Annual Monitoring Report on Integration 2011

Authors: Frances McGinnity, Emma Quinn, Gillian Kingston and Philip O’Connell Economic and Social Research Institute The฀Integration฀Centre, 18฀Dame฀Street, Dublin฀2 Tel฀+฀353฀1฀6453070 Fax฀+฀353฀1฀6770061 ฀ [email protected] www.integrationcentre.ie The฀Integration฀Centre฀is฀a฀company฀limited฀by฀guarantee,฀not฀having฀a฀share฀capital.฀฀Company฀Registration฀No.฀473318;฀Charitable฀Status฀No:฀CHY฀18944 Annual Monitoring Report on Integration 2011 The cover is a photo taken from the abandoned whaling station of Grytviken in South Georgia. The local graveyard hosts one of the world’s leading polar explorers. Ernest Shackleton was born in Athy in 1874 to an Anglo Irish father and an Irish mother. They emigrated to England when he was eleven and his adventures in the South Pole made him one of the most famous men of the day. In 1909 he and a small team got within 112 miles of the South Pole. He was knighted by King Edward VII on his safe return. He died in 1922 in South Georgia, the destination of his most incredible voyage when in 1916 he and five colleagues sailed from Elephant Island across almost 1,000 miles of the roughest seas in the world, ensuring that the crew of his expedition ship, The Endurance, stranded in Antarctica were saved. Annual Monitoring Report on Integration 2011 Frances McGinnity, Emma Quinn, Gillian Kingston and Philip O’Connell Economic and Social Research Institute Frances McGinnity is a Senior Research Officer, Emma Quinn is National Programme Co-ordinator, EMN Ireland, Gillian Kingston is a Research Assistant and Philip O’Connell is a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and while the report was reviewed in both organisations, the views do not necessarily represent those of either The Integration Centre or the Economic and Social Research Institute. May 2012 © Economic and Social Research Institute ISBN: 978-0-7070-0332-0 Preface Last May we launched the first ever Integration Monitor in Ireland. The new Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore TD joined us in the Oak Room of the Mansion House to give the key note speech to a packed audience of diplomats, politicians, NGOs, journalists and most encouragingly, many ordinary immigrants. Over the past twelve months much has changed but much has remained the same. We at The Integration Centre are focused in trying to promote the need for the Government to prioritise policy changes that ensure meaningful real integration takes place. Over the past year in countries such as Norway and France extremists have resorted to barbaric acts of violence to express their views on immigration. These actions reflect a failure of integration. One of the aims of this Monitor is to prevent acts of hatred based on ignorance by providing an accurate account of Irish society. Judging from some of the public debates since the first Monitor we have some way to go in addressing unfounded negative bias. A number of politicans and public figures have in the past year come out with either outright racist comments or sensationalist untruths regarding immigrants in Ireland. This trend is worrying and should be a cause of concern to all interested in promoting diversity, equality and tolerance. New themes in this Monitor include the sporting participation of immigrants and the experience of immigrant children in Irish schools. The latter includes information on a spectrum of students’ integration; academic achievement, attitudes to school, engagement, support for learning at home and peer relationships of children. We hope that this report is seen as the definitive snapshot of the progress in the integration of migrants in Ireland. We have selected key findings below that we feel should be highlighted: 1) Immigrant children are highly motivated students, have a more positive attitude to school than Irish peers, with parents having very high educational aspirations for them 2) Pupils from non-English speaking backgrounds tend to perform worse in school 3) Lack of functional literacy among non-English speaking mothers makes them less likely to provide help with homework As highlighted in last year’s Monitor, the educational performance of migrant children revealed that immigrant children who speak English at home perform similarly to their Irish peers. However, those from a non-English speaking background fall behind their classmates. This has important implications for the progression of those children in the education system as well as for teaching methods in the classroom. The under-performance of non-English speakers highlights the importance of language support. There is still no harmonised assessment of English skills, an important pre-condition for measuring those in need of language support Immersion courses are run successfully in Canada for secondary students. Some Irish schools have also put in place these courses with success. This approach produces a low cost, resource efficient system. We argued in the Roadmap to Integration that summer courses and afterschool programmes can be delivered in a cost effective way by bringing children together from different schools and utilising trainee and unemployed teachers through a Work Placement Programme. Whatever the best solutions are, the Government must realise that adequate support must be provided for children to reach their full potential. 4) Since 2008 total employment among non- Irish nationals fell by 40%.Total employment among Irish nationals fell by 10% in the same period. 5) 45% of non-Irish nationals hold a third level qualification vs. 32% of Irish nationals Immigrant jobseekers make up a considerable share of the unemployed at 15%. The Government has made efforts in formulating new responses to the unemployment crisis and introduced new training courses and the JobBridge programme. However, we believe that the current work placement programmes are ill-suited for the specific needs of highly skilled people, particularly immigrant professionals. As stated in our Roadmap to Integration, we also believe that professional bodies should work in collaboration with the National Qualification Authority of Ireland in developing protocols for the purpose of accelerating the professional recognition process combined with the provision of mentoring positions for professionals to get work experience. In addition, we hope that the establishment of SOLAS will allow for better collaboration between employment support and language provision. This is vital for the assessment of i language skills and referral for classes. Census 2011 showed that 18% of the working-age population among non-English speakers reported that they could not speak English well or at all. In response to that need, general English classes and vocational English courses are equally important steps in a pathway to employment. Again, some of those can be provided in a creative way such as multimedia and online programmes. With limited investment, the employability of this otherwise skilled group can be greatly enhanced. An emphasis should be given to understanding why social protection does not provide adequate help for this group and how measures (training, work placements and better childcare arrangements) could enhance their participation in the labour market. We hope that the announcement of the Migrant Consultative Forum advising the Department of Social Protection will be quickly followed by action. 6) Non-Irish nationals have a much lower selfemployment rate Participation in sport enhances integration in local communities and can also have a positive effect on civic and political participation. Therefore, sporting organisations need to increase their efforts in reaching out to immigrant communities. The GAA and FAI have taken important steps by appointing intercultural officers and developing a strategic approach towards the inclusion of minority ethnic communities. However, figures indicate that there is still a lot of work to be done, especially amongst other sporting bodies. The recession has affected business opportunities and SMEs have been hit hard. Immigrant businesses to date have tended to be small. However, recession also creates new opportunities and SMEs will play a crucial role in Ireland’s economic recovery. It has been shown that immigrants have a low awareness of enterprise support services. A wise and low cost investment would be to target aspiring migrant entrepreneurs that have creative business ideas. It makes economic sense to utilise social capital, overseas networks and the linguistic knowledge of immigrants with a view to boosting Ireland’s international trade. The Integration Centre welcomes the introduction of two new schemes that offer a fresh impetus in realising the potential of immigrants. The newly announced Start-up Entrepreneur Programme sets out more realistic and achievable conditions than the old Business Permission Scheme. However, we believe that the new regime should not only target immigrants coming in but those who already live here. 7) Consistent poverty is higher among non-EU nationals than Irish nationals, and this has risen since the 2010 Integration Monitor Consistent poverty is defined as a combination of having a low income and lacking two basic items such as a pair of shoes or being able to keep the home warm. It is of concern that non-EU nationals are far more likely to live in poverty than Irish or EU nationals. There are a number of factors that increase the risk of poverty among this group such as a low labour market participation rate with many on home duties, and the greater proportion of students in the immigrant population. These factors alone don't explain why poverty is so high among non-EU nationals. Moreover, this group does not include asylum seekers who live on €19.10 per week. There is an urgent need to examine more closely the reasons why a considerable number of non-EU nationals suffer from poverty. ii 8) Participation in sport is significantly lower among non-EU nationals Local sports clubs along with integration forums can play an essential role in increasing sporting participation among immigrant groups and translate plans into actions. The Integration Centre continues to work with the GAA and FAI, as well as local integration forums, with a view to building links between local immigrant groups and sport organisations and thus enhancing the integration process. 9) Almost 25,000 immigrants received citizenship between 2005-2010 10)Twice as many citizenship applications were processed in 2011 than in 2010. An increase from 8,000 to 16,000 11) An estimated 7% of non-EEA adult migrants received long term residency from 2005 to 2010: 11,377 people New citizens can vote, run in general elections, and bring diversity to the notion of Irishness having arrived from 110 different countries. The Integration Centre welcomes the introduction of new measures to accelerate application processing times. The introduction of a citizenship ceremony represents another positive shift in moving away from seeing naturalisation as a purely administrative decision to celebrating the arrival of new citizens. We are however concerned that some proposed changes will restrict access to the long-term residency status and, to some extent, citizenship. The introduction of a citizenship test, without any accompanying orientation course, may constitute a barrier to attaining citizenship. A statutory long-term residency status is badly overdue but it would be regrettable if the status depended upon meeting vague conditions and continued to be restricted to employment permit holders. In addition, we believe that a civic orientation course, delivered by local authorities and NGOs, could both assist with the integration of more isolated immigrant groups, and be used as a preparatory course for the civic part of the citizenship test. 12) Four non-Irish nationals got elected in local elections in 2009, giving a share of less than 0.2% of elected representatives in local authorities. Altogether 37 non-Irish nationals stood for election In Ireland every resident is entitled to vote and stand for local elections, thereby having one of the most inclusive voting rights in Europe. Yet there are very few candidates standing in elections. Research indicates that some immigrants have shown interest in politics especially among the African and Polish communities. Political parties have made some effort in recruiting immigrants but their efforts were confined to the run up to the last local election and mainly targeting the Polish community. Parties should examine their outreach structures and practices. A practical step could be to have an immigrant representative at executive level. Furthermore, existing voter education campaigns should be reviewed and relaunched while targeted efforts, possibly attached to the citizenship ceremony, could be made in respect of new citizens of Ireland. Over a long period the introduction of a partial electoral 'list system' would benefit both new communities and other under-represented groups in political life. Integration is a process. Contrary to popular belief it does not happen organically with the passing of time. Structures need to be put in place by government which ensure the social cohesion and future success of Irish society. This report provides a mapping of the current situation in Ireland and pinpoints specific areas of concern in need of targeted action. Killian Forde CEO iii Authors’ Acknowledgements This Monitor benefited from the comments and assistance of a number of people, and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them. Officials from the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration and the Department of Education provided information and very useful comments on the draft report. The Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service provided the data on citizenship and long-term residence permits, and gave observations on the final draft. Officials from the Central Statistics Office also provided useful comments on the final draft. Catherine Cosgrave and Fidele Mutwarasibo from the Immigrant Council of Ireland and the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland provided useful information. The special theme on Immigrant Children in Irish Schools is based on the Researcher Micro File (RMF) iv from the Child Cohort (at 9 years) of Growing Up in Ireland, made available through the CSO and DCYA. Growing Up in Ireland data have been funded by the Government of Ireland through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs; have been collected under the Statistics Act, 1993, of the Central Statistics Office. The project has been designed and implemented by the joint ESRI-TCD Growing Up in Ireland Study Team. © Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The authors would like to thank the study team for their support, in particular James Williams for his encouragement. Other ESRI colleagues gave assistance and comments on their specific areas of expertise, which was most helpful, in particular Merike Darmody, Corona Joyce and Bertrand Maitre, also Anne Nolan, David Duffy and Emer Smyth. The report was also improved following the constructive comments of an ESRI reviewer. 3.3 Table of Contents Summary of Findings on Educational Attainment 27 Table of Contents v List of Tables vi Chapter 4 Social Inclusion and Integration 31 List of Figures vi 4.1.1 Household Income 31 Glossary: Abbreviations and Irish Terms vii 4.1.2 Poverty Rates 33 Executive Summary viii 4.2 Health Status 34 Introduction viii 4.3 Home Ownership 35 Integration Monitor: Key Findings viii 4.4 Employment Indicators viii Active and Social Participation in Sport: Evidence from the Irish Sports Monitor 37 Summary of Inclusion Indicators 40 4.5 Education Indicators ix Social Inclusion Indicators ix Active Citizenship Indicators x Chapter 5 Active Citizenship 43 Special Focus on Immigrant Children in Irish Schools x 5.1 Citizenship 43 Policy Issues xi 5.2 Long-Term Residence 46 5.3 Voting and Elected Representatives 47 5.4 Summary of Findings on Active Citizenship 48 Chapter 1 Introduction, Policy and Context 1 1.1 The Challenges of Measuring Integration 1 1.1.1 Defining Integration 1 1.1.2 The Integration Monitor 1 1.1.3 Challenges of Monitoring Outcomes Among Immigrants 3 1.2 1.3. 1.4. Overview of Main Trends in Migration in Ireland 4 Overview of Irish Migration Policy and Legislation 7 Integration Policy 10 1.4.1 EU Integration Policy: Update 10 1.4.2 Irish Integration Policy: Update 11 Chapter 2 Employment and Integration 2.1 2.2 Employment, Unemployment and Activity Rates Chapter 6 Thematic Focus: Immigrant Children in Irish Schools 49 6.1 Introduction 49 6.2 Defining the Children of Immigrants in the Growing Up in Ireland Study 49 Academic Performance in Reading and Mathematics 51 6.4 Attitudes to School and Engagement 54 6.5 Support for Learning at Home (Mothers’ Reports) 56 6.6 Children’s Peer Relationships 59 6.7 Summary of Findings on the Children of Immigrants in Irish Schools 61 6.3 15 15 Chapter 7 Issues for Policy and Data Collection 63 Self-Employment, Occupation and Sector 18 7.1 Policy Issues 63 Summary of Employment Indicators 21 7.2 Issues for Future Data Collection 63 23 Bibliography 23 Appendix 1 Common Basic Principles For Immigrant Integration Policy In The European Union 69 3.1.1 Highest Educational Attainment 23 Appendix 2 Definition of Indicators 70 3.1.2 Early School Leavers Among Adult Immigrants 25 Appendix 3 Valid Permits by Reason 72 3.2 25 Appendix 4 Key Datasets Utilised for This Research Report 73 2.3 Chapter 3 Education and Integration 3.1 Educational Outcomes for Adults in Ireland Immigrant Children in Irish Schools 65 v List of Tables Table A1 Employment, Working Age (2011) viii Table A2 Education (2011) ix Table A3 Social Inclusion (2009) ix Table A4 Active Citizenship (end 2010) x Key Indicators at a Glance xiii Table 1.1 Outline of Core Indicators 3 Table 1.2 Overview of Recent Policy/ Legislative Developments 8 Table 1.3 Beneficiaries for Funding from the Office of Promotion for Migrant Integration 2008-2011 Table 2.1 Key Employment Indicators Broken Down by National Groups Table 2.2 Key Employment Indicators by Age Group, Q1, 2011 12 16 17 Table 2.3 Key Employment Indicators by Gender, Q1, 2011 18 Table 2.4 Self-Employment Rate by Nationality 18 Table 2.5 Employment by Sector, Q1 2011 19 Table 2.6 Employment by Occupation, Q4, 2010 20 Table 3.1 Highest Educational Attainment by Nationality (15-64) 23 Table 3.2 Share of Early School Leavers (Age 20-24) by Nationality 25 Table 3.3 Mean Reading and Mathematics Scores in PISA 2009 by Immigrant/ Language Status, 15-year-olds (Ireland) Table 4.1 Household Income and Household Equivalised Income, 2009 26 32 6 Figure 1.5 Breakdown of GNIB (Police) Registrations, Year End 2008-2010 (Non-EEA Nationals) 7 Figure 2.1 Key Employment Indicators by Irish and Non-Irish 2010 and 2011 15 Figure 2.2 Unemployment Rate by Nationality Group 17 Figure 2.3 Self-Employment Rate by Nationality 19 Figure 3.1 Share of 25-34 year-olds with Tertiary Education 24 Figure 4.1 Proportion Who Played Sport in the Past Seven Days, Irish Sports Monitor 37 Figure 4.2 Social Participation in Sport, Irish Sports Monitor 38 Figure 4.3 Volunteering for Sport by Nationality, Irish Sports Monitor 39 Figure 4.4 Sports Club Membership by Nationality, Irish Sports Monitor 39 Figure 4.5 Attendance at a Sports Event by Nationality, Irish Sports Monitor 40 Figure 6.1 Place of Birth of Immigrant Mothers (weighted) 50 Figure 6.2 Immigrants by Language Spoken at Home 50 Figure 6.3 Proportion in Lowest Quintiles in Reading by Immigrant Language Group and Country Grouping 51 Figure 6.4 Proportion in Lowest Quintiles in Mathematics by Immigrant Language Group and Country Grouping. 