over time. It became more restrictive, paradoxical and introspective. In the early 1990’s the Netherlands invited so-called quota-refugees. They would be accommodated in centrally operated reception centres for the first few months. Thereafter they would move to specialized ROA houses. In 1996 the ROA houses were abolished. Now refugees had to live in the ASC’s until they received a residence permit. When a request for asylum is granted, a refugee receives an asylum status (Ghorashi, 2005, p.187-188; van Selm, 2000, p.75-76).
There are three main asylum statuses, namely A, C and F. Each status entails different social and economic rights. A-status provides all standards that are included in the 1951 convention, for instance an unlimited residence permit. C-status also provides a residence permit, though with less rights. F-status provides a refugee with temporary protection; this is in the first instance a one-year residence permit, which can be renewed twice. This comes with a gradual build up of rights and duties to employment and education. If after three years a return to the country of origin is not
possible, F-status can be converted to C-status. F-status was added to the asylum policy in 1994 (van Selm, 2000, p.77).
People who request for asylum are either transferred to a reception and investigation centre or they are assessed within 48 hours (before this was 24 hours) in one of three application centres. At an application centre, the IND (the Integration and Naturalisation Board) is responsible. When the IND decides that a refugee is granted access to the asylum procedure, the refugee moves to the investigation centre. Within three months the first extensive interview will take place. Based on the information gathered in the interview, the refugee will receive permission to live in the Netherlands while waiting for the outcome of the procedure. During this time, refugees stay in an Asylum Seeker Centre (ASC), which is controlled by the COA (Central Organ for the shelter of asylum seekers) (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.33; van Selm, 2000, p.78).
A negative decision by the IND can be appealed against. The initial decision can take up to several months, but the final decision can take years. During this procedure, asylum seekers have the right to legal advice and an interpreter. In the centres they have access to Dutch language courses and societal orientation courses, looking at potential integration. However, refugees have limited access to work, they can work maximum twelve weeks per year and only in certain areas (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.33; van Selm, 2000, p.78).
In 1998 a new law on acculturation for newcomers was implemented. This programme entails several tests and courses on the Dutch language and cultural knowledge, to prepare an asylum seeker for full societal participation. This meant that refugees were treated similar to all other migrants, leaving out a small amount of exceptions, and they have to meet all the integration conditions. This obligatory integration policy has let to some big changes. First of all, a stronger link between integration and receiving a residence permit originated. Secondly, stricter conditions for integration were implemented. And finally the responsibility for integration shifted towards the individual migrant (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.33; Klaver, 2015, p.106-107; van Selm, 2000, p.79; Schultz, 2000).
In 2001 the Netherlands implemented a new ‘Aliens law 2000’ that aims at a maximum stay in an ASC of six months. However, research shows that some individuals have lived there for up to four or five years, because the procedures can be extended. These Asylum Seeker Centres are usually situated in old buildings such as
former monasteries and schools. With this new law the possibility to appeal has abolished and can only be accomplished by a judge. Also agents do not need permission to enter a house, which results in easier evictions. Another consequence of the implementation of the aliens law 2000, was the general measure (generaal
pardon). This was for refugees who requested asylum for the first time before April
2001, before the new aliens law was implemented. They were disadvantages, because new cases had priority. This general measure granted asylum to a large group of refugees in 2007 (Kramer & Bala, 2004, p.33; van Selm, 2000, p.79; Schultz, 2000; Bunthof, 2007).
The link between integration and receiving a residence permit getting stronger was an important development in the Dutch integration policy. For refugees the integration conditions in the Netherlands are important. Most refugees first receive an asylum status so they can live in the Netherlands. This status can be withdrawn when the home country is marked safe again. Changing the asylum status in a permanent residence permit is possible, but a refugee has to meet the integration conditions. When they failed to do this, the temporary permit can be withdrawn. Bakker et al. (2013, in Klaver, 2015, p.107) shows that uncertainty on legal status can have negative effects on the orientation of the Netherlands and the socio-economic integration. Safety and security prove to be very important to be able to focus on a future in the Netherlands (Klaver, 2015, p.107).
The second major change was that the integration conditions got stricter. In the last few years, stricter conditions have developed concerning integration for migrant. This development is visible within the integration and naturalization process. For instance, the implementation of stricter language requirements is a result of this obligation for integration. Also a higher income requirement for family reunion is implemented. Since 1998 there is an obligatory integration for migrants, before that there was only an obligation for effort. However, since 2007 refugees should also be able to show their results. If these requirements are not fulfilled there will be consequences for receiving a residence permit and financial services (Klaver, 2015, p.108).
