Page 140 - valuing-diversity-guidance-for-labour-market-integration-of-migrants

Valuing diversity: guidance for labour market integration of migrants

These are frequently addressed through guidance methodologies such as
information, advice, counselling and career training. Some of these programmes
have more advanced scope for labour market integration, such as the
Danish/Swedish step model, which provides a stepwise introduction into the
labour market through a sequence of language training, on-the-job training, and
possibly subsidised employment. Such initiatives have greater impact when
complemented by further CMS development and initial career planning assisted
by formative assessment methodologies, such as portfolios.
Programmes for language and culture learning have irregular impact due to
non-uniform coverage of the migrant groups. Such programmes are, at present,
common across Europe and targeted towards the needs of third-country
immigrants. While a very positive step towards integration, these programmes
tend not reach immigrants originating from within the Schengen area, which are
frequently not enrolled in or informed about them. Similar to third-country
immigrants, Schengen-area migrants may also face severe integration problems
and could benefit from the development of basic skills and knowledge about the
host culture and systems.
Both economic immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers (depending on the
institutional framework of each country) can be of undefined or illegal status for
prolonged periods in which they stay in the receiving country but with very limited
(or no) access to working and learning, including basic integration programmes
(see the Estonian or the Latvian case study). Guidance can play a role in
directing other migrant groups towards these initiatives if integration procedures
are modernised so to address these grey areas.
Integration practices often do not distinguish between/identify different
cultural groups and address all immigrants. The typology of intervention might not
even acknowledge the existence of an immigrant group, but insert migrant
individuals in the general ‘at risk’ category. While this is not necessarily a major
limitation, it tends to make the quality of the practice depend entirely on the
experience and skill of the practitioner in dealing with other cultures: not all
projects include practitioners with multicultural training or previous experience
with migrants.
It might also be more difficult to address problems that relate to specific
community contexts, since they have not been mapped ahead and tailored-made
measures have not been designed. Further, this way of proceeding might make
identification of the client groups with more severe needs more difficult and less
visible from a political standpoint.
In several reported cases, however, we found targeted approaches with a
clear concern for typologies of problems and integration difficulties inherent to

130