52 Figure 6.7 Children Reporting that they ‘Always’ like School by Country Groups 55 Figure 6.8 Proportion Absent for 7 Days or More Since School Year Began by Country Grouping (Teacher Report) 55 70 Figure 6.9 Proportion Not Completing Homework, ‘Occasionally’ or ‘Regularly’ by Country Grouping (Teacher Report) 56 72 Figure 6.10 Mothers Lacking Functional Literacy by Immigrant Language Group 57 73 Figure 6.11 Mothers Lacking Functional Numeracy by Immigrant Language Group 57 75 Figure 6.12 Provides Help with Homework by Immigrant Language Group 58 Figure 6.13 Aspirations: Mother’s Expectations of Child’s Education 58 Figure 6.14 Number of Close Friends Child Has (Mother’s Report) 59 Figure 6.15 Prevalence of Bullying (Victimisation), Child Reports 60 Table 4.4 Home Ownership by Households, 2009 36 Table 5.1 Non-EEA Nationals 16 and Over who Acquired Citizenship During 2010 by Sex 44 Table 5.2 Non-EEA Nationals 16 and Over who Acquired Citizenship During 2010 by Age Group 44 Table 5.3 Non-EEA Nationals 16 and Over who Acquired Citizenship During 2010 by Nationality 44 Table A2.1 Definition of Indicators Table A3.1 All Valid Permits by Reason on 31 December of Each Year, Annual Data List of Figures vi Figure 1.4 Nationality Breakdown of Emigration Flows 2006–2011 54 35 Figure 1.2 Immigration, Emigration and Net 5 Figure 6.6 Child’s Attitudes to School (Percentage Saying ‘Always’) by Irish/Immigrant Table 4.3 Self-Assessed Health Status, 2009 Figure 1.1 Share of Foreign-Born Population in Selected EU Countries, 2009 Figure 1.3 Nationality Breakdown of Immigration Flows 2000-2011 53 33 Table A4.3 Non-Irish Nationals in EU-SILC 2009 and QNHS Q2, 2009 5 Figure 6.5 Proportions in Highest Quintiles in Reading and Mathematics by Language Group Table 4.2 ‘At Risk of Poverty’, Deprivation and Consistent Poverty Rates, 2009 Table A4.1 Age by Nationality, QNHS Q1, 2011 Migration 1987-2011 (Thousands) 4 Glossary: Abbreviations and Irish Terms CBP Common Basic Principle for Immigrant Integration IBC/05 Irish Born Child Scheme 2005 CSO Central Statistics Office IC The Integration Centre Dáil Parliament, Lower House INIS Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service DG Directorate General EEA European Economic Area MIPEX Migrant Integration Policy Index EMN European Migration Network NAPS National Anti-Poverty Strategy ESRI Economic and Social Research Institute NERA National Employment Rights Authority EU10 EU Member States that acceded in 2004: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia NIHS National Intercultural Health Strategy NCPP National Centre for Partnership and Performance NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPAR National Plan Against Racism and Interculturalism NQAI National Qualifications Authority of Ireland OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Oireachtas Parliament, both houses OPMI Office of the Promotion of Migrant Integration ORAC Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment EPIC Programme Employment for People from Immigrant Communities PPSN Personal Public Service Numbers ERF European Refugee Fund QNHS EU-SILC EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions Quarterly National Household Survey RAT Refugee Appeals Tribunal FIS Family Income Supplement RIA FLAC Free Legal Advice Centres Reception and Integration Agency Gardaí Police Seanad Éireann Parliament, Higher House GNIB Garda National Immigration Bureau UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees HRC Habitual Residency Condition VEC HSE Health Service Executive Vocational Education Committee EU12 EU13 EIF EU Member States that acceded in 2004 and 2007: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria “Old” EU15 Member States excluding Ireland and UK: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals vii Executive Summary Introduction Integration Monitor: Key Findings This is the second in a series of Annual Integration Monitors which seek to measure migrant integration in four life domains – employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship. The core indicators closely follow those proposed in the Zaragoza Declaration. The aim is to have indicators that are comparable across EU Member States, based on existing data and focused on outcomes. The indicators are derived from the latest available large-scale survey data in Ireland that allow us to compare outcomes for Irish and migrant populations in each domain. This report also contains a special theme: immigrant children in Irish schools, which is based on original analysis of data from the Growing Up in Ireland study. Employment Indicators The focus on nationally representative indicators means we can generate valid, reliable indicators that allow monitoring of change over time. There are some downsides to this approach. First, as the report is largely based on statistical indicators, it does not measure how people experience integration or the lack of it. Second, for many national groups indicators are combined, so variation within groups is hidden, for example between nationals of non-EU countries. Third, relying on existing data sources not specifically intended to measure migrants poses challenges to represent adequately these groups. Finally, some of the differences between Irish and non-Irish groups in these indicators are a result of differences between the groups in terms of age, gender, educational background, experience, etc. Accounting for this by using multivariate statistical models is beyond the scope of this Monitor, though the possible role of these factors is generally noted in the text. We also note where further research might be used to enhance our understanding of particular issues. Source: QNHS, 2011 Quarter 1 for Employment Indicators Throughout the report we refer to different groups of EU countries. EU13 refers to the ‘Old’ Member States, prior to enlargement in 2004, excluding Britain and Ireland.1 EU12 refers to the ten new Member States that joined the EU in 2004, plus Bulgaria and Romania.2 The Chapter on employment presents core labour market indicators for the working age population in early 2011: employment, unemployment and activity rates (see Table A1). Table A1 Employment, Working Age (2011) Irish Non-Irish Employment Rate 58.9% 59.0% Unemployment Rate 13.8% 18.2% Activity Rate 68.3% 72.1% Employment rates were similar among Irish and nonIrish nationals, though immigrants have higher labour market activity rates than the Irish population, due to their smaller share of inactive groups such as students, retired people or people with home duties. Ireland is currently in the depths of a deep and prolonged recession. Overall, immigrants have been harder hit by the recession than Irish nationals. EU12 nationals have the highest rate of unemployment, followed closely by UK nationals, and then non-EU nationals. Among non-Irish nationals, the unemployment rate is lowest among EU13 nationals (EU15 excluding Ireland and the UK). All nationality groups have experienced a rise in unemployment since 2010. While for Irish nationals the unemployment rate is much higher among young people, for non-Irish nationals no such age gradient is found. For both Irish and non-Irish groups the unemployment rate is considerably higher for men than for women. This is likely to be the result of job losses in sectors characterised by male employment. 1 EU13: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden. 2 EU12: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. viii Education Indicators The first part of this Chapter presents educational qualifications among adult immigrants, most of which are acquired outside Ireland (Table A2). Table A2 Education (2011) Irish Non-Irish Share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment 47% 49% Share of early leavers from education (20-24) 9.4% 10.4% Mean achievement scores for 15-year-olds in English reading (2009) 502 500 (English speakers) 443 (Non-native English speakers) Source: QNHS Quarter 1, 2011, except achievement scores, which are based on PISA data 2009. Comparing the whole population, non-Irish nationals have higher qualifications than Irish nationals, however this is partly due to the different age profile of the Irish and non-Irish groups. If we compare the proportion with tertiary education among 25-34 year-olds in 2011, a very similar proportion of Irish and non-Irish nationals have third-level education, and a similar proportion of young adult (20-24 years olds) Irish and non-Irish nationals have left school before finishing second-level education (see Table A2). The second part of the Chapter presents academic achievement scores of 15-year-olds in 2009. The results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study show that while immigrant children from English speaking backgrounds have scores as high as their Irish peers, those from non-English speaking backgrounds have lower achievement scores in reading than their Irish peers. Social Inclusion Indicators Income, poverty, home ownership and health were the core indicators of social inclusion (see Table A3). After adjusting for household needs (number of children and adults in the household), non-Irish incomes are slightly lower, on average, than those of Irish nationals. Overall, the ‘at risk of poverty’ rate and the consistent poverty rate, which takes into account the experience of deprivation as well as income poverty, do not differ significantly between Irish and non-Irish nationals overall.3 However, consistent poverty is higher among non-EU nationals than Irish nationals, and this gap has increased since 2010. Non-Irish nationals have better health outcomes, on average. This can be partly explained by their age profile, as the population is younger. Whilst the UK Table A3 Social Inclusion (2009) Irish Non-Irish Median annual net income (needs adjusted) €20,115 €19,630 ‘At risk of poverty’ rate 14.2% 13.0% Consistent poverty rate 5.4% 6.5% Share of population (16+) perceiving their health as good or very good 82.5% 91.6% Proportion of households that are property owners 78.6% 26.5% Source: EU-SILC, 2009. 3 The ‘at risk of poverty’ rate, which refers to the percentage of a group falling below 60 per cent of median equalised income, is the official poverty threshold used by the Central Statistics Office and agreed at EU level. Consistent poverty combines ‘at risk of poverty’ with enforced deprivation of a range of items. ix group do not differ from Irish nationals, all other groups report better health outcomes. Rates of home ownership are much lower among nonIrish than Irish nationals. The share of UK nationals who own their homes is closer to that of Irish nationals. This year we also considered sports participation. Sports participation, be it active participation in sport or social participation (measured as volunteering, attendance and club membership), is very similar for Irish and British nationals. However, both active participation and particularly social participation in sport is considerably lower for non-Irish nationals (that is from other EU countries and the ‘Rest of the World’). Active Citizenship Indicators Three indicators were proposed at the Zaragoza conference to assess active citizenship. These are: the share of immigrants who have acquired citizenship; the share of immigrants holding permanent or long-term residence permits; and the share of immigrants among elected representatives (Table A4). Constructing these indicators has been challenging in an Irish context because of data constraints, and the results should be seen as tentative. The first two relate to non-EEA immigrants only. Table A4 Active Citizenship (end 2010) Share of non-EEA immigrants aged 16+ that have acquired citizenship (best estimate) 16% Share of non-EEA immigrants aged 16+ holding long-term residence permits (best estimate) 7% Share of immigrants among elected local representatives 0.2% Source: Statistics from the Department of Justice and Equality for Active Citizenship, except for elected representatives estimate, which uses data supplied by the Immigrant Council of Ireland. The share of non-EEA adult immigrants who were naturalised between 2005-2010 was 16 per cent of the estimated total number of non-EEA adult immigrants resident at end 2010. This represents an increase of 3 percentage points compared to the figure in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor (13 per cent), which represents the share of non-EEA immigrants who naturalised between 2005-2009 expressed as a proportion of the total resident non-EEA migrants in x 2009. The estimate assumes that those naturalised in this period did not leave the State, and also excludes naturalisations pre-2005 as no data are available. Ireland does not have a statutory long-term residence status, although one is to be provided for in the forthcoming Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Under the current administrative scheme, the share of non-EEA nationals holding long-term residence permits at year end 2009 is estimated to be 7 per cent. The equivalent estimate in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor was 5 per cent. Ireland has a more inclusive approach to the political participation of immigrants than many other EU States. Non-Irish nationals may vote and stand in local elections, though only UK and Irish nationals may vote in general elections, and Irish citizenship is required to stand. Available data for the latest local elections (June 2009) show that four immigrants were elected, giving a share of less than 0.2 per cent of elected local representatives. Special Focus on Immigrant Children in Irish Schools The special theme in this Monitor is immigrant children in Irish schools. This Chapter uses a large sample of nine year-olds from the Growing Up in Ireland study to compare the educational experience of Irish children with the children of immigrants. We look at academic achievement, attitudes to school, engagement, support for learning at home and peer relationships. When analysing English reading scores we find an achievement gap between immigrants who do not speak English at home (measured as the proportion of the group in the lowest quintile in reading) and Irish children. The same is not true for immigrants who do speak English at home. In Mathematics results there is no difference between the likelihood of Irish and immigrant children being in the lowest quintile. Immigrant children are, on average, highly motivated students with more positive attitudes to school than their Irish peers, and their parents have very high educational aspirations for them. According to teachers, immigrant children are, on average, more likely to regularly or occasionally not complete homework. However, there is no marked difference in absenteeism between immigrant children and Irish children. Lack of functional literacy among mothers who do not speak English at home, which is much higher than for other mothers, is likely to hinder their ability to support their children’s learning. These mothers (and their spouses) are also less likely to provide help with homework than Irish parents. integration identified in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, the degree of discretion in decisions on citizenship continues to have negative implications for the integration of non-EEA immigrants. Considering social integration, the proportion of Irish children and immigrant children who report being picked on or bullied in the past year does not differ significantly. • Continued delays in enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 mean that Ireland remains without a statutory Long-Term Residence permission, and confusion remains about the conditions and benefits attached to long-term residence under the existing administrative scheme. To determine the extent to which these differences are linked to factors such as how long the child has been in Ireland, their families’ financial resources/socioeconomic status and the educational resources of the mother would require further detailed analysis. The Growing Up in Ireland data are excellently suited to such research. This study is currently re-interviewing the children at aged 13. These data will give an excellent opportunity to monitor individual outcomes over time, in order to assess the integration of immigrant children in schools. • The Minister for Justice and Equality has recently signalled that an English language/civics test for naturalisation applicants will be introduced, though further information is not yet available. If implemented, the introduction of such tests would represent a significant new direction for Ireland, and it would be prudent to conduct research into the most appropriate tests, and their implications, prior to their introduction. The adequacy of provision of English language courses will also need to be considered. Policy Issues • There has been a notable decline in funding allocated to the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration since the Budget for 2011. This may have implications for the social integration of migrants. The report is primarily concerned with assessing outcomes for immigrants. In Chapter 7 we discuss a number of issues for policy emerging from the analysis of outcomes. The policy issues include: • Unemployment is substantially higher among nonIrish nationals, and the gap has widened since 2010. • Given the very low rate of self-employment among non-Irish nationals presented in Chapter 2, the implementation of the Immigrant Investor Programme and a start-up Entrepreneur Programme for Immigrants may help address this issue. • Given the lower achievement of immigrant students from non-English speaking backgrounds in English reading, for both nine-year-olds and 15-year-olds, cuts in the education budget for supports for English language provision may have damaging long-term consequences. This Integration Monitor draws heavily on ongoing large-scale surveys in Ireland, and in Chapter 7 we reflect on the implications of the report for the collection of this data. As in the Integration Monitor, 2010, concerns were raised about how well both the QNHS and the EU-SILC represent immigrants, particularly the EU-SILC. While they were not designed to survey immigrants, with over 10 per cent of the population from a non-Irish background, it is now time to ensure that immigrants are adequately and accurately identified, enumerated and represented in national sample surveys. The following table, Key Indicators at a Glance, brings together the core indicators in the domains of employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship. • In terms of active citizenship, while significant progress has been made on certain barriers to xi Table A5 Key Indicators at a Glance Irish Non-Irish Employment Rate 58.9% 59.0% Unemployment Rate 13.8% 18.2% Activity Rate 68.3% 72.1% Share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment 47% 49% Share of early leavers from education (20-24) 9.4% 10.4% Mean achievement scores for 15-year-olds in English reading (2009) 502 500* 443** Median annual net income (needs adjusted) €20,115 €19,630 ‘At risk of poverty’ rate 14.2% 13.0% Consistent poverty rate 5.4% 6.5% Share of population (16+) perceiving their health as good or very good 82.5% 91.6% Proportion of households that are property owners 78.6% 26.5 % 1. Employment, Working Age (2011) 2. Education (2011) 3. Social Inclusion (2009) 4. Active Citizenship (end 2010) Share of non-EEA immigrants aged 16+ that have acquired citizenship (best estimate) 16% Share of non-EEA immigrants aged 16+ holding long-term residence permits (best estimate) 7% Share of immigrants among elected local representatives 0.2% Sources: QNHS Q1, 2011 for Employment Indicators; QNHS Q1, 2011 for Education, except achievement scores, which are based on PISA data 2009; EU-SILC, 2009 for Social Inclusion indicators; and statistics from the Department of Justice and Equality for Active Citizenship, except for elected representatives estimate, which uses data supplied by the Immigrant Council of Ireland. See Appendix 2 for further details of sources. Notes: * denotes English Speakers; ** denotes Non-native English speakers This table summarises data presented in Chapters 2 to 5. The data sources are diverse and vary in quality and coverage. The relevant section of the report should be consulted for further details of measurement and definitions: see also Appendix 2. For information on surveys, see Appendix 4. Note the small sample of non-Irish nationals in the EU-SILC data, used for social inclusion indicators. xii Chapter 1 Introduction, Policy and Context This is the second in a series of Annual Integration Monitors which seek to measure the integration of immigrants into Ireland in a number of key domains or policy areas - employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship. The report updates core indicators from the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, and presents a special theme on immigrant children in Irish schools. This Chapter provides an introduction to and context for the indicators that follow. In Section 1.1 we discuss the challenges of measuring and monitoring integration. Section 1.2 provides the main trends in migration in Ireland. Section 1.3 presents an overview of Irish migration policy and legislation, and Section 1.4 discusses integration policy. 1.1 The Challenges of Measuring Integration 1.1.1 Defining Integration Integration is an important component of social cohesion, the capacity of a society to ensure the wellbeing of its members. Lack of integration can lead to growing disparities, marginalisation of immigrant groups and social unrest. Immigrant integration has recently gained increased prominence among EU policy concerns. Following the 2005 Common Agenda for Integration, in July this year (2011) the Commission proposed a new European Agenda for the Integration of Third Country Nationals. This policy focus has been accompanied by an awareness of the need to monitor integration, and this Monitor reflects that development. One of the Common Basic Principles4 for immigrant integration policy is that developing clear indicators is necessary to adjust policy and evaluate progress on integration (see Appendix 1). These indicators should be based on existing and comparable data for most Member States, limited in number, simple to understand and focused on outcomes.5 This series of Annual Integration Monitors follow the recommendations for key indicators, with some adaptations for Ireland. Defining integration is not straightforward. At a very basic level, when immigrants move to a country they have to find a place in that society, both in the practical sense (a home, a job and income, access to education and health services), but also in the social, cultural and political sense. Integration might thus be defined simply as ‘the process of becoming an accepted part of society’, both as an individual and as a group (Penninx, 2010). While emphases may vary, most commentators argue that a number of aspects of life need to be considered, and there is general agreement concerning the broad areas of integration. For example, The Integration Centre defines integration to be achieved when immigrants enjoy economic, political, social and cultural equality and inclusion.6 However there are two parties involved in integration processes: the immigrants, with their resources, efforts and adaptation, and the receiving society and its reactions to these newcomers. This perspective is reflected in the first Common Basic Principle for immigrant integration which describes a widely accepted view that integration is a two-way process of mutual accommodation involving the immigrants and the receiving society. It is the interaction between the two that determines the direction and the ultimate outcome of the integration process, though some commentators argue that the response of the receiving society is much more decisive for the outcome of the process (Penninx, 2010). 