Recent studies (Besselen & van de Hart, 2005, in Klaver, 2015, p.108) show that these obligations can cause serious consequences for refugees. The research shows that at least half of the rejections for a residence permit are justified by ‘insufficient integration’. This uncertainty also causes a lack of feeling at home.
According to Besselen & van de Hart, stricter conditions have an obverse effect. Waiting for family reunion can also have negative effects on integration. In 2003, an integration test is implemented, which needs to be passed to be naturalized. In 2007 this test has been replaced by an integration exam. This exam is very difficult for refugees. From the asylum seekers who were granted asylum under the pardon ruling, nearly 40 per cent did not pass the exam after five years. Refugees are very eager to get naturalized because it has some benefits to have a Dutch passport, but also because it gives peace and certainty (Klaver, 2015, p.108-109).
The third change, caused by the implementation of the general integration law, is the shift of responsibility for integration towards the individual migrant. Stricter integration conditions have gone hand in hand with a shit in responsibility. Until 2013, integration courses were offered by the municipalities and the responsibility for integration was shared with two parties. Since 2013 the responsibility for passing the exam lies solely with the individual migrant. Refugees have to take initiative to learn the Dutch language within three years, which is necessary to participate in society. This means that migrants have to find an integration class on their own and pay for in on their own. Municipalities offer support by providing a social loaning system. For refugees this loan can be transformed into a donation, if the in the integration requirements are met before the deadline. Municipalities also offer refugees social support for finding their way in Dutch society. This support is however less extensive than before, due to cuts in the available budgets. This shift in responsibility can cause refugees to start too late with their integration, because they are not able to see the financial risks, or they’re not able to find a good integration class (Klaver, 2015, p.110).
In conclusion, the quantitative data, used by Klaver (2015), shows that socio-economic integration of refugees in the Netherlands is difficult. Many refugees are not able to acquire a place in the Dutch labour market. In other words, integration does not come naturally. The Dutch government asks refugees to participate, but it does not provide the handles achieve participation. However, policy is only one factor in the integration process and cannot get full responsibility for the bad position of refugees. What can be said is that the shift in policy has done more harm than good (Klaver, 2015, p.113).
3. Methodology
3.1 Research methodsThroughout this research a qualitative research design is used. There were several reasons to use this design. First of all this research is conducted within an inductive research process, which means that the data is found through interviews in which the focus lies on the experience of the respondents. Second of all, analysis of this data is done through multiple theories. And finally, this research is iterative, which means that each interview will give a better insight for the next.
The strategy of this research is a comparative study. There are two specific cohorts, namely refugees who came to the Netherlands approximately twenty years ago and refugees who came to the Netherlands approximately ten years ago. The behaviour of these two groups is analysed detailed and thoroughly to describe their perception of their influence on the integration process. The respondents are all living in Amsterdam, Amersfoort or Gouda and differ in age from 23 to 58 years old. The first cohort consists of four women and two men. The second cohort consists of two men and three women. This should provide a general view of reality. Data collection was accomplished by the use of in-depth interviews for several reasons. First of all, it is a qualitative research, which demands for a qualitative research method. Secondly, the perception and the experience of the respondent are important. Therefore, data collection through a focus group would not suffice. All respondents need to be given the opportunity to talk.
The interviews are semi-structured; this creates the possibility to focus on what’s important according to the respondent. A general list of questions is used as a reminder of the topics that need to be discussed. The focus lies on the answers of the respondent.
3.2 Operationalization
The operationalization schema can be found in the appendix. All indicators and sub indicators are used to form the interview questions. The operationalization schema shows the two most important concepts that follow from the research question, namely ‘integration-process’ and ‘agency’. The first concept ‘integration-process’ is
divided into four dimensions: the legal/political dimension, the socio-economic dimension, the cultural/religious dimension and the level of integration. The first three dimensions are derived from the theory of Penninx (2005). The legal/political dimension had two indicators, namely the level of access to the political system and rights and duties. A sub indicator of the level of access to the political system is the period of waiting and uncertainty. The socio-economic dimension has one indicator, namely social/economic rights, which consists of a number of sub indicators: labour, housing, government support and benefits. The cultural/religious dimension has two indicators: the right to organize and recognition of culture/religion.