1.1.2 The Integration Monitor This Monitor seeks to provide a balanced and rigorous assessment of the extent of integration of immigrants in Ireland using the most up-to-date and reliable indicators available. The framework for that assessment is based on the set of integration indicators proposed at the fourth EU Ministerial Conference on Integration held in 2010, known as the “Zaragoza Indicators”.7 These integration indicators ‘refer to a limited number of simple, quantitative elements indicating important developments within vital fields of integration policy’ (p.12).8 They are presented in Table 1.1. A number of key principles guided the choice of integration indicators. We discuss the strengths and limitations of these in turn. 4 The Common Basic Principles were adopted in 2004, following agreement among Member States about the need for more dynamic policies to promote the integration of Third Country Nationals in EU Member States. 5 Swedish presidency conference conclusions on indicators and monitoring of the outcome of integration policies and proposed at the ministerial conference in Zaragoza, Spain (European Ministerial Conference on Integration, Zaragoza, April 2010). Hereafter these indicators are referred to as the “Zaragoza Indicators”. The Common Basic Principles of Integration are listed in Appendix 1. 6 See The Integration Centre Business Plan at http://www.integrationcentre.ie. 7 Eurostat also conducted a pilot exercise testing these indicators across the EU. The report, published in 2011, is discussed in Box 1.1. 8 http://www.tt.mtin.es/eu2010/en/noticias/documentos/201004/21-001.pdf 1 Firstly, these indicators are focused on outcomes. This means they capture the results of what it is countries are trying to achieve and policy, rather than a list of inputs and measures. Thus, for example, there are indicators of achieved educational outcomes (highest educational attainment, proportion leaving school early) rather than expenditure on education. For each indicator, outcomes for immigrants are compared to the native population, in this case Irish population, so the focus is on the difference between the Irish and immigrant population. The exceptions to this principle of comparing outcomes are the two indicators concerning citizenship and long-term residence listed in Table 1.1. They describe the context and opportunities for integration rather than measure empirical outcomes. Secondly, the indicators are limited in number, and areas of integration that are not easily measured may be excluded. Moreover, constraining indicators to be consistent across countries may miss important variations in what are key policy issues in some countries but not in others. The indicators shown in Table 1.1 cover a broad range of policy areas – employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship. The cultural area and social participation, while partially covered by these indicators, receive less prominence. In this Monitor we partly address these limitations by adding some additional indicators for Ireland, which vary across years. The Monitor also includes a special theme which varies each year. This allows the investigation of particular themes in more depth than in the core monitor. Thirdly, a key part of the monitoring exercise at European level is to compare integration across countries. Thus the indicators are largely based on quantitative data sources that already exist and are comparable. This makes them cost effective, and in principle they are highly comparable, but this approach does have some disadvantages: (i) The existing comparable data sources recommended may not be designed to represent and measure outcomes for immigrants. We reflect on this point further in Section 1.1.3. (ii) Cross-national data do not exist for many subjective indicators, like sense of belonging, so these are not included in the core monitor. However, the Zaragoza Declaration does allow for the use of additional indicators, and in this Monitor we present data on sports participation (Chapter 4). (iii) This focus on quantitative, nationally representative data means that we miss out on the lived experience of integration ‘on the ground’: this is better captured by qualitative work using interviews and case studies.9 While this Monitor measures integration at a national level, it is clear that integration often takes place at a local level and the experience of immigrant groups at local level may vary across the country, and may differ from what can be observed at national level. Fourthly, the indicators are designed to be comparable across time. The focus is not on comparing the change in an individual’s circumstances over time, but on changes for groups in the population. This emphasis on change is important for two reasons. One is that from a policy perspective, the direction of change in indicators is important. The second is that comparing change over time can overcome some of the limitations of the indicators. An indicator might underestimate the proportion leaving school early, but if it does so consistently over time, it will still pick up changes in the proportion of an immigrant group leaving school early. Finally, the indicators should be simple to understand, transparent and accessible. Having indicators based on familiar concepts like unemployment and poverty means that they should have resonance for both policy makers and the general public. This transparency requirement also means they need to be defined clearly (see Appendix Table A2.1). The publication and dissemination of a report such as this should increase the accessibility of these indicators, at least in Ireland. The clear focus on outcomes distinguishes this Monitor from other monitoring frameworks, for example the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). The MIPEX tool aims to assess, compare and improve integration policy indicators by providing ongoing assessment of policies (see Box 1.2). That said, policy forms the context for those outcomes, and will be discussed briefly in this report, mainly in the access boxes 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. These boxes are not intended as a statement of entitlements, and readers should refer to relevant official bodies for further information: additional sources of information are also noted in the boxes. The following indicators are contained in this Monitor, drawing on those proposed at Zaragoza: Examples of such studies include: In the Front Line of Integration: Young People Managing Migration to Ireland by Trinity Immigration Initiative and Getting On: From Migration to Integration – Chinese, Indian, Lithuanian and Nigerian Migrants’ Experience in Ireland by The Migration and Citizenship Initiative (commissioned by The Immigrant Council of Ireland). 9 2 Table 1.1 Outline of Core Indicators 1. Employment Employment Rate Unemployment Rate Activity Rate 2. Education Highest educational attainment Share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment Share of early leavers from education and training Mean reading and mathematics scores for 15-year-olds 3. Social Inclusion Median net income (household income and equivalised income) ‘At risk of poverty’ rate Share of population perceiving their health status as good or very good Share of property owners among immigrants and in the total population 4. Active Citizenship Share of immigrants that have acquired citizenship (best estimate) Share of immigrants holding permanent or long-term residence permits (best estimate) Share of immigrants among elected local representatives Notes: Table 1.1 gives details of definitions, and also shows indicators not in the core monitor but included in this report. In some instances the indicators are slightly different because of data constraints, but this is also noted in Appendix Table A2.1. In addition to these core indicators, this Monitor includes a number of additional indicators in some domains. In employment, these include the self-employment rate and more details on the jobs people do, in terms of occupation and industrial sector; in social inclusion, consistent poverty rates and participation in sport. Each Annual Monitor also includes a different special thematic focus. This year the focus is on immigrant children in Irish schools and Chapter 6 includes a range of outcomes measuring the educational experience of nine-year-olds. The key task of this Monitor is to present the integration indicators using the most recent data available. In most cases, these are new data since the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor.10 This report will not present figures in detail from the 2010 Monitor, but draw readers’ attention to change or stability, where this is salient or interesting. Chapter conclusions will also summarise any significant developments. 10 1.1.3 Challenges of Monitoring Outcomes Among Immigrants Monitoring outcomes among migrants is a challenging exercise. This is related to the use of survey data, the issue of how immigrants are defined, shifting populations and monitoring change over time. Aside from the active citizenship indicators, most of the indicators in this Monitor draw on survey data. Survey data need to be scrutinised as to how effectively data are collected on immigrants. One key concern is their representativeness, and the fact that certain groups tend to be under-represented in national survey data, due to, for example, poor language skills. Furthermore some groups - like naturalised citizens - cannot be identified using standard social surveys. Identifying this group would require either more detailed questions on citizenship, or information on ethnicity. While some The exception to this is the PISA data from 2009 used in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. This survey will not be conducted again until 2012. The proportion of elected representatives is also unchanged as there have been no elections in the interim in which migrants may stand. 3 nationalities dominate, overall there is a very diverse range of nationalities among immigrants to Ireland. Small numbers in particular groups may mean they need to be combined to larger nationality groups, thus losing detail and nuance about the experience of one particular nationality. The indicators in this report are intended to provide a broad overview and this is at the expense of detail on individual groups. Representativeness of the data is considered in more detail in Appendix 4. generation immigrants and naturalised citizens, who are typically not identified using general social surveys, as noted above. However, as most immigration into Ireland is relatively recent, the numbers are not large. In general there are no breakdowns by ethnicity for the core integration indicators, as the main social surveys do not collect information on respondents’ ethnicity. 12 In Chapter 6, which uses the Growing Up in Ireland study, the definition is based on mothers’ ethnicity and her place of birth. A second challenge is how to define immigrants. While much of EU policy focus is on Member States’ treatment of non-EU immigrants, two thirds of non-Irish nationals are from within the EU. EU nationals will be included in most of the indicators, though distinguished from nonEU nationals. Among EU nationals in Ireland, previous research has indicated that the experience of UK nationals differs from other EU nationals, so these are distinguished separately, where possible. EU13 nationals (Old EU) and EU12 nationals, (referring to the EU Member States that acceded in 2004 and 2007) are also distinguished separately.11 Full details of which countries are in which group are also in the Glossary. In the special theme on immigrant children in Irish schools (Chapter 6), slightly different definitions are used. The ‘East European’ group includes non-EU immigrants from Eastern Europe and non-EU immigrants are further divided into the following groups: Africa, Asia and the Middle East; and ‘Rest of the World’ (US, Canada, Australia and South America). The general definition of immigrants is primarily based on nationality (except in the special theme, Part 3). The nationality definition misses second- A third challenge with monitoring the situation of immigrants is the shifting populations each year, so that the year-on-year comparisons are not of the same groups. This is particularly true in Ireland in the current context of rapid labour market change and changing migration flows. Thus immigration policy and migration flows are very important – these are discussed in the next section. There is no longitudinal survey of the general population in Ireland, either specific surveys of migrants or general population surveys with a sufficient sample of migrants to permit tracking of individuals, like the German Socio-Economic Panel Survey.13 Following individuals would allow analysts to monitor individuals’ outcomes over time, avoiding some of the problems of the changing composition of migrant groups.14 1.2 Overview of Main Trends in Migration in Ireland Most of this section focuses on immigrants and immigration into Ireland. As a backdrop for the Figure 1.1 Share of Foreign-Born Population in Selected EU Countries, 2009 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Ireland Denmark France Germany Netherlands Spain UK Source: International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI, 2011,Table A.1.4. Notes: This graph is indicative only. Foreign-born are typically first generation immigrants, and may consist of both foreign and national citizens. For Ireland, France, Germany and the UK the data source is Censuses of Population. For Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain the source is the population register. 11 EU13 is EU15 excluding UK and Ireland, that is nationals from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden; EU12 nationals of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania Slovakia, Slovenia. 12 One exception is that in Section 1.3, data from the 2006 Census are used to discuss the proportion of each ethnic group in Ireland. 13 An exception to this is the SCIP project, a large-scale longitudinal survey of Polish migrants to Ireland (www.tcd.ie/immigration/scip.php). The TILDA survey is a longitudinal survey of older people. The Growing Up in Ireland survey is a longitudinal survey of children. 14 This would be possible with the immigrant sample of the Growing Up in Ireland study. 4 Figure 1.2 Immigration, Emigration and Net Migration 1987-2011 (Thousands) 120 100 80 60 40 20 -20 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0 -40 -60 Immigrants Emmigrants Net Migration Source: CSO, Population and Migration Estimates, Various releases discussion, Figure 1.1. presents the share of the foreignborn population in selected EU countries in 2009. Here we can see that the share of foreign-born, who are typically first generation immigrants, is relatively high in Ireland in 2009, compared to the other countries shown.15 At 17 per cent, those born abroad represent a significant proportion of the Irish population. In the remainder of this section we discuss how patterns of immigration have evolved in recent years. Ireland has experienced an extensive period of migratory change in the past two decades. Prior to the mid 1990s Ireland had experienced a long history of net emigration, but then a period of extended economic growth, returning Irish emigrants and EU enlargement16 brought a large period of strong net inward migration which peaked in 2006-2007. The most recent official migration statistics confirm that since 2008 Ireland has entered a new phase of net emigration. As Figure 1.2 shows, emigration flows increased by over 100 per cent between 2006 and 2011. Overall emigration is estimated to have reached 76,400 in the year to April 2011, an increase of 11,100 (or 16.9 per cent) on the 65,300 recorded in the year to April 2010. Figure 1.3 Nationality Breakdown of Immigration Flows 2000-2011* 120 Non-EU 100 EU10/12 EU13 Thousands 80 UK 60 Irish 40 20 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: *Year to April of reference year. Source: CSO, Population and Migration Estimates, Various releases 15 ‘Born abroad’ can include both foreign and national citizens. 16 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined the EU in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007 5 Figure 1.4 Nationality Breakdown of Emigration Flows 2006–2011* 90 Non-EU 80 EU10/12 70 EU13 Thousands 60 50 UK 40 Irish 30 20 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: *Year to April of reference year Source: CSO, Population and Migration Estimates, 2010 There has been a dramatic drop in immigration flows since a peak in 2007, however inflow has slightly increased since 2010. The share of EU12 national immigrants has declined from a peak of 48 per cent in 2007 to represent 21 per cent in 2011. Data now show that this population has been highly mobile in the context of the economic downturn. While the proportion of the emigrant flow made up of Irish nationals has increased significantly, 58 per cent of emigrants in the year to April 2010 were of non-Irish nationality, more than half of whom were nationals of EU12 states (Quinn 2011). Emigration among Irish nationals continued to sharply increase in the year to April 2011, rising from 27,700 in the previous year to 40,200. However emigration amongst non-Irish nationals fell for a second year in a row, and nearly halved from 20,200 to 11,000 in the year until April 2011. In the year to April 2009 EU12 nationals represented 46 per cent of emigrants. By April 2011 EU12 nationals represented 20 per cent of emigrants, and the number of Irish emigrants rose substantially to represent 52 per cent of the flow (see Figure 1.3). Non-EU emigration has increased slightly from the 2006 level of 6,200 to 8,200 in 2011. Non-EU emigrants represented 11 per cent of the flow in 2011. The first definitive results of the 2011 Census, undertaken on 10th April 2011, were released in March 2012 and show that Ireland’s population was 4,588,252 6 in 2011.17 This represents a strong increase - 348,404 people or 9 per cent - since 2006. Between Census 2006 and Census 2011 the net migration was 124,624, which represents an annual average inflow of 24,925 persons. This is lower than the average annual inflow of 47,832 in the previous intercensal period (2002 to 2006). The total number of non-Irish nationals has increased by 124,624 persons since 2006, or 29.7 per cent, from 419,733 to 544,357 persons (CSO, 2012). The groups which showed the largest increase were those already well established in Ireland. The fastest growing groups were Romanians (up 125 per cent), Indians (up 101 per cent), Brazilians (up 98 per cent) and Polish (up 94 per cent). In 2011 non-Irish nationals made up 11.9 per cent of the population in Ireland. Polish nationals were the largest group (2.7 per cent), followed by UK nationals (2.5 per cent). It should be noted that the population estimate from the 2011 Census was 4.59 million, a difference of approximately 104,000 persons from the CSO Population and Migration Estimates. The CSO has indicated that it will publish revised population estimates for the years 2007 to 2011 (i.e. the period over which this differential arose) later in 2012 once a thorough analysis at a detailed level of the differences with the final census results has been completed.18 17 CSO (2012) This is Ireland – Highlights from Census 2011, Part 1. 18 The CSO create migration estimates using the Quarter National Household Survey (QNHS), estimates are also compiled against the backdrop of movements in other migration indicators such as the number of Personal Public Service (PPS) numbers allocated to non-Irish nationals, the number of work permits issued/renewed and the number of asylum applications. Figure 1.5 Breakdown of GNIB (Police) Registrations, Year End 2008-2010 (Non-EEA Nationals) 160,000 Other reasons 140,000 Subsidiary protection 120,000 Refugee status Thousands 100,000 Work related activities 80,000 Education reasons 60,000 Family reasons 40,000 20,000 0 2008 2009 2010 Source: Eurostat Note: Data are not available for refugee status and subsidiary protection in 2008 and 2009. ‘Other reasons’ includes family members and siblings who qualify under the Irish Born Child (IBC) scheme. The provisional 2011 year end estimate of non-EEA nationals with permission to remain in the State is approximately 130,500.19 This compares with 133,232 “live” registrations at the end of 2010, and 134,152 in 2009 when registrations of non-EEA nationals were at their highest. The majority of persons with permission to remain in the State are here for work or study purposes. The current top six registered nationalities which account for over 50 per cent of all persons registered are India (11 per cent), China (9 per cent), Brazil (9 per cent), Nigeria (9 per cent), Philippines (8 per cent) and USA (7 per cent) (Department of Justice and Equality, 2012).20 1.3. Overview of Irish Migration Policy and Legislation Table 1.2 supplies information on recent policy developments related to four main groups of immigrants: labour migrants, students, family members and protection (including asylum) applicants. Where possible an indication is given of the size of each group, however due to the freedom of movement of EU nationals within the EU, data are often only available on non-EU immigrants. A more detailed discussion on policy as it relates to these groups is supplied in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor while Table 1.2 focuses on updates since 2010. The access of immigrants to employment, education, social welfare, citizenship and voting will be discussed in Boxes 2.1 to 5.3 below. General background information on migration and asylum legislation and policy in Ireland can be found in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. 19 Non-EEA nationals who wish to stay in the State for more than 90 days must register with the Gardaí and on registration are issued with one of several immigration permissions or “Stamps”, depending on their particular circumstances e.g. work permit holder/student etc. There are currently 11 separate categories of stamps issued in Ireland, some more clearly defined than others. 20 A detailed breakdown by category of stamp is only available on the total number of such stamps issued within the year. These data were supplied in Appendix 3 in the 2010 Annual Monitoring Report. Although the data are relatively detailed and available back to 2004, they have the problem of being “throughput” rather than “snapshot” i.e. the same person could be counted twice. Since 2009 Eurostat has produced a breakdown of a “snapshot” of live stamps at year end at a more aggregated level which Eurostat terms residence permits; it is these data that are presented here. A drawback of these data is the large “Other” category and the fact that data are available only from 2009. 7 Table 1.2 Overview of Recent Policy/Legislative Developments Migrant Workers Overview: Labour migrants in Ireland include: work permit/spousal or dependant permit/Green Card holders; intra-company transferees; certain non-EEA students; holders of an alternative immigration registration which allows access to the labour market without a permit e.g. non-EEA spouse of an EEA national; and EEA nationals. Recent trends: The 2011 National Skills Bulletin showed that there are no labour shortages in Ireland and only limited skills shortages, mainly confined to skilled professionals, senior positions and niche areas (Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, 2011). Work permit allocations continue to decline in the period 2010-2011, falling by 8 per cent to 7,271. Policy update: During 2010 a number of new immigration policies, which had been introduced during 2009 relating to the employment situation of non-EEA immigrants, were further modified. From June 2010, new arrangements were announced with the effect that certain categories of doctors in the Irish public health service will no longer require a work permit. New consolidated policy was introduced regarding persons working in Ireland in possession of a work permit for at least five consecutive years, and those made redundant after a similar period. Such migrants are exempted from the requirement to hold a work permit on the next renewal of their immigration registration. Qualifying persons are to be issued with ‘Stamp 4’ immigration permission on a one-year renewable basis (Joyce, 2011). In addition the Minister for Justice and Equality has confirmed his Department is working on new immigration schemes in the area of entrepreneurship and investment.21 In 2012 the Minister for Justice and Equality made it a key priority to implement an Immigrant Investor Programme and a start-up Entrepreneur Programme for Immigrants. These Schemes will build on best practice globally and offer the potential for significant inward investment and job creation (Department of Justice and Equality, 2012). Romanian and Bulgarian nationals continue to require a work permit to access the Irish labour market, in 8 December 2011 the Government stated that these restrictions will continue to take place until the end of 2013. The UK has also recently extended restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian nationals accessing the labour market. Size of Group: Migrant Workers (non-EEA)22 In December 2010 there were 33,682 “live” residence permits held for work-related reasons by non-EEA nationals aged 16 and over (Eurostat). At end 2010 28 per cent of live immigration permissions issued to non-EEA nationals were issued for workrelated reasons. Students Overview: Non-Irish students comprise EEA plus nonEEA students at primary, second-level, third-level and in further education. Recent trends: The total number of permissions issued to non-EEA students increased by 45 per cent between 2004 and 2010. Policy Update: The New Student Immigration Regime for Full-time non-EEA Students came into operation from 1 January 2011 (Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, 2011). It is designed to reform the student immigration regime in a manner that is better integrated with Ireland’s immigration policy generally while providing a stronger regulatory framework for the sustainable development of the international education sector. Key measures introduced include maximum periods of residence in the State on foot of student permission and a differentiated approach between “Degree Programme” courses and those at the “Language or Non-Degree Programme” level. The Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service have signalled that a review will be undertaken of the current work concession, whereby non-EEA holders of a Stamp 2 immigration permission may work up to 20 hours per week during term and full-time during vacation periods. The Graduate Work Scheme, which was originally introduced in 2007, was extended in 2010 to allow all graduates with an honours Primary Degree and above to remain in Ireland for one year to find employment and apply for the relevant work permit or Green Card permit. During this 12 month period they are permitted to work full-time. 21 http://www.oireachtas.ie 22 It is not possible to estimate the size of these groups for EEA nationals, hence estimates for the non-EEA population are given. Size of Migrant Group: Students (non-EEA)23 Protection Applicants and Protection Status Holders In December 2010 there were 36,798 “live” residence permits held for education-related reasons by non-EEA nationals aged 16 and over (Eurostat).24 Family Members Overview: A person seeking international protection in Ireland must first seek a declaration of refugee status from ORAC. If the decision is negative it may then be appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT). If the appeal is refused an applicant may seek subsidiary protection. In the event of refusal of a subsidiary protection claim, the Minister for Justice and Equality will consider whether to make a deportation order or to grant Leave to Remain. Overview: Only recognised refugees have a statutory entitlement to family reunification in Ireland, based on the Refugee Act 1996. Applications for family reunification in respect of 608 persons were received by INIS during 2010. Such applications are investigated by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC). Approvals were issued in respect of 298 persons (Joyce, 2011). An administrative scheme exists for the unification of family members with other groups of migrants, but no data are available on the numbers admitted to the State under such schemes. Recent trends: Of 2,192 cases finalised by ORAC in 2010, 24 resulted in recommendations to grant refugee status. During the same period 1,466 applications for subsidiary protection were made. Of 520 applications on which decisions were made in 2010, three were approved while 517 were refused (Department of Justice and Equality, 2011). The Refugee Appeals Tribunal processed 2,783 appeals in 2010 of which 24 resulted in a recommendation to set aside a negative determination by ORAC. The overall refugee recognition rate during 2010 was 3.4 per cent (Joyce, 2011). Recent trends: See Box 1.3 for a discussion on recent case law relevant to this topic. Policy Update: Ireland does not currently have a single procedure for protection claims, whereby all protection claims (refugee, subsidiary protection and leave to remain) would be assessed at once, although this is proposed under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, 2010 which is scheduled to recommence at the Committee stage of the legislative procedure in Spring 2012. At end 2010 28 per cent of live immigration permissions issued to non-EEA nationals were issued for educationrelated reasons. Policy Update: See Box 1.3 for information on access to family reunification and unification and recent policy developments. In January 2012 the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence stated that a key Department priority for 2012 is to develop a comprehensive policy approach to family reunification or settlement. The concentration will be on cases involving non-EEA family members of Irish citizens and also those where both parties come from outside the EEA. Size of Group: Family members In December 2010 there were 20,085 “live” residence permits, or 15 per cent of all permits, held for familyrelated reasons by non-EEA nationals aged 16 and over (Eurostat). However, reliable data on the size of this group are problematic.25 Family members and siblings who qualify under the Irish Born Child (IBC) scheme are not included in the “Family Reasons” category. Instead those who qualify under the IBC are included in the “Other” category. Size of Group: Protection Applicants/Status holders In December 2010 there were 3,154 “live” residence permits held for protection-related reasons by non-EEA nationals aged 16 or over. There were 1,250 applications for declaration as a refugee made in 2011. (Department of Justice and Equality, 2012). UNHCR data indicate that in 2011 there were approximately 10,000 refugees living in Ireland (UNHCR 2011). Provisional figures for end 2011 indicate that there were approximately 5,400 persons seeking international protection accommodated in direct provision centres in the State. 23 It is not possible to estimate the size of these groups for EEA nationals, hence estimates for the non-EEA population are given. 24 A breakdown of students in HEA institutes by domiciliary of origin is available, however these statistics do not cover all non-EEA students, only those that are registered in HEA institutes i.e. all National Universities and Institutes of Technology. The data do not include a breakdown of students in private education institutes. 25 Non-EEA members tend to hold Stamp 4, Stamp 4 EUFAM or Stamp 3 immigration permissions, depending on the status of the principal person. Stamp 4 is issued to a broad range of non-EEA nationals including family member of refugees, parents and sibling of Irish born children while EUFAM is given to family members of EU nationals. Stamp 3 is granted to family members of employment permit holders. 9 1.4. Integration Policy 1.4.1 EU Integration Policy: Update Prior to the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty26 there was no legal basis for EU involvement in Member State integration policy. A new legal provision to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), introduced by way of the Lisbon Treaty, changes this position. The EU’s role is to incentivise and support the integration of Third Country Nationals residing legally in Member States (Article 79.4 TFEU), however harmonisation of integration laws and regulations is still explicitly excluded. Integration remains a Member State competence. At EU level the Directorate General (DG) for Home Affairs of the European Commission is responsible for facilitating and supporting the promotion of integration. DG Employment and Social Affairs and the DG Education and Culture also have a role in promoting integration. The National Contact Points on Integration are a network of designated Member State officials through which information and experience is exchanged at EU level. A European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals (EIF) was set up in 2007 to run to 2013 to follow on from the Preparatory Actions for the Integration of Third Country Nationals (INTI). The European Refugee Fund (ERF) was also set up to facilitate integration of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The EU does not define integration but rather uses the Common Basic Principles on Integration to frame the debate (See Appendix 1). In July 2011, the Commission proposed a new European Agenda for the Integration of Third Country Nationals.27 The new Agenda follows from the 2005 Common Agenda for Integration discussed in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. The 2011 Agenda indicates that although all EU actions presented in the 2005 Common Agenda have been completed, the social, economic and political context has changed and not all integration measures have been successful in meeting their objectives. In the new Agenda it is stated that the diversity brought by migrants can result in a competitive advantage and a source of dynamism for the European economies, but only if integration is properly achieved. The Commission proposes that an effective integration process should ensure that migrants enjoy the same rights and have the same responsibilities as EU citizens. Emphasis is placed on 10 migrants’ full participation in all aspects - economic, social, cultural and political - of “collective life”. The new Agenda identifies challenges that need to be addressed if the EU is to benefit fully from migration, specifically: low employment levels of migrants, especially of migrant women; rising unemployment and high levels of “over-qualification”; increasing risks of social exclusion; gaps in educational achievement; public concerns with the lack of integration of migrants. Consistent with the EU’s role of facilitation and support, strategies rather than legislation are proposed: • Enhanced cooperation, consultation and coordination between migrants, receiving societies and countries of origin; • Development of a flexible European “toolbox” to allow authorities in Member States to choose the measures which are most likely to prove effective in their context. “European modules” which can be conceptualised as statements of standards/codes of practice are being prepared, gathering the experiences of Member States to support policies and practices. The importance of the monitoring of results of integration policies is noted. The Common European “indicators” identified at Zaragoza and piloted by Eurostat in 2010/2011 (see Box 1.1) will be used for this purpose. Examples of good practice and knowledge exchange are listed in the accompanying Commission Staff Working Paper.28 Box 1.1 EU Indicators and Research on Immigrant Integration Eurostat Indicators of Immigrant Integration A Pilot Study In June 2011 Eurostat published Indicators of Immigrant Integration - A Pilot Study. This study piloted the integration indicators identified at the Ministerial Conference on Integration in Zaragoza, on existing, EUwide survey data sources. The study identifies where the integration indicators cannot reliably be produced due to limitations in the data sources. The report includes calculations for each Member State of the proposed common indicators of migrant integration based on data currently available from the European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS), the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), and Eurostat’s migration statistics, as well as the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The indicators apply to four policy areas: 26 1 December 2009 27 http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_ACT_part1_v10.pdf 28 http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_autre_document_travail_service_ part1_v5.pdf. employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship, each indicator is applied against the appropriate data (Eurostat, 2011). It is stated in the New Agenda for Integration that these indicators will be used going forward to monitor results of integration policies, with the aim of increasing comparability and enhancing the European learning process. The Agenda states that ensuring migrants enjoy the same rights and have the same responsibilities as EU citizens is at the core of the integration process. Qualitative Eurobarometer on Integration A qualitative Eurobarometer report on migrant integration was released along with the new Agenda for Integration discussed above to supplement the findings from the Eurostat Indicators of Immigrant Integration. More than 500 EU citizens and 200 migrants participated.29 Findings included the following: • EU citizens believe that the main barriers to interaction are language and the lack of a desire to interact on the part of the migrants. Migrants reported that a combination of cultural differences, stereotyping and a lack of understanding all limit interaction; • Confusion and a lack of understanding were found among EU citizens as to what constitutes a regular and an irregular migrant. For many participants there is a strong association with migrants and criminal activities (European Commission, 2011). 1.4.2 Irish Integration Policy: Update 1.4.2.1 Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration The Office of the Minister of State for Integration, established in 2007, became the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration (OPMI) in February 2011, and responsibility for promotion of migrant integration reverted to the Minister for Justice and Equality.30 The stated role of the Office: ‘a crossDepartmental mandate to develop, drive and coordinate integration policy across other Government Departments, agencies and services’ did not change. OPMI provides funding to local authorities, national sporting bodies and certain other national organisations to promote integration of immigrants. It also funds the EPIC (Employment for People from Immigrant Communities) project. OPMI is the responsible authority in Ireland for the European Refugee Fund and the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals. The Office coordinates Ireland’s participation in the UNHCR Refugee Resettlement Programme working with UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration, Consular Services, Irish Aid and the Department of Foreign Affairs. During 2011, 45 persons (including medical cases and their families and people displaced by the conflict in North Africa) were resettled. The Budget Allocation for the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration in 2012 is €2.502 million. This represents a budget cut of €1.6 million or 39 per cent from the OPMI’s initial budget allocation the previous year, which for 2011 was €4.1 million.31 In addition €1.5 million is allocated from the European Refugee Fund and the European Integration Fund for 2012. The allocation from the European Refugee Fund and the European Integration Fund has remained stable at €1.5 million. Table 1.3 shows that there has been a significant decline in funding awarded by the Office for the Promotion of Migration Integration in the period 2008-2011. We understand that some of this decline is linked to the overall fall in funding allocated to the Office; some of the decline is due to the fact that the 2008-2009 period represented a peak in funding. In 2008/2009, some of the schemes in existence when the Office was founded were still being funded, but were then discontinued or came to the end of their lifespan, while simultaneously the new funding streams announced in Migration Nation were being rolled out.32 The future of the Ministerial Council on Integration, established in 2010, convened by the then Minister for Integration and comprised of members of the migrant community, remains unclear.33 29 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands and the UK were chosen for this study on the basis of those with the highest levels of migration from third countries, and the feasibility of conducting the research within the available timeframe. The research employed a qualitative approach comprised of two focus groups each with a minimum of ten members of EU citizens in all Member States, plus one additional focus group with a minimum of ten migrant participants in 14 Member States, plus six in-depth interviews in each of the 14 Member States. 30 Under the Equality, Integration, Disability and Human Rights (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2011 (S.I. No. 139 of 2011), the functions of the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in regard to the promotion of the integration of persons (other than protection applicants) who are not, or who previously were not, Irish citizens, and their families, who are lawfully resident in the State, were transferred to the Minister for Justice and Equality. 31 In fact, budget re-estimates in the course of 2011 revised this initial 2011 budget allocation of €4.1 million downwards to €2.5 million. 32 Information supplied by the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration. 33 Response to Parliamentary Question by Alan Shatter TD, 20 September 2009. 