The fourth dimension is the level of integration. This dimension and its indicators originate from the integration model of Ager & Strang (2004). The level of integration has four indicators: means and makers, social connections, facilitators and foundation. ‘Means and makers’ has four sub indicators, namely employment, housing, education and health. ‘Social connections’ has three sub indicators, namely social bridges, social bonds and social links. Social bridges are defined as relationships between refugees and non-refugees, social bonds are relationships with people with the same background and social links are relationships that can help access direct services. ‘Facilitators’ has two sub indicators, namely language and cultural knowledge, and safety and stability. ‘Foundation’ has one sub indicator, namely rights and citizenship.
The second concept in the operationalization scheme is agency. This concept has seven dimensions: capability, agency, functionings, freedom, resources, feelings and coping styles. The first five dimensions are derived from the capability approach of Sen (1979). Capability has one indicator, namely integration as a goal. Agency also has one indicator, namely behaviour to pursue a certain goal. Functionings has one indicator: valuable doings and beings. This indicator has a number of sub indicators: sleeping, eating and learning. Freedom has two indicators, namely freedom to choose a capability and freedom to achieve this capability. Both indicators have rules as a sub indicator. Resources has one indicator: a place to do functionings (sleeping, eating, learning). The sixth dimension is feelings and comes from the theory of Ghorashi (2005). It consists of four indicators: self image, loss of motivation, worthlessness and feeling welcome or unwelcome.
The final dimension of agency is coping styles and comes from the coping model of Kramer & Bala (2004). It has four indicators: the drifter pattern, the
hibernator pattern, the fighter pattern and the explorer pattern. The drifter has six sub indicators: passive and pessimistic, ineffective and chaotic, many losses and disruptions, desperate and worthless, limited social contacts and limited activities. The hibernator has four sub indicators: passive and accepting, hold on to the past, few contacts, avoid change. The fighter has four sub indicators: active and narrow minded, positive self image while in control, new contacts and activities to pursue goal, focus on one goal. The explorer has three sub indicators: active and flexible, positive self image in certain areas and meaningful contacts and activities.
3.3 Sub questions
From the theory, two cohorts of respondents can be extracted that correspond to the changes in the asylum policy. The first cohort arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995. The second cohort arrived in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2003. The asylum policy from the second cohort differs from the asylum in the second cohort in two different matters. First of all in 1998 the law on acculturation for newcomers was implemented, this law obligates all refugees to take language and culture tests. The second differentiation is the Aliens-law 2000, which was implemented in 2001 and aims at asylum procedures with a maximum of six months. From these two cohorts the following sub questions are derived.
1. Which forms of agency are used by refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1996?
2. What effect did the use of agency have on the level of integration for refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1996?
3. Which forms of agency are used by refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2006
4. What effect did the use of agency have on the level of integration for refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2006?
5. What differences in the use of agency can be identified between refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1996 and refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2006?
3.4 Respondents and recruitment
The research population consists of individuals that fled from their home country to the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995 or between 1998 and 2003. The former refugees are or have been in the integration process and had to deal with Dutch asylum policy. They have a residence permit and are naturalized as Dutch citizens. Since there are a lot of requirements, the respondents have been found through convenience sampling, meaning that they are recruited through social media or through snowball sampling.
3.5 Data analysis
During the in-depth interviews the answers of the respondent are written down in Dutch, because the interviews are conducted in Dutch. These notes are transcribed and simultaneously translated into an English monologue, directly after the interview took place. This should show all the information given by the respondent as complete as possible. Afterwards the transcribed interviews are coded with MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis programme. The coding is done with a coding schema, which can be found in the appendix. This coding schema is based on the indicators and sub indicators in the operationalization schema. The data analysis is done through grounded theory, meaning a continuously going back and fort between the data and the theory.
3.6 Ethical accountability
During the interviews, a very significant period of a refugee’s life is discussed, making it a highly personal subject. Therefore it is important that all respondents will remain anonymous. In addition, the respondent is able to end the interview at any moment.
4. Results
In this chapter the results of the in-depth interviews will be discussed. First an overview of the research process will be provided, where the recruitment of the respondents and the procedure of the in-depth interviews will be explained. After that another five paragraphs will talk about the results in the order of the sub-questions. The sub-questions are:
1. Which forms of agency are used by refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995?
2. What effect did the use of agency have on the level of integration for refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995?
3. Which forms of agency are used by refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2003?
4. What effect did the use of agency have on the level of integration for refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2006?
5. What differences in the use of agency can be identified between refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995 and refugees who arrived in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2003?