11 Table 1.3 Beneficiaries for Funding from the Office of Promotion for Migrant Integration 2008-2011 2008 € 2009 € 2010 € 505,000 429,500 398,000 253,302 817,019 967,200 1,219,573 181,995 Faith-Based Groups/Other 2,867,695 1,657,363 1,222,400 806,675 Total 4,189,714 3,054,063 2,773,973 1,241,972 National Sporting Organisations City/County Councils 2011 € Source: Office of Promotion for Migrant Integration, www.integration.ie. Box 1.2 Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) Main results from Ireland MIPEX is an integration policy assessment tool created by the British Council and the Migration Policy Group, in collaboration with national level organisations. The tool aims to assess, compare and improve integration policy across 31 countries. This is done by measuring integration policies in all EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Canada and the USA in an objective, accessible and comparable format. MIPEX aims to provide regular ongoing assessments, the first edition was published in 2004, the second in 2007 and the third edition was released in 2011. Continuous editions enable an analysis of policies over time. MIPEX 2011 evaluated Ireland’s integration policy against six MIPEX integration policy strands. It found that with its traditionally inclusive political community Ireland leads on voting rights, and is joint third for political participation. Access to nationality is also an area of strength and Ireland is among the highest scoring in Europe. Ireland also gained credit for the introduction of educational policies which are focusing on integration, namely the Intercultural Education Strategy, launched in 2010 and discussed in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. MIPEX 2011 uses a large range of policy indicators to assess and compare participating countries’ integration policies, and reviews each government’s commitment to migrant integration and equal rights for all residents. All policies and legislation are measured against the same standard across all participating states; therefore MIPEX is used as a benchmarking tool to compare performance. The MIPEX indicators focus on the following policy areas: - Education, - Labour market mobility, - Family reunion, - Long-term residence, - Political participation, - Access to nationality, and - Anti-discrimination. 34 12 However Ireland performed unfavourably in some areas of the MIPEX indicators on policy performance. Due to the stalling of the 2010 Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, Ireland’s long-term residence procedures are again ranked the worst in Europe and are the fourth worst overall. Family reunion procedures received the worst score of all 31 MIPEX countries; as discussed in Box 4.1 Ireland does not have any formal family unification procedures for non-refugees.34 At €950 the fee to be paid on naturalisation is one of the highest in Europe and North America. MIPEX states that the Irish government restricts the access of family members to work, as since 2009 spousal/dependant work permits are not available to spouses, civil partners and dependants of new work permit holders. Ireland also loses points for cutting funds to immigrant services and closing some services such as the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI). Ireland was ranked 28th out of 31 on labour market mobility. It was stated that Ireland misses out on the long-term economic potential of non-EU residents with policies that make it difficult for non-EU temporary In January 2012 the Minister for Justice and Equality stated that a key Department priority for 2012 is to develop a comprehensive policy approach to family reunification or settlement. The concentration will be on cases involving non-EEA family members of Irish citizens and also those where both parties come from outside the EEA. workers to easily access or change jobs, start businesses, or use general job supports. It was noted that the National Qualifications Authority has ‘only recently’ started focusing on the issue that non-EU qualifications are regularly downgraded or not recognised in Ireland (MIPEX 2011). 1.4.2.2 Citizenship and Naturalisation In June 2011 the Minister for Justice and Equality introduced major changes to the citizenship application processing regime in order to reduce processing times and to address a large backlog of applications. These measures, and the changes provided for in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011, will be discussed further in Chapter 5. 1.4.2.3 UN Committees Ireland was examined by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) in February 2011. In the concluding comments on this examination the UN Committee made several observations and recommendations including the following: • Noting with concern budget cuts for human rights bodies in 2009/2010, the Committee recommended that the functions of the bodies that were closed are fully transferred and subsumed by the existing or new institutions.35 • The adoption of legislation that prohibits racial profiling, and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes is recommended. • It is recommended to accelerate efforts to establish alternative non-denominational or multidenominational schools and to amend the existing legislation that inhibits students from enrolling into a school because of their faith or belief. Ireland had its first examination under the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in October 2011. Among a broad range of recommendations recorded as accepted in the draft report of the Working Group36 were the following: to take more effective measures to combat racial discrimination and intolerance and to establish a consolidated framework relating to immigration and asylum issues, including an independent Appeals body. 1.4.2.4 Human Rights and Equality Commission In September 2011 the Government announced plans to merge the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority into a new Human Rights and Equality Commission. The Minister for Justice and Equality stated that the purpose of this merger is to ‘…promote human rights and equality issues in a more effective, efficient and cohesive way.’ It was also stated that the move reflects concerns about how well either body can currently function with substantially reduced budgets (Department of Justice and Equality, September 2011; October 2011). The Equality and Rights Alliance (ERA) is a coalition of 171 civil society groups and activists in Ireland who oppose mergers and cuts to Equality bodies. This group aims to defend and strengthen equality and human rights in Ireland by holding Government and State bodies accountable for the Irish equality and human rights infrastructure (ERA, 2011).37 Box 1.3 Access to Family Unity and Family Reunification Third Country Nationals require permission to reside in Ireland and ordinarily, this permission entails no right to be joined by family members. Statutory provisions exist which regulate family reunification for persons granted refugee status as set out in Section 18 of the Refugee Act. The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) investigates such applications and makes a written report to the Minister for Justice and Equality, which he considers before deciding upon the application. Ireland does not have a statutory family reunification scheme for non-Refugees.38 Along with the UK and Denmark, Ireland has opted out of the Family Reunification Directive.39 Permission to remain in Ireland may be granted under administrative schemes to dependants of employment permit holders. In the case of work permit holders the sponsor must be working in Ireland for at least 12 months before applying to be joined by family members and have an income above a certain threshold. In the case of Green Card holders an immediate application for family unity may be made. Alternatively, family members may 35 Funding of the Equality Authority was reduced by 43 per cent in 2009 and a further 4 per cent in 2010. 36 http://www.upr.ie/Clients/CEGA/UPRWeb.nsf/page/reports-en 37 The ERA have recently made a submission to the working group on the merger as to how the merger should be put in place. 38 In January 2012 the Minister for Justice and Equality stated that a key Department priority for 2012 is to develop a comprehensive policy approach to family reunification or settlement. The concentration will be on cases involving non-EEA family members of Irish citizens and also those where both parties come from outside the EEA. 39 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification. 13 accompany the sponsor on admission into the State, or join later, subject to normal immigration rules. Under Irish and EU law, EU citizens may live and work in Ireland for three months without any requirement that they register their presence. After three months, an EU citizen is permitted to remain in Ireland as long as he or she is employed, self-sufficient or in education. EU citizens have a right to family unity, meaning that they are entitled to be accompanied by their spouse/partner, their children and their dependent relatives. Non-EU family members of EU citizens resident in Ireland may submit an application for residency on the basis of “EU Treaty Rights” to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. If successful they will be given an EUFAM immigration permission. Accompanying non-EU family members may need an entry visa if they are moving within EU borders, but this should be granted free of charge. In a related recent development, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Zambrano case40 that under certain circumstances EU law precludes a Member State from refusing a Third Country National, upon whom his EU citizen, minor children are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children. The Department of Justice and Equality is reviewing the applications for residence of non-EEA parents of Irish-citizen children which may meet the criteria specified in the Zambrano case (Department of Justice and Equality, March 2011). The right of non-EU family members to move and reside in the EU is derived from the EU citizen’s right to freedom of movement under EU law. These rights do not extend to Irish citizens resident in Ireland who may wish to be joined by non-EU family members. The High Court has held that an Irish citizen resident in Ireland is not entitled to rely on any right to family unity derived from EU law because he or she, being resident in Ireland, is not exercising his or her right to freedom of movement.41 An Irish citizen’s right to family unity is recognised by the Constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This right is not absolute and the State is entitled to exclude non-Irish family members under certain circumstances or to effect their removal. 40 Case C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office de l’Emploi. 41 See also Case C-434/09, McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which it was ruled that EU citizens who have never exercised their right of free movement cannot invoke Union citizenship to regularise the residence of their non-EU spouse. 14 Chapter 2 Employment and Integration Employment is central to the process of integration. In the Common Basic Principles for Integration policy identified by the European Commission employment is regarded as ‘an important way for immigrants to make a visible contribution to Member State societies and to participate in the host society’. Employment leads to financial independence, it allows a person to contribute to society and avoid the risk of poverty and social exclusion in their host country. Job loss can be associated with poverty, psychological distress and more general social exclusion. This Chapter presents key employment indicators of integration. In Section 2.1 employment, unemployment and activity rates are discussed. Section 2.2 analyses the self-employment rates, and occupations and sectors in which Irish and non-Irish nationals work. The data used in this Chapter are derived from the Irish official labour force survey, the Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS). The QNHS is a nationwide survey of households in Ireland, and is conducted by the CSO. Unless otherwise stated, the report refers to data from QNHS Quarter 1, 2011. 42 All indicators provided in this Chapter are based on the authors’ own calculations derived from QHNS Quarter 1 2011 microdata. The key labour market indicators in Section 2.1 refer to the working-age population, 15-64 years.43 The Q1 2011 microdata were used to ensure comparability, as Q1 2010 data were used in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor.44 2.1 Employment, Unemployment and Activity Rates The continuing recession, which has affected Ireland since 2008, has led to a dramatic deterioration in the labour market. Total employment fell by 320,000 or 15 per cent between the first quarter of 2008 and the beginning of 2011. The contraction in employment has been much greater among non-nationals, where the number employed fell by 40 per cent, than among Irish nationals, for whom total employment fell by 10 per cent. Total unemployment in Ireland rose by just over nine percentage points between Q1 2008 (4.9 per cent) and Q1 2011 (14.1 per cent). Non-Irish nationals have been hit harder by unemployment: their unemployment rate increased from 6.4 per cent in Q1 2008 to 18.2 per cent in Q1 2011. The unemployment rate among Irish nationals increased from 4.6 per cent to 13.8 per cent in the same period. Figure 2.1 Key Employment Indicators by Irish and Non-Irish 2010 and 2011 Key Employment Indicators 80 68.8 70 60 72.7 60.1 61.0 68.3 72.1 Irish Non-Irish 58.9 59 Percent % 50 40 30 18.2 16.1 20 13.8 12.7 10 2010 Activity Rate Unemployment Rate Employment Rate Activity Rate Unemployment Rate Employment Rate 0 2011 Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2010 and Q1 2011 (population aged 15-64) 42 Data are unavailable for occupation codes in Q1 2011, therefore Q4 2010 data are used for Table 2.7 43 It should be noted that the differences observed between population sub-groups refer only to the Quarter 1 data, and would not necessarily represent differences in the other quarters of 2011. 44 The one exception to this are the occupational data presented in Table 2.6, which are from 2010 as 2011 occupational data are not yet available. 15 Table 2.1 Key Employment Indicators Broken Down by National Groups Employment Rate (%) Unemployment Rate (%) Activity Rate (%) Total Pop (000s) Irish 58.9 13.8 68.3 2,644.6 Non-Irish 59.0 18.2 72.1 341.9 UK 54.6 20.3 68.5 59.1 EU13 69.0 10.4 77.0 28.4 EU12 63.0 20.6 79.3 154.6 Non-EU 52.4 14.8 61.5 99.8 All 58.9 14.3 68.8 2,986.5 Of which Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2011 (Population aged 15-64) Figure 2.1 presents the employment rate, unemployment rate and activity rate for Irish and nonIrish nationals for the first quarter of 2011.The employment rate is measured as the proportion of working adults of working age (15-64 years) in the population. The average employment rate among nonIrish nationals is virtually identical to that among Irish nationals. The unemployment rate of non-Irish nationals in the 15-64 year age group has risen dramatically to 18.2 per cent of the labour force, an increase of 2.1 percentage points since Q1 2010 (see 2010 Annual Integration Monitor). The unemployment rate is much higher among non-Irish nationals than among natives, and the unemployment gap between Irish and non-Irish nationals has widened since the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. In Q1 2011 non-Irish nationals accounted for 15.2 per cent of the total unemployed population. The CSO QNHS Q1, 2011 report shows that there were 202,900 non-Irish nationals in employment in Q1 2011 representing a decrease of 34,500 or 14.5 per cent over the previous 12 months (CSO, 2011). Non-Irish national employment has declined by 142,900 (-41.3 per cent) since its peak of 345,800 in Q4, 2007. Immigrants are particularly vulnerable during prolonged economic downturns, and this economic crisis has affected immigrants in the labour market more severely (Cukier 2010, Barrett and Kelly 2010). The non-Irish national population of working age has fallen by over 46,000 people between Q1 2010 and Q2 2011. This represents the continuation of a trend established during the recession, although the main outflows of non-Irish nationals occurred in 2009 and 2010 (CSO, 2011; see also Figure 1.3). 45 16 The labour force activity rate is calculated as the proportion of adults who are in the labour force, which consists of the number of people employed and unemployed.45 Figure 2.1 demonstrates that the activity rate for non-Irish nationals, at 72.1 per cent, is higher than that of Irish nationals, at 68.3 per cent. In fact, however, the activity rate within age groups is very similar for Irish and non-Irish nationals (see Table 2.2), so differences in the activity rate are mainly due to age composition. Table 2.1 shows differences in employment and economic activity between immigrant groups. There are marked differences in employment rates between different national groups. In Q1 2011, EU13 nationals have the highest employment rate at 69 per cent, and the lowest unemployment rate at 10.4 per cent. EU12 nationals report the second highest employment rate at 63 per cent, but also the highest unemployment rate (20.6 per cent). This latter reflects a significant increase in unemployment, by 2.6 percentage points since 2010. EU12 migrants are over-represented in particular sectors and occupations, such as in manufacturing industry, retail and hospitality (see Table 2.6), and have been hard hit by the recession. As Figure 2.2 demonstrates, UK nationals also report a particularly high unemployment rate, up sharply from 17 per cent in 2010 to over 20 per cent in 2011. UK nationals also report a significantly lower employment rate than other EU nationals, at 54.6 per cent this is the lowest employment rate of all national groups. The recent rise in unemployment levels among UK nationals would merit further research. The unemployed population classifies as persons who, in the week before the survey, were without work and available for work within the next two weeks, and had taken specific steps, in the preceding four weeks, to find work. Figure 2.2 Unemployment Rate by Nationality Group 25 20.6 20.3 Percent % 20 15 18.2 14.3 14.8 13.8 10.4 10 5 0 All Irish All Non-Irish UK EU13 EU12 Non-EU Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2011 (Population aged 15-64) Non-EU nationals record the lowest activity rate (61.5 per cent) of all nationality groups. There are a number of reasons that are likely to explain this low activity rate: many non-EU nationals come to Ireland to study, refugees and those with leave to remain status may find it difficult to find work having spent time in the asylum system. (O’Connell and McGinnity, 2008). Table 2.2 reports the key employment indicators by age group. The unemployment rate of Irish nationals aged 15-24, at 28.6 per cent, is higher than that of non-Irish nationals at 20.3 per cent, however Irish nationals report a lower unemployment rate in all of the other, older, age groups. The 15-24 age group of both Irish and non-Irish nationals report lower employment rates, higher unemployment rates and lower activity rates than older age groups. High youth unemployment rates reflect the difficulties faced by young people in finding jobs (Eurostat, 2011). Low activity rates among younger Irish nationals reflects the fact that many are still in the educational system and are therefore neither working nor looking for a job (so they are not part of the labour force). Many young non-Irish nationals are also engaged in education, but a significant proportion come to Ireland to work. Lower activity rates in the older 46-64 cohort may be explained by retired people, or people engaged with home duties, who are not part of the labour force. Among prime age workers, aged 25-44, unemployment is substantially higher among non-nationals (17.7 per cent) than among Irish nationals (14.1 per cent). Among older workers the unemployment rate of non-Irish nationals (19.3 per cent) is more than double the rate of unemployment of Irish nationals (9.1 per cent) in the 46-64 age group. Table 2.2 Key Employment Indicators by Age Group, Q1 2011 Age 15-24 25-44 46-64 Employment Rate (%) Unemployment Rate (%) Activity Rate (%) Total Pop (000s) Irish 27.5 28.6 38.5 481.8 Non-Irish 32.8 20.3 41.1 45.6 Irish 69.9 14.1 81.4 1,193.6 Non-Irish 64.8 17.7 78.7 233.0 Irish 61.0 9.1 67.1 969.2 Non-Irish 56.4 19.3 69.95 63.3 Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2011 (population aged 15-64) 17 Table 2.3 Key Employment Indicators by Gender, Q1 2011 Gender Male Female Employment Rate Unemployment Rate Activity rate Total Pop (000s) Irish 62.4 17.4 75.5 1,315.6 Non-Irish 64.2 20.7 80.9 169.8 Irish 55.4 9.5 61.2 1,328.9 Non-Irish 53.8 15.0 63.3 172.0 Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2011 (Population aged 15-64) Table 2.3 presents the key employment indicators by gender. In 2011 the employment rate is somewhat higher for non-Irish males than Irish males, but lower for non-Irish females than Irish females. The unemployment rate is higher for non-Irish men and women, and the gap is particularly marked among women. There has been a significant increase in unemployment rates of non-Irish women since 2010, and their unemployment rate has risen by 4 percentage points. Overall, the recession has had a much greater impact among men than women: the decline in male employment was greater, as was the increase in male unemployment. This is largely due to the rapid decline in construction and, to a lesser extent, manufacturing, in which male employment was concentrated. 2.2 Self-Employment, Occupation and Sector Table 2.4 and Figure 2.3 provide a breakdown of selfemployment rates (the proportion of employed persons who are self-employed) by nationality groups. The selfemployment rate of Irish nationals at almost 18 per cent is significantly higher than that of non-Irish nationals at 7 per cent. Even when the self-employment rate without agriculture is measured, there is still a higher proportion of Irish nationals reporting as selfemployed at 14 per cent, however the proportion of non-Irish nationals reporting as self-employed increases to 9 per cent. The rate of self-employment among EU12 nationals is particularly low at 2 per cent, or less than 4 per cent excluding agriculture. UK nationals report the highest rate of self-employment at 18.1 per cent, or 18.6 per cent without agriculture - this could be due to UK nationals living in Ireland for a longer duration. Selfemployment remains a key factor influencing economic progress and integration of immigrant minorities (Guerra et al., 2010). There are many structural barriers to migrant self-employment such as language barriers, access to local business networks, and difficulties in accessing finance and lack of previous financial history in the country. Table 2.4 Self-Employment Rate by Nationality Self-Employment Rate % Self-Employment Rate without Ag % Total (000s) Irish 17.6 14.3 1,593.3 Non-Irish Of which 7.2 8.8 219.7 UK 18.1 18.6 33.9 EU13 9.2 10.7 22.7 EU12 2.3 3.8 107.8 Non-EU 9.3 11.1 55.3 All 16.4 13.6 1,813.0 Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2011 Note: Population aged 15 and over in employment. The self-employment rate is the proportion of employed persons who are self-employed. 18 Figure 2.3 Self-Employment Rate by Nationality 20 18.1 17.6 18 16.4 16 Percent % 14 12 9.2 10 9.3 7.2 8 6 4 2.3 2 0 All Irish All Non-Irish UK EU13 EU12 Non-EU Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata Q1 2011. Figure demonstrated self-employment rates without agriculture. Note: The self-employment rate is the proportion of employed persons who are self-employed. Table 2.5 Employment by Sector, Q1 2011 Irish (%) NonIrish (%) UK (%) EU13 (%) EU12 (%) Non-EU (%) All (%) Agriculture, forestry and fishing 4.9 2.4 1.7 1.7 3.6 * 4.6 Industry 11.9 19.9 14.3 15.5 26.3 13.3 12.8 Construction 6.2 4.4 5.6 1.1 5.4 2.9 6 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motor cycles 14.3 16.9 14.9 7.9 21.8 2.9 14.6 Transport and storage 5.4 4.1 4.8 2.4 4.5 3.7 5.2 Accommodation and food service activities 4.8 12.8 5.2 10.4 16.9 10.9 5.7 Information and communication 3.8 4.7 6.6 12.9 2.2 5.2 3.9 Financial insurance and real estate activities 5.9 2.8 5.1 7.9 * 2.7 5.6 Professional, scientific and technical activities 6.0 3.4 7.5 8.1 1.4 2.7 5.7 Administrative and support service activities 3.1 5.8 4.6 9.5 6.8 3.2 3.4 Public administration and defence, compulsory social security 6.6 0.7 2.1 * * * 5.9 Education 8.9 3.6 8.4 6.9 1.1 4.1 8.3 Human health and social work activities 12.7 13.5 13.1 8.4 5.5 30.1 12.8 Other NACE activities 5.4 5.1 6.2 6.9 3.3 7.0 5.4 Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS microdata, Q1 2011 Note: *Population estimates of less than 1,000 are deemed too small for publication purposes due to reliability concerns 19 In January 2012 the Department of Justice and Equality announced that a key priority for 2012 is implementation of an Immigrant Investor Programme and a start-up Entrepreneur Programme for Immigrants. Both schemes will expand on the Business Permission scheme that has been in existence for over 10 years. Pinkowski (2009) and The Integration Centre (2011) note that the conditions under the Business Permission Scheme are too strict, and most Irish businesses would be unable to meet the required conditions. In the period 2008 to 30 April 2011, 411 applications for Business Permission were received by INIS. In the same period, 218 applications were approved, 172 refused and 80 deemed abandoned. It is envisioned that implementation of the new schemes will build on the Business Permission scheme, expand on best practice globally and offer the potential for significant inward investment and job creation, and it is hoped the schemes will eradicate structural barriers for migrant access to self-employment. Table 2.5 provides a breakdown of employment by nationality group and sector, and demonstrates that nationality groups are concentrated in certain sectors. EU12 nationals are concentrated in Industry (26 per cent), wholesale and retail trade (22 per cent) and accommodation and food service (17 per cent) sectors. Some of these sectors can be seasonal and immigrants are more likely to work in seasonal industries and occupations (Papademetriou and Terrazas 2009). As found in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, EU12 immigrants are more likely to report working in jobs below their skill level. They are also less likely to be in a permanent position and receive lower gross earnings than Irish nationals. Immigrants from the EU12 therefore appear to have substantial difficulties when it comes to transferring human capital to other EU countries (Barrett, McGuinness and O’Brien, 2011; Hierländer and Huber, 2010). EU13 nationals are concentrated in the Information and communication sector (13 per cent), compared with less than 4 per cent of Irish nationals. A large proportion (30 per cent) of non-EU nationals are concentrated in the human health and social work activities sector, in contrast to Irish nationals (13 per cent). This is partially due to Irish immigration policy, in which the employment permit system favours highly skilled nonEU nationals in this sector. Table 2.6 provides a breakdown of occupation by nationality groups. The Q4 2010 data46 show that the proportion of Irish nationals in managerial and administrator positions (18 per cent) is considerably higher than non-Irish nationals (9 per cent), and especially EU12 nationals (5 per cent). There is also a higher proportion of Irish nationals in professional positions (14 per cent) compared with the average among non-Irish nationals (9 per cent). A higher proportion of non-Irish nationals work in personal and protective services, as plant and machine operatives and in sales. A substantial proportion of EU12 nationals Table 2.6 Employment by Occupation, Q4 2010 Managers and Professional Associate Clerical Craft Personal Sales Plant and Other administrators (%) professional and and and (%) machine # (%) (%) and secretarial related protective operatives technical (%) services (%) (%) (%) (%) Irish 17.7 14.4 10.4 13.4 9.3 12.5 8.8 6.9 6.6 Non-Irish# 9.3 9.1 10.9 6.6 9.9 15.3 10.3 11.7 16.9 UK 19.7 19.1 16.2 10.8 7.4 11 6.8 3.5 5.4 EU13 17.6 20.2 11.7 9.8 5.3 17.6 9.4 4.9 3.6 EU12 4.7 2.6 3.6 5.2 13.4 13 12 17.9 27.6 Non-EU 8.6 11.0 21.6 5.4 6.7 21.3 9.4 7.6 8.4 All 16.7 13.8 10.4 12.6 9.4 12.9 8.9 7.5 7.9 Of which Source: Own calculations derived from QNHS Q4 2010 Notes: Population aged 15 years and over in employment. # Includes ‘nationality not stated’ Population estimates of less than 1,000 are deemed too small for publication purposes due to reliability concerns. 20 46 Q4 2010 data are used for occupation analysis as 2011 data for occupation are unavailable. are employed in manual occupations, especially as plant and machine operatives (18 per cent). Research has found that a large proportion of EU12 nationals are overqualified for the jobs they work in, and tend to earn much less than either migrants or Irish workers who work in jobs commensurate with their qualifications (Barrett and Duffy 2008, O’Connell and McGinnity 2008). There are substantial differences between national groups in occupational distribution. Substantial proportions of UK and EU13 nationals are employed in managerial and professional positions. For example, 20 per cent of EU13 nationals work in professional occupations. A large share of non-EU nationals are employed in personal and protective services (21 per cent), and associate professional and technical occupations (almost 22 per cent). Whilst non-EU nationals are under-represented in managerial occupations they are over represented in associate professional and technical positions such as nurses and medical technicians. Non-Irish nationals are also over represented in the “Other” category, especially EU12 nationals, almost 28 per cent of whom are in the “Other” category. 2.3 Summary of Employment Indicators Ireland is currently in the depths of a deep and prolonged recession, which has entailed a sharp contraction in employment and a dramatic rise in unemployment. This Chapter shows that non-Irish nationals have been harder hit by the recession than Irish nationals and the contraction in employment has been much greater among non-nationals, where the number employed fell by 40 per cent, than among Irish nationals, where total employment fell by 10 per cent. All nationality groups have experienced a rise in unemployment, and EU12 nationals have suffered the highest rate of unemployment. EU13 nationals report the highest employment rate and the lowest unemployment rates. There has been a marked increase in the unemployment rate of UK nationals, and a drop in the employment rate for this group. Overall the number of non-Irish nationals declined by over 46,000 people between 2010 and 2011. The youth (15-24) unemployment rate is higher for Irish nationals, compared with non-Irish nationals. For prime-age and older workers the unemployment rate is higher for non-Irish nationals. The unemployment rate is significantly higher for males than females, this is the case for both Irish and non-Irish 47 nationals. The self-employment rate is low for non-Irish nationals, apart from UK nationals. In terms of occupation there is a high proportion of Irish nationals in managerial positions compared with non-Irish nationals. In general non-EU nationals are mainly concentrated in industry, health, and personal and protective services. Box 2.1 Access to Employment All nationals of the European Economic Area (EEA)47, apart from Romanian and Bulgarian nationals, may migrate to Ireland to take up employment without restriction. Non-EEA nationals who hold a Stamp 4 registration certificate including refugees, people with leave to remain and other resident non-EEA nationals enjoy rights equivalent to Irish citizens with regard to seeking employment. Applicants for protection may not work while their case is pending. Non-EEA students who hold a Stamp 2 registration may also access the Irish labour market for up to 20 hours during term time and full-time during vacations. Managed labour migration policy relates to workers from outside the EEA as well as Romanian and Bulgarian nationals. Policy is developed and administered by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in cooperation with the Department of Justice and Equality. Most of these workers hold a Stamp 1 registration certificate and an employment permit. There are four main types of employment permits: Green Cards, work permits, spousal/dependent permits, and intra company transfer permits. Green Card: Green Cards were introduced in 2007 in order to attract highly skilled workers. Annual remuneration is used as proxy for skill in Ireland. As of August 2010 workers who have held Green Card permits for two years, or former Green Card permit holders granted a Stamp 4 for 12 months, may be granted a Stamp 4 permission for a further two years. Green Card holders may have their spouses and families join them immediately. Work permit: A revised work permit scheme also formed part of the employment permits system introduced in 2007. Work permits are now available for occupations with an annual salary of €30,000 or more and for a very restricted number of occupations with salaries below €30,000. There is a list of occupations considered ineligible for work permits. The permit is granted for two years initially, and then for a further three years. A labour market needs test is required with The EEA comprises the EU plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. 21 all work permit applications meaning that vacancies must be advertised with the FÁS/EURES employment network for at least eight weeks and in local and national newspapers for six days. Work permit holders must have been in employment for at least 12 months before applying for family reunification and must have an income above the threshold which would qualify the family for payment under the Family Income Supplement (FIS) Scheme. Spousal permit: Spousal permits are issued to the spouses/dependants of Green Card holders and the spouses/dependants of work permit holders provided the original work permit holder made their first application before 1 June 2009. The spouses of work permit holders who made their original application after that date are ineligible to apply for a spousal permit, and must apply for their own work permit in their own right In general, employment permit holders may only move employers after 12 months and must apply for a new permit to do so. In light of currently high unemployment, policy has been developed to reduce the number of permits issued for non-EU workers, particularly lower paid workers. For example only the spouses/dependants of Green Card holders and researchers are now eligible to apply for a spousal/dependant permit while restrictions apply to the spouses of work permit holders. There are increased fees levied on employment permit applications, the length of the labour market needs test has been extended and the list of occupations eligible for Green Cards in the <€60,000 per annum category has been further restricted. 48 22 Support with Accessing Employment Ireland’s National Employment Service (NES) consists of 2 strands: Employment Services operated by FÁS, the National Training and Employment Authority, and the Local Employment Service (LES) which operates mainly through Local Area Partnership Companies on contract from FÁS.49 EEA nationals and Non-EEA nationals who hold Stamp 4 registration certificates have full access to these services. Employment permit holders and nonEEA students are not entitled to use these supports (other than the freely accessible online services such as the vacancies database50) and instead may avail of the services of private recruitment agencies. Nongovernmental and voluntary organisations may assist immigrants with their job search by providing employment support courses and referring them to agencies and websites. One highly regarded initiative is the EPIC - Employment for People from Immigrant Communities, which is financially supported by OPMI. The National Qualification Authority of Ireland (NQAI) offers an online International Qualifications Database for holders of foreign qualifications and employers which lists certain foreign qualifications and provides advice regarding the comparability of the qualification to those that can be gained in Ireland. The Qualification Recognition service, also developed by the NQAI, facilitates the recognition process as each foreign qualification is compared to an Irish qualification. Individuals whose qualifications is not regulated or listed in the NQAI database may apply to the NQAI to have their qualification recognised. It is anticipated that in 2012, under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill 2011, NQAI will be amalgated with FETAC, HETAC and Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) into the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Ireland (QQAI). 48 The share of first time permits issued to workers in the <€30,000 salary band has declined from 43.8 per cent in 2007 to 31.7 per cent in 2009. Almost two thirds of permits issued to workers earning under €30,000 were spousal permits (Quinn, 2010). 49 On 27 July 2011 Minister for Education and Skills Ruairí Quinn T.D. announced that under Section 37 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2010, FÁS will be disbanded and ultimately replaced by a new education and training programme including the establishment of SOLAS. 50 http://www.fas.ie/en/Job+Seeker/Home/default.htm Chapter 3 Education and Integration Education plays a vital role in immigrant integration, and in the future ensures that immigrant children have an equal chance in access to the labour market. Education features strongly in debates on immigrant integration, with differences in educational achievement an important indicator of integration. Many countries in Europe are struggling to integrate immigrants into the education system, and educational outcomes for adults often compare unfavourably to those for children (OECD 2006). As discussed in Chapter 1, immigration in Ireland is a relatively new phenomenon. Migration patterns have shifted recently and suddenly. In 2000 the immigrant share of the population in Ireland was well below the median for the OECD; by 2009, it was well above (OECD, 2011). There are two important implications of this for assessing educational outcomes in this Chapter. Firstly, most non-Irish adults were not educated in Ireland. They will have come to Ireland as adults, having completed all their education abroad.51 This is different from many European countries, who have a substantial second-generation immigrant population. Educational outcomes for adults are the focus of the first part of this Chapter, Section 3.1, which compares educational outcomes for Irish and non-Irish adults in Ireland. Secondly, the recent nature of immigration means Irish schools have experienced a rapid increase in the number of immigrant students in recent years, though they had previously little experience of national diversity. Immigrant students are the focus in the second part of this Chapter, Section 3.2. This section presents performance indicators of immigrant children in Irish schools at 15 years, as one indicator of how well the education system is integrating immigrants. The section also discusses recent research on the social integration of immigrant children into Irish second-level schools. The integration of immigrant children at primary level is discussed extensively in Chapter 6, so is not covered here. Box 3.1 at the end of this Chapter describes access and supports to education for children and adults in Ireland, and includes updates since the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. 3.1 Educational Outcomes for Adults in Ireland 3.1.1 Highest Educational Attainment As has been previously documented, immigrants in Ireland have a high skills and education profile, relative to other countries (OECD, 2007; Barrett et al., 2006). This is supported by recent immigration policies designed to attract highly-skilled immigrants. Table 3.1 presents highest educational attainment by nationality according to ONHS Q1 2011 data. The table demonstrates that there is a higher proportion of nonIrish nationals with third-level education (45 per cent) than Irish nationals (32 per cent). However it must be noted that immigrants in Ireland are mainly grouped Table 3.1 Highest Educational Attainment by Nationality (15-64) No formal to lower Secondary (%) Upper Secondary (%) Post leaving Cert (%) Third level (%) Total (000s) Irish 31 26 11 32 3,150.3 Non-Irish 16 28 12 45 357.3 UK 24 24 10 43 70.4 EU13 7 19 9 65 30.2 EU12 15 37 16 33 155.0 Non-EU 14 21 8 57 101.7 All 29 26 11 33 3,507.6 Of which Source: Own calculations derived from the QNHS microdata Q1 2011 Note: Proportions exclude ‘other/not stated’. This proportion is negligible for Ireland but higher for non-Irish nationals. 