4.1 The research process
The recruitment of respondents has gone through multiple channels. Most respondents were found through personal acquaintances. Two respondents are found through a social media platform and two respondents are found through snowballing. The in-depth interviews took between one and two hours and took place on different locations. Half of the interviews took place at the house of the respondent, one respondent was interviewed through Skype and the rest of the interviews took place in quiet café’s.
Because the cohorts had specific requirements, namely the year of arrival in the Netherlands, it wasn’t easy to find enough respondents. The requirements were altered a little bit so the respondents would fit the cohort. There were no new concepts derived from the interviews. The most important concept that came forward from both cohorts was language.
The respondent group consists of ten persons in total. The first cohort consists of six people, from which four were female and two were male. Their ages differ from 26 to 63. The country of origin of five of these respondents is Bosnia. One of the respondents fled from Iran. The second cohort consists of four people from which one is male and three are female. Their ages differ from 23 to 57. Their countries of origin are Iran and Azerbaijan. The respondents will all be introduced below. To preserve their anonymity all respondents have been given pseudonyms.
4.1.1 Cohort 1
Maja is a 5year-old woman who fled Bosnia together with her husband and her 2-year-old son. They arrived in the Netherlands in 1992 and a few months after arrival her daughter was born.
Jelena is 28 and is currently living in Amsterdam. She fled former Yugoslavia with her family when she was six years old, in 1992.
Elmir is Maja’s son and he is currently 26 years old. He is an actor and lives in Amsterdam.
Mirjana is a 58-year-old woman who was born in Serbia. At the age of 22 she moved to Bosnia and in 1995 she arrived in the Netherlands. She travelled together with her husband and children.
Olja is 41 years old and fled Bosnia in 1993 with her mother, sister and former boyfriend. Her mother and sister travelled to Germany and she stayed in the Netherlands. A few years after she arrived she had two children.
Amin is a 63-year-old man who fled Iran in 1991. He arrived in the Netherlands with his former wife and their two children.
4.1.2 Cohort 2
Vugar is a man from Azerbaijan. He arrived in the Netherlands in 2003 and is now 27 years old. He fled his country of origin together with his parents and his brother.
Mehrva is 57. She fled Iran with her two daughters and arrived in the Netherlands in 1998. She has her own company and lives in Amersfoort.
Farah is Mehrva’s daughter. She is 26 years old and studied law school.
Layla is a 23-year-old woman who arrived in the Netherlands in 2000. She fled Azerbaijan with her mother, father and little sister. She waited seven years for a residence permit and eventually received it through the generaal pardon.
4.2 Forms of agency: cohort one
This paragraph will describe which forms of agency are used by refugees that arrived in the Netherlands between 1991 and 1995. The different forms of agency are categorized in four different coping styles: the drifter, the hibernator, the fighter and the explorer. These styles explain how a refugee copes with the situation of waiting and uncertainty, while in the integration process. Refugees often do not fit into one coping style but show behaviour form multiple coping styles. Another important factor of the use of agency is the feelings a refugee has that are caused by being an asylum seeker. These are feelings concerning their self-image and the feeling of being welcome or unwelcome in the Netherlands.
When looking at the first coping style, the drifter, it shows that three out of six respondents of the first cohort show drifter behaviour; these respondents are Maja, Mirjana and Amin. An asylum seeker with a drifter pattern is often passive and pessimistic. A drifter does not try to influence the situation but just lets it happen. What is notable is that these respondents are the three oldest of the group. Their drifter behaviour is caused by stress, the long period of waiting, limited activities and the many disruptions they suffered during this period of uncertainty. An example of passive and pessimistic behaviour is the description of Mirjana’s time in the Asylum Seeker Centre.
Mirjana: ‘There were almost never any activities in the ASC. In Roosendaal there was a party once in a while or we played table tennis in the evenings. In Dokkum there was nothing. There were less people from our country, from Bosnia. There were
only people from outside of Europe, from African countries. I just didn’t connect with them.’
Mirjana had to wait 18 months before she received her residence permit. All respondents from cohort one had to wait between 12 and 18 months to get an asylum status. Similar to other respondents, Mirjana also showed behaviour that fits the explorer pattern. She did a lot of volunteer-work and she joined a book club so she would meet other people with whom she could speak Dutch. Another example of the drifter coping style is a story from Amin. Being a refugee had a big impact on his self-image.