51 A minority will have completed university degrees in Ireland, and an even smaller proportion will have completed second-level education here. 23 Figure 3.1 Share of 25-34 year-olds with Tertiary Education 80 74 67 70 60 Percent % 50 47 47 49 50 38 40 30 20 10 0 All Irish Non-Irish UK EU13 EU12 Non-EU Source: Own calculations derived from the QNHS microdata Q1 2011. Note: Proportions exclude “other/not stated”. This proportion is negligible for Ireland but higher for non-Irish nationals. The overall difference between the proportion of Irish and non-Irish with tertiary education is not statistically significant, and the difference between the UK group and the Irish group is not significant. However the difference between the Irish group and the EU13, EU12 and Non-EU groups are also statistically significant (p<0.05). within the younger age cohorts, and there is a strong age gradient in educational attainment in Ireland, with older Irish people in general being less qualified than younger Irish people. This should be considered when comparing third-level attainment between Irish and non-Irish nationals. Irish nationals have the highest proportion of low educational achievers, with 31 per cent of Irish nationals having no formal/lower second-level qualifications, compared with 16 per cent of non-Irish nationals, however again this could be related to the age gradient in education of Irish nationals. The proportion of Irish and non-Irish nationals with upper second-level and post leaving cert education is very similar between both groups. When analysing a breakdown of national groups it is found that the EU12 group have very similar rates of third-level education (33 per cent) to Irish nationals (32 per cent). The EU13 group report the highest proportion of third-level education at 65 per cent; this is a highly skilled group. Non-EU nationals have the second highest proportion of people with third-level education at 57 per cent. This reflects Irish immigration policy which is designed and implemented to attract highly skilled immigrant workers (see Box 2.1). An OECD study (2007) found that a large proportion (45.4 per cent) of Ireland’s foreign born population have tertiary education; this was the second highest recorded rate after Canada (46.1 per cent). EU12 nationals report the 24 highest proportion of Post Leaving Certificate education. This again could be due to employment opportunities which attracted EU12 nationals to manual positions, as evidenced in Chapter 2 of this report. This may also reflect the education systems and trends in EU12 countries, where vocational qualifications play a greater role. EU12 nationals also reported the highest proportion of upper second-level education at 37 per cent. Figure 3.1 presents the proportion of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education. Analysing the younger age cohort helps to overcome some of the difficulties of comparing the educational attainment of young immigrants with the whole Irish population.52 Overall, 47 per cent of this age group have third-level qualifications.53 In contrast to Table 3.1, in Figure 3.1 we see that a very similar proportion of non-Irish nationals have third-level education (49 per cent) compared with Irish nationals (47 per cent), and this difference is not statistically significant. So for this age group there is no clear difference in the overall proportion of Irish and non-Irish nationals who have third-level qualifications. However, there are marked differences within the nonIrish groups. Almost three quarters of the EU13 group in this age group (25-34 year-olds) have third-level education (74 per cent). A very high proportion of nonEU nationals have tertiary education too (67 per cent). This proportion has increased since the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, which may be due in part to a 52 It is not possible to calculate rates for the 30-34 year-old group using the public version of QNHS, as recommended in the “Zaragoza Indicators”. The proportion with third-level education would be somewhat higher for the 30-34 year-old group 53 This is very similar to the OECD figure for Ireland for 2009 from Education at a Glance (OECD, 2011b). Table 3.2 Share of Early School Leavers (Age 20-24) by Nationality Share of Early Leavers to Lower Secondary Q4 2009 (%) Share of Early leavers to Lower Secondary Q1 2011 (%) Irish 11.8 9.4 Non-Irish of which: 11.0 10.4 UK * * EU13 * * EU10/12# 15.2 11.1 Non-EU 6.9 6.1 All 11.7 9.5 Source: Own calculations derived from the QNHS Q4 2009 and QNHS microdata Q1 2011. Note: *Population estimates of less than 1,000 are deemed too small for publication purposes due to reliability concerns. Table 3.2 presents revised estimates for Q4 2009 to those presented in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. # In Q4 2009 data, Romanians and Bulgarians were coded with the “Non-EU” group in the QNHS dataset. Q1 2011 data Romanians and Bulgarians were merged with EU10 to become EU12. The differences between Irish and non-Irish, the EU12 group and the non-EU group are not statistically significant. change in composition of the non-EU group, which in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor included Bulgarian and Romanian nationals. EU12 nationals are the group with the lowest proportion of any national group with tertiary education (38 per cent), as was the case in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. Note that it can be difficult to classify the education qualifications of nonIrish nationals, and a greater proportion of non-Irish nationals have qualifications classified as “other/not stated” than Irish nationals.54 3.1.2 Early School Leavers Among Adult Immigrants Table 3.2 focuses on low achievers, looking at the share of early school leavers by nationality group in the 20-24 age group. We have now revised the proportion of early leavers using the QNHS Q4 2009 data since the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor; these are now presented in Table 3.2, alongside estimates for Q1 2011. Early school leavers are defined as the proportion of the population aged 20-24 who have progressed no further than lower second-level education, and are not engaged in further education or training at present.55 In this age group (20-24), Irish nationals have a similar rate of early school leaving (9.4 per cent) compared with non-Irish nationals (10.4 per cent for 2011). Compared to the Irish group, a lower proportion of nonEU nationals are early leavers (6.1 per cent), though this difference is not statistically significant. 3.2 Immigrant Children in Irish Schools International research has highlighted the crucial role of schools in the integration of children and young people into the new society (Gitlin et al., 2003). Research focusing on academic achievement also highlights migrant/native gaps in performance (OECD, 2010; Heath and Brinbaum, 2007). Recent immigration into Ireland has led to much greater national and linguistic diversity in both primary and second-level schools (Byrne et al., 2010). A number of recent studies highlight the challenges faced by the Irish education system in dealing with this change, given little previous experience of such diversity (Smyth et al., 2009; Gilligan et al., 2010; Darmody et al., 2011). Box 3.1 describes access to education for non-Irish nationals, and resources to support them, the most significant of which is the €85 million for English language support measures. In some countries, evidence suggests that first and second-generation immigrant children are concentrated in particular schools (OECD, 2006). In general, immigrant children in Irish schools are quite broadly dispersed, particularly at second level, where 90 per cent of schools have some but not a large proportion of non-Irish nationals. Non-Irish students are also diverse in terms of nationality: 160 different nationalities were recorded at second level in the school year 2006/2007, and Byrne et al., (2010) find an absence of the degree of school segregation found in many European countries. 54 See http://www.cso.ie/en/qnhs/abouttheqnhs/ for more details. 55 The recommended “Zaragoza Indicator” is 18-24, however as above, QNHS provides a different age breakdown. 25 The comparatively low level of segregation of immigrants, the wide variety of nationalities and the fact that the vast majority of immigrants are firstgeneration immigrants distinguishes Ireland from many OECD countries. There is some evidence from Ireland to suggest that the admission policies of Irish schools may affect the distribution across schools of immigrant students (Smyth et al., 2009). In this study, 80 per cent of principals reported that they were not oversubscribed, and take in all students that apply (Smyth et al., 2009).56 In cases where the applicant students outnumber places available, schools may select on the basis of date of application or whether the applicant has siblings already in the school. Immigrant families will fare badly on such criteria. Schools may also prioritise the applications of children with the same religious background as the school’s patron. This has come under criticism from international bodies. Both the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Rights of the Child encourage the promotion of the establishment of non-denominational or multi-denominational schools and urge the government to amend the existing legislative framework to eliminate discrimination in school admissions.57 In a similar vein, The Integration Centre (2011) recommends making multidenominational schools more widely available. Guaranteeing equality of access to schools regardless of religious, cultural or social background is also one of the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review, which is currently under consideration in Ireland.58 Of late, the public debate and discussion on school enrolment in Ireland has intensified: in June 2011 the Department of Education and Skills published a discussion paper on regulatory framework for enrolment policies and processes, based on an audit of enrolment policies (Department of Education and Skills, 2011a). Responses were requested by the end of October 2011, and a report will be published in 2012. Proposals include revisiting some of the criteria that Smyth et al., (2009) argued would disadvantage newcomers, such as pre-enrolling children from birth or providing preference to children of past pupils. (See Box 3.1 for further discussion). A forum on Patronage and Pluralism in Primary Schools was also established during 2011 (see Box 3.1). How do these immigrant students compare with Irish students in terms of academic achievement? This section uses data from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international survey of 15-year-old students that takes place every three years. PISA assesses students’ literacy in science, mathematics and reading. Fifteen-year-olds are the target group because this age marks the end of compulsory schooling in many countries. “Literacy” is used to emphasise the ability to apply knowledge, rather than simply to reproduce facts that have been studied in a curriculum. As the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor used data from the 2009 survey and, as the next survey is 2012, Table 3.3 replicates the findings from the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor.59 In the 2009 study, of the 3,937 15-year-old students participating in Ireland, 8 per cent had an immigrant background.60 A key point in Ireland is that immigrant student performance varies according to the language spoken at home (see Table 3.3). English-speaking immigrants have similar scores to their Irish peers in both reading and mathematics, whereas the scores of non-English speaking immigrant students are significantly lower than their Irish peers. Table 3.3 Mean Reading and Mathematics Scores in PISA 2009 by Immigrant/Language Status, 15-year-olds (Ireland) Reading Score Mathematics Percentage of students (%) Native 501.9 491.7 92.0 Migrant with English or Irish 499.7 485.9 4.5 Migrant with other language 442.7 457.1 3.5 Source: Reading scores extracted from Table 4.4 in PISA 2009: The Performance and Progress of 15-year-olds in Ireland; Mathematics scored from Table 4 in PISA 2009: Test of Mathematical Literacy and a Comparison with Performance in 2003. Note: Bold indicates significantly different score from Irish natives. 26 56 The true figure may be slightly lower, given ‘social desirability bias’, or the fact that principals may not wish to comment on admission criteria, given negative media coverage of the issue. 57 CERD/C/IRL/CO/2, para. 18; CRC/C/IRL/CO/2, para. 61. 58 http://www.upr.ie/Clients/CEGA/UPRWeb.nsf/page/reports-en. 59 The main study will be in March 2012; it is planned to assess 5,500 15-year-old students in about 160 schools across Ireland. See www.erc.ie for more details. 60 Immigrant students are defined as those who were born outside Ireland (the majority of the group) or those born in Ireland where both parents were born outside Ireland. The PISA results, while based on a small sample of nonEnglish speakers, are consistent with other studies of immigrants in Irish schools, which stress the importance of English language proficiency - both oral and subjectspecific language skills. Language problems are the most commonly identified problem that principals and teachers report in relation to non-Irish national students, and have a serious impact on the reported academic performance of non-Irish children (Lyons and Little, 2009; Smyth et al., 2009). A recent Value for Money Review conducted by the Department of Education and Skills recommends the current system of support for English as an Additional Language (EAL) be revised, with more resources being channelled into training all teachers (continuous professional development), and less on providing specialist English language teachers (see Box 3.1). All teachers are seen to be language teachers with a key role to play in developing language proficiency among immigrant students. This review also recommends that the Inspectorate of the Department continue evaluations of EAL provision (2011b). An additional recommendation of the review is that sources of information should be co-ordinated to allow the systematic monitoring of migrants, particularly non-English speaking migrants, in State examinations. This has the benefit that the sample would be much larger than in the PISA study. While much emphasis has been placed on the role of language in academic achievement, language is also strongly associated with social integration. A recent study of social integration of immigrant students by Darmody et al., (2011) notes that in both teacher and student accounts, proficiency in English was one of the major challenges for most immigrant students. Even where students had some language skills, accent and informal language made social interactions with other students challenging. Language was also a key feature identified in the lack of engagement with schools and learning of immigrant parents in second-level schools in Ireland (Darmody and McCoy 2011). Research suggests that active parental involvement in their children’s schools has a positive impact on academic achievement (Fan and Chen, 2001). 3.3 Summary of Findings on Educational Attainment In the introduction we summarised how indicators of educational attainment among non-Irish nationals differ for adults and children in Ireland, and this Chapter presents the two separately. For educational qualifications among adults, these are mostly achieved outside Ireland. If we compare the whole adult population, non-Irish nationals have considerably higher qualifications than Irish nationals (Table 3.1). However, this is partly a function of the age profile of both groups – non-Irish nationals are young, and older Irish people tend to have lower educational qualifications than younger age groups. So, when we compare the proportion with tertiary education among 25-34 year-olds in Figure 3.1, the proportion of non-Irish nationals with tertiary education is very similar to that of Irish nationals. The same is true for the proportion of early school leavers among the population aged 20-24. Section 3.2 considers the achievement of non-Irish children in Irish schools. While their parents may be more highly educated overall, test scores of 15-yearolds suggest that children from non-English speaking backgrounds are struggling in reading and mathematics vis-à-vis their Irish peers, though the performance gap is greater for reading. Those immigrants from English speaking backgrounds do as well, or better, than their Irish peers. Whether non-English speaking children “catch up”, in terms of achievement, remains to be seen, but language emerges as a key issue in the education of non-Irish nationals in Ireland, and has been the subject of some policy discussion in the past year. In Chapter 6 of this report we pursue the issue of immigrant children in Irish schools further, by presenting broader indicators of the educational experience of immigrant children using the Growing Up in Ireland study. Box 3.1 Access to Education 61 The Irish education system is made up of primary, second level, third level and further education. Within the Irish primary school system, schools are privately owned and controlled by patron bodies and publicly funded through the Department of Education and Science. Over 90 per cent of primary and over 50 per cent of post-primary schools are under the patronage of the Catholic Church. The balance is generally under the patronage of the Church of Ireland, other religions and, particularly at post-primary level, Vocational Education Committees (VECs) (OECD, 2009). There is also a small but growing number of multi-denominational primary schools administered by the ‘Educate Together’ organisation and by the Community National Schools. State-funded education is available to Irish citizens at all levels and to non-Irish citizens at primary and secondary levels, or until aged 18. The situation of access to third-level is somewhat different. 62 Firstly, not all non-Irish nationals may enter third-level education. Those whose parents are asylum seekers or who are seeking asylum themselves are generally not 61 See http://www.education.ie/ for information on the education system in Ireland; http://www.inis.gov.ie/ for information on immigration requirements and http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/ for more general information. 62 For further details see 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. 27 permitted to access third-level education. Similarly, the children of international students are generally not allowed to access state funded education. Secondly, while the majority of non-Irish nationals may access third-level and further education, most must pay fees to do so. Non-EU nationals often pay a higher rate, and for many this may be prohibitive. Information on grants and financial assistance is often complicated (Coghlan et al., 2005).63 The Intercultural Education Strategy was launched in September 2010, following six months of consultation by the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister of State for Equality, Integration and Human Rights. The strategy encompasses all participants in education (both education providers and students) from both immigrant and host communities, based on the EU principle that integration is a two-way process. It is relevant to all levels of education, from pre-school to higher education (Department of Education and Science, 2010).64 Among the specific resources devoted to the strategy (academic year 2010/2011) were €85 million for English as an Additional Language in schools.65 Monitoring the effectiveness of the strategy will come from a number of bodies, though without specific targets, it is not entirely clear how the progress will be monitored. Another recent development is the issue of school enrolment. In June 2011, the Department of Education and Skills published a discussion paper on regulatory framework for enrolment policies and processes, drawing on a Departmental audit of school enrolment policies. At a general level, while the audit found ‘no evidence of any system wide enrolment practices that give rise to concern’, it did raise wider policy questions regarding written school enrolment policies which may be deemed exclusionary, such as pre-enrolling children from birth or providing preference to children of past pupils (DES, 2011: 6). Both of these criteria are likely to disadvantage immigrant children (Smyth et al., 2009). The discussion document proposes that schools which gave priority to children who were related to staff, board members or former pupils, who had been longest on a “waiting list”, who were more academically skilled 28 or whose parents had a particular linguistic ability should no longer be able to discriminate in such ways (DES, 2011). The full report is due to be published in 2012. It remains to be seen whether and to what extent these proposals will be implemented. In April 2011, a forum on Patronage and Pluralism in Primary Schools was also established. During 2011, the forum consulted with 13 key stakeholder groups at a number of working sessions. Key themes the forum is considering are: (1) how it can best be ensured that the education system can provide a sufficiently diverse number and range of primary schools catering for all religions and none; (2) the practicalities of how transfer/divesting of patronage should operate for individual primary schools in communities where it is appropriate and necessary; (3) how such transfer/divesting can be advanced to ensure that demands for diversity of patronage can be identified and met on a widespread basis nationally. An Advisory Group has been appointed to receive and assess the perspectives submitted and a report is due to be published later this year (2012).66 Supports for Immigrants in Schools A key support for migrant children in Irish schools is the provision of English language tuition. Most of this support is delivered through specialised “English as an Additional Language” (EAL) teachers, on the basis of the number of newcomer students.67 Since March 2009, ‘the level of EAL support will generally be reduced to a maximum of two teachers per school, as was the case before 2007’ (Circular 0015/2009). Other supports include the distribution of language assessment kits to primary and post-primary schools, in-service provision for language support teachers, guidelines on English as an Additional Language for all teachers and a booklet on intercultural education in both primary and postprimary schools.68 A recent Value for Money Review in the area recommends that more of the resources be directed towards continuous professional development of all teachers, not just specialised English as an Additional 63 Though some information is provided by www.studentfinance.ie. 64 A regularly updated comprehensive website on accessing intercultural materials has also been developed (www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/new_repository.pdf?language=EN). 65 Based on 1,405 teachers of English as an Additional Language in total – 1,125 primary teachers and 280 post-primary teachers. This includes both full-time and part-time posts. Information provided by the Department of Education and Skills. 66 See http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=10856&ecategory=56743&language=EN for further details. 67 Schools with fewer than 14 students receive a grant towards tuition; schools with 14-30 pupils, one extra teacher; students with 31-90 pupils, two extra teachers. Schools with more than 90 students requiring English-language tuition need to make a special application to the DES (Circular 0015/2009). 68 See the ‘Accessing Intercultural Materials’ portal for further information (http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/new_repository.pdf?language=EN). Language (EAL) teachers (Department of Education and Science, 2011a). 