Amin: ‘we went to the cantina to eat. But this was not easy for me. I couldn’t eat, because I was too ashamed. I felt worthless. In Iran, we had a big house and I had a job, with which I provided our food and I could take care of my children. And here, I had to put up my plate and people would give me food. It felt like I was begging for food. I just couldn’t do it. I brought my children to the cantina and sometimes I took one bite. I lost 11 kilograms in three months. That wasn’t good. On top of that, I was walking and because I lost so much weight, my wedding ring fell of my finger. It fell on the ground and I stepped on it, and it was damaged.’
Amin, who appeared to be anything but passive in the rest of his story, showed drifter behavior at the beginning of his integration process. However, later on he switched coping styles and became an explorer. Explorers are active and flexible. All six respondents in cohort one show behaviour that fits the explorer coping style. The explorer is an active and flexible person. He or she has a positive self-image in certain areas and creates meaningful new contacts and activities.
What stands out in this cohort is that the focus is on getting a job. These jobs could be on voluntary basis or paid. Olja is a good example of an explorer; she shows all the different indicators of the explorer pattern. First of all she started working as a volunteer and was very flexible with switching jobs and locations. Secondly, she makes many new contacts, which according to her helps with the integrating process. She invited neighbors over, and friends of her children and she helped with school activities at the elementary school of her children. Finally she has a positive self-image in certain areas.
Olja: ‘When my kids went to school I would help as much as possible with school trips or parties. I invited a lot of children over to come and play at our house. I’m also still in contact with people from my old job. All these things really helped me integrate. And of course the volunteer work during my first year in the Netherlands. I would also invite neighbors over.’
The explorer pattern and the drifter pattern are the two extremes of the four coping styles. The other two coping styles are less extreme, but are also less seen within this cohort. The fighter pattern is, similar to the explorer pattern, marked by being active. However, instead of the explorer’s flexibility, the fighter is narrow-minded and focussed on one goal. This goal is often integration. Five out of six respondents showed behaviour that fits this coping style, however it was only used ones or twice by these respondents.
Jelena: ‘What I did to feel normal was learning Dutch as fast as possible; I tried to hide my last name as much as possible and I tried to take over Dutch habits. I wasn’t ashamed of my home situation, but I would rather hide it than show it to people. Just to make it easier and don’t give people any reason to think I am different.’
The last coping style is the hibernator pattern. This pattern is characterized by passivity. While this is similar to the drifter pattern, the hibernator also shows acceptance, in contrast to the pessimistic drifter. Someone who fits the hibernator pattern holds on to the past and avoids change. He or she will have few contacts. Four out of six respondents showed behavior that fits this coping style, however the coping style was only used ones or twice per respondent.
Maja: ‘We just accepted the situation […] I thought that was scary. I did not want to complain because I was happy with all the help we could get,’
Now the use of the four coping styles is explained, the actions that can be identified as agency will be discussed. All six respondents showed behaviour that can be identified as agency. Most of this behaviour can be marked at matching the fighter or the explorer coping style and are focused on integrating and learning the Dutch language.
Examples are: taking extra Dutch classes, bringing a dictionary to work or the doctor and asking help from friends or colleagues. The effect of this behaviour will be discussed in the next paragraph.
4.3 The effect of agency on the integration process: cohort one
To measure the effect of agency on the integration process ‘the level of integration-model’ of Ager & Strang (2004) will be used. The model consists of four different categories of indicators, namely means and makers, social connections, facilitators and foundation, which will all be discussed. Finally the period of waiting and uncertainty will be discussed. The agency that is used to influence these indicators will be explained by some examples.
The first category is means and makers. This category includes four indicators that show the level of integration: housing, employment, education and health. The first indicator, housing, started for all respondents in an asylum seeker centre. After that, three out of six respondents lived in a ROA (currently COA) house. These three all state that living in a normal house was contributory to their integration process. Simple things like having neighbours and a general practitioner made them feel normal and integrated. Amin received the house through the central shelter project (centrale opvang). He said that he could choose between four cities and that he chose Purmerend, because he already knew some people who lived there. These people eventually played a very big role in his integration process by helping him with his education and making new contacts and activities. Mirjana knew people from Bosnia who were already living in Gouda, these people requested if Mirjana and her family could also come and live in Gouda, through their contact at the municipality.
With a new house comes a new job. Two out of six respondents found work
through government projects. Olja started working through a Melkert-Job3 and Amin
started working through a project called ervaringspraktijk (experience practice). The other respondents found work themselves, through employment agencies or acquaintances. Two respondents, Olja and Mirjana, state that having a job really contributed to their integration process and learning the language.
3 Melkert-‐jobs are created and subsidized by the government, to increase the