69 This would promote an awareness among all teachers, not just EAL teachers, that they have a key role to play in developing the language competence of EAL (and other learners). This is consistent with research highlighting benefits of a whole school approach to intercultural education, e.g. Smyth et al., (2009) and the OECD Review of Migrant Education in Ireland (OECD, 2009). This review also recommends more effective assessment of language needs of students initially, and also highlights the need for monitoring EAL provision, teaching and learning (Department of Education and Science, 2011a). It is not clear at the time of writing whether these recommended changes will be implemented. English Language Provision for Adults At the time of writing, a substantial number of English courses are provided by the VECs (Vocational Education Committees), through a number of different programmes and services. These are funded by the Department of Education and Skills, though exact spending figures were not available. English as a second language (ESOL) is provided by the VECs as part of the Adult Literacy Services. In 2010, 11,500 participants availed of tuition free of charge. VECs also provide English language tuition under the Back to Education Initiative (BTEI). In 2010 over 1,500 participations availed of this.70 The National Adult Refugee Programme was introduced in 2009 which includes provision of English language classes through a number of VECs across the country for people who were granted refugee status, but other Stamp 4 holders are also accepted (www.adultrefugee.ie).71 This programme also teaches additional skills for accessing the workplace, as well as Irish social and cultural knowledge. In 2010 there were over 800 participants on the Adult Refugee Programme. Another programme providing English classes to migrants is the ‘Fáilte Isteach’ project which involves older people volunteering their time to teach conversational English to new migrants from all over the world. Fáilte Isteach has recently expanded bringing the total number of branches in the country to 45 and a presence in 18 counties by end 2011. Fáilte Isteach, which receives some financial support from the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration, now has a team of three full-time staff and one part-time, all of whom support a group of 440 volunteers who are offering a service to 1,150 migrant students from 61 countries every week.72 69 This Value for Money Review draws extensively on an Inspectorate review of the provision of English as an Additional Language in 45 schools. 70 Information supplied by the Department of Education and Skills. 71 In summer of 2008, the Government announced that it was transferring responsibility for the provision of English language programmes for refugees to the Vocational Educational Committee (VEC) sector from Integrate Ireland Language Training (IILT). 72 http://www.integration.ie/website/omi/omiwebv6.nsf/page/F9260D02AAD30AD180257576003DB18F. 29 Chapter 4 Social Inclusion and Integration In this Chapter on social inclusion and integration, we present a number of indicators on income, poverty and deprivation, health and home ownership. We also look at sports participation. Taking a broad definition of social inclusion as the ability of an individual to fully participate in society to the same extent as the majority population, we see how these indicators touch on a number of aspects of life. Income and, more particularly, low levels of income are commonly used as indicators of an ability or inability to participate in society. Health is strongly associated with quality of life, and health problems may limit participation in society. Home ownership is sometimes seen as a measure of long-term integration, though home ownership rates vary widely cross-nationally (Eurostat, 2011). Participation in sport – both active participation and social participation – is another useful indicator of social integration. Most of the indicators come from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), as the recommended source by the conference at Zaragoza.73 An advantage of this survey from a European perspective is that it is harmonised across Europe and is thus a useful source of comparative data on these indicators. The EU-SILC is the reference survey used to provide annual estimates of household income and poverty in Ireland by the Central Statistics Office, and is indeed the only current survey data that can be used to estimate income, poverty and deprivation for non-Irish nationals living in Ireland. A disadvantage for monitoring integration is that the survey was not designed specifically to reach, record details of, and represent non-Irish nationals. In the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor we discuss concerns at the extent to which the EU-SILC 2008 sample under-represents migrants. The sampling frame was changed for the 2009 survey, so the 2009 sample does not under-represent migrants to the same extent as the 2008 sample.74 However, it does mean that some of the year-on-year change may be due to this change in sampling frame. In Appendix 4 we discuss the changes in the survey, and the sample of non-Irish nationals in more detail. In any case, given concerns about the sample size, in this section we run statistical tests to provide a robust test of the differences between non-Irish nationals and Irish nationals. The number of cases in the sample is also indicated in each table. The latest available EU-SILC data are from 2009, referencing the 12 months prior to the interview. To a greater extent than the 2008 data, this survey should capture the fall in incomes and living standards precipitated by the current economic recession. However, the reader should note that the situation in 2009 in Ireland was rather different from 2011, which is the year on which the labour market indicators are based. The Chapter first considers income and poverty measures by nationality (Section 4.1). We then look at health status (4.2) and home ownership (4.3), before moving on to look at sports participation by Irish and non-Irish nationals (4.4). The conclusion summarises and reflects on data needs in the area. Box 4.1 describes access to social services; 4.2 Income and Poverty. 4.1.1 Household Income This Chapter replicates the CSO method of estimating income poverty. Following this practice, the estimates pool all sources of income in each household in the 12 months prior to the date of interview, from each person and from various sources (employment, social transfers, interest on savings), and then assign this aggregated household income to each individual. This means that all members of the same household are treated as having the same standard of living. The individuals are from the whole population, including children and those over 65. For this Integration Monitor we estimate the median income for Irish nationals, non-Irish nationals and then by national group, according to the nationality reported by the individual.75 The median income or income midpoint is the value of income that divides the sample in half after having been sorted in increasing order. The estimates for median disposable household income, the first “Zaragoza Indicator” in this Chapter, are presented in Table 4.1. Different households have different needs and might benefit also from economies of scale, depending on the number of adults and children living in them, so household income is routinely adjusted to take account 73 For a detailed description of the SILC survey see CSO (2010). 74 The weighted proportion of non-Irish nationals for all adults aged 15 and over is 9.7 per cent in EU-SILC 2009, compared to 11.5 per cent on the QNHS, Quarter 2 in the same year. The weighted proportion of non-Irish nationals for all adults aged 15 and over is 6.9 per cent in EU-SILC 2008, compared to 13.8 per cent on the QNHS, Quarter 2 in the same year. This suggests that the 2009 EU-SILC survey is more representative of non-Irish nationals than the 2008 EU-SILC survey. 75 Note that individuals in multinational houses may thus have the same income but be assigned a different national group in the table. An alternative would be to assign all individuals the nationality of the household head, but this would under-represent nationalities. 31 of this variation. This adjustment is called an equivalence scale. Here we adopt the national equivalence scale which assigns a value of 1 for the first adult, 0.66 for any additional household members aged 14 and over and 0.33 for any children under 14. The disposable household income is divided by the equivalence scale value to calculate the equivalised income for each individual. This is the standard CSO adjustment for measuring poverty in Ireland and has been adopted in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS) poverty measure. Estimates of the median equivalised income for Irish and non-Irish nationals and for different national groups are presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 clearly shows that the median disposable household income, at €47,300 per year, is somewhat higher for Irish nationals than for non-Irish nationals (€43,605). Median disposable household income for non-Irish nationals is around 90 per cent of that of Irish nationals.76 The overall figure for non-Irish nationals hides considerable variation between the groups. The median household income for the EU13 nationals is very similar to the Irish level. UK incomes are lower, but the difference is not significant. The lowest median income is for the EU12 group, consistent with the low wages found in Part 3 for this group, and the difference between this group and Irish nationals is statistically significant. The non-EU group also has a lower median disposable household income than Irish nationals. As noted earlier in this report, the latter is a very diverse group, both in terms of national/ethnic origin and the positions they occupy in the labour market (e.g. large number of associate professionals as well as personal and protective service workers). After adjusting income for the needs of the household using the process described above, the picture changes somewhat. The equivalised incomes for non-Irish nationals is still significantly lower than for Irish nationals, but as households are somewhat smaller, on average, equivalised income for non-Irish nationals is now 97 per cent of Irish equivalised incomes. In fact, EU13 median equivalised income is actually higher than those for Irish nationals. This is because the average household size is particularly small for this group, thus the household income is spread over fewer individuals. After adjusting for needs, the EU12 median equivalised income becomes very similar to the Irish figure, this is again due to the smaller average household size in this group than for the Irish group. The UK equivalised median income estimate is much lower than for Irish nationals. Further investigation shows that the UK group tend to be older, have lived in Ireland for longer than other non-Irish groups, and have lower labour force activity rates (see Appendix 4). For the non-EU group, both the median disposable income and the median needs-adjusted income are lower than for the Irish group, and these differences are statistically significant. Table 4.1 Household Income and Household Equivalised Income, 2009 Disposable Household Income (Median) Equivalised (needs adjusted) Income (Median) 20,115 No of individuals in each group (unweighted) Irish 47,340 Non-Irish 43,605 * 19,630 * 949 UK 43,605 n.s. 15,056 * 202 EU13 46,963 n.s. 24,298 * 89 EU12 41,379 * 20,149 n.s. 349 Non-EU 44,402 * 17,222 * 307 All 46,512 20,107 11,691 12,638 Source: Own calculations from the EU-SILC, 2009, weighted. Notes: Non-Irish includes some with no stated nationality, hence this group is larger than the sum of the national groups. Equivalised income is income adjusted for the size and composition of the household, see text for further details. * is to signal that the group median is significantly different from the Irish median at p<=0.05; N.S. indicates that the difference is not statistically significant in this sample (using the non-parametric median test). 76 32 Median equivalised income is presented here. We estimate the same mean equivalised income per individual as the CSO, €23,326 (CSO, 2010). Comparing 2008 and 2009, the difference between Irish and non-Irish incomes is not so marked in 2009. Equivalised income for non-Irish nationals is 97 per cent of that of Irish nationals in 2009, in 2008 this figure was 87 per cent. Equivalised income fell slightly for Irish nationals, and rose somewhat for non-Irish nationals between 2008 and 2009. In particular, in 2009 the median income for the EU12 group is no longer much lower than for the Irish group. Given the high rate of unemployment among this group, this suggests that selective out-migration between the two survey years took place. Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1 shows substantial emigration of this group up until April 2009. Joyce et al., (2011) showed that unattached individuals were more likely to leave in this period, and the proportion of couples and families in the EU12 (and EU13) groups increased. Given that household incomes, both disposable and equivalised incomes, tend to be lower among single person households, this may account for some of the change. 4.1.2 Poverty Rates We now move from considering median income to those at the bottom of the income distribution. The two recommended indicators are the ‘at risk of poverty’ rate and the consistent poverty rate. The ‘at risk of poverty’ measure is the official poverty indicator used by the Irish government as well at the EU level. The poverty threshold that identifies the population at risk of poverty is set at 60 per cent of median equivalised income. For 2009 this was €12,064 per year (CSO, 2010). In Table 4.2, we present the proportion of different national groups whose income falls below this threshold.77 However, research has found that income poverty measures alone can provide a misleading picture about families and individuals most seriously affected by poverty (Whelan et al., 2003). In response to this, results from a measure of deprivation developed by Whelan (2007) are also calculated, and presented in Table 4.2. This is a combination of 11 items measuring the enforced lack of items such as food, clothing and heat, as well as being unable to participate in family and social life.78 This index has been incorporated into the National Anti-Poverty Strategy to supplement the income poverty measure. When combined with the income poverty measure this deprivation measure gives a measure of consistent poverty. Those individuals in consistent poverty are defined as those who are (1) ‘at risk of poverty’ and (2) living in households which lack two or more of these basic items, the conventional measure of being deprived. In Table 4.2 estimates of consistent poverty are presented. Table 4.2 ‘At Risk of Poverty’, Deprivation and Consistent Poverty Rates, 2009 At Risk of Poverty (under the 60% median poverty line) (%) Deprivation (enforced lack of 2 or more items) (%) 16.9 Consistent Poverty (At Risk + Deprived) (%) 5.4 No of individuals (unweighted) Irish 14.2 Non-Irish 13.0 n.s. 18.8 n.s. 6.5 n.s.# 949 UK 19.9 n.s. 26.8 * 7.4 n.s. 202 ~ 11,691 EU13 ~ EU12 10.7 n.s. 15.4 n.s. 5.6 n.s. 349 Non-EU 15.7 n.s. 24.5 * 9.9 * 307 All 14.1 17.1 ~ 5.5 89 12,638 Source: Own calculations from the EU-SILC, 2009, weighted. Notes: Non-Irish national group includes some with no stated nationality, hence this group is larger than the sum of the national groups. * is to signal that the group value is significantly different from the Irish value at p<=0.05. N.S. indicates that the difference is not statistically significant in this sample. # Value of marginal significance (p =0.06) ~Estimates for poverty rates among the EU13 group are not presented because they are unstable. See text for further details. 77 This is a relative income poverty measure, as the threshold is set as a proportion of all the incomes in the sample. 78 The items are: having two pairs of strong shoes; having a warm waterproof coat; buy new rather than second-hand clothes; eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day; have a roast joint (or its equivalent) once a week; go without heating during the last 12 months through lack of money; keep the home adequately warm; buy presents for family or friends at least once a year; replace any worn out furniture; have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month; have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment. For each of the 11 items respondents must indicate whether they lack the item because they cannot afford it or for another reason (see Russell et al., 2010a). 33 Table 4.2 shows that the overall ‘at risk of poverty’ rate is 14.1 per cent of the total population in 2009, as estimated by the CSO (2010).79 The rate is slightly lower for non-Irish nationals (13 per cent) than Irish nationals (14.2 per cent), though the difference is not significant. While there are differences between the national groups, these are not statistically significant from the Irish rate, i.e. the groups are too small to allow us to be confident about these differences.80 The CSO does not regularly publish estimates of poverty among non-Irish nationals, and there are no estimates for 2009. Previous research using EU-SILC had found a somewhat higher poverty rate among nonIrish nationals (2010 Annual Integration Monitor, using 2008 data; Russell et al., 2010 using 2007 data; National Report for Ireland on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-2010, using 2006 data).81 However, the 2009 sample of non-Irish nationals is larger and more reliable (see above). The picture is different if we consider deprivation and consistent poverty, which are more durable measures of deprivation due to lack of resources. In 2009, 17 per cent of the population were deprived, in the sense that they lack two or more basic items described above (Table 4.2). A somewhat higher proportion of non-Irish nationals are deprived (almost 19 per cent), though this is not significantly different from the deprivation rate for Irish nationals (17 per cent). There is considerable variation in deprivation rates between national groups however, with UK nationals and non-EU nationals showing higher deprivation rates than other non-Irish groups (see Table 4.2.). The proportion who are consistently poor, that is both ‘at risk of poverty’ and deprived, is 5.5 per cent in 2009 (see also CSO, 2010). The rate of consistent poverty for non-Irish nationals (6.5 per cent) is higher than for Irish nationals (5.4 per cent). This difference is marginally significant. So while the ‘at risk of poverty’ rate is not higher among non-Irish nationals in 2009, the consistent poverty rate is somewhat higher. As noted above, consistent poverty, which includes deprivation, is a more durable measure of command over resources, and does not fluctuate as much as income poverty (Whelan et al., 2003). As was the case with deprivation, the non-EU sample has a higher level of consistent poverty (almost 10 per cent), and this is significantly different from the Irish 34 sample. This is likely to be related to a greater proportion of students in this group, and those on home duties, resulting in a lower labour market participation rate (See Table 2.2; also discussion in O’Connell and McGinnity, 2008; MCRI, 2008). The consistent poverty rate is also notably higher than in 2008 (6 per cent) (2010 Annual Integration Monitor). As noted above, those seeking protection living in direct provision are excluded from this survey. While it would be difficult to include the group in measures of income poverty as their income takes the form of an allowance, and food and accommodation are provided directly, it seems reasonable to assume that if they were included with non-EU nationals the income poverty rate of this group could be somewhat higher, even though those seeking protection only made up about 5 per cent of non-EU nationals at this time.82 4.2 Health Status Health is an important element of quality of life and an individual’s ability to participate fully in society. This section compares health status between Irish and nonIrish nationals. We use a self-assessed measure of health status, based on an individual’s response to the question ‘How good is your health in general?’, with five possible responses ranging from very good to poor. This measure is frequently used in research in the area and has been found to be a good predictor of mortality and use of health care (Burstrom and Fredlund, 2001). In Table 4.3 ‘very good or good health’ refers to the share of the population perceiving their health status as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, and is a key “Zaragoza Indicator”. It is interesting to note that while over four fifths (83 per cent) of the population report their health to be very good or good, non-Irish nationals record significantly better health than Irish nationals. This was also the case using the 2008 data (2010 Annual Integration Monitor). Over 90 per cent of non-Irish nationals report good health, compared to 82.5 per cent of the Irish sample. The notable exception to the general pattern is the group of UK nationals: their self-assessed health is not significantly different from Irish nationals in 2009 (see Table 4.3). These group differences were found using the 2008 EU-SILC data, and also by Nolan, in her study of self-reported poor health by place of birth using the 2007 Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SLAN). 79 This is very similar to the poverty rate for 2008 (14.4 per cent), indicating that the decline in incomes was evidence right across the income distribution (CSO, 2010). 80 The ‘at risk of poverty rate’ for EU13 nationals is not shown as the estimates are unstable. 81 Russell et al., (2010) use the nationality of the household reference person. See the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor for further details of the ‘at risk of poverty’ rates for these studies. 82 Previous qualitative research on financial difficulties suggests that further distinctions of the non-EU group are likely to be fruitful, though this would be very difficult with EU-SILC data (e.g. MCRI, 2008). Table 4.3 Self-Assessed Health Status, 2009 Very Good or Good health (%) Statistically Significant Mean Age (rounded) No of individuals (16 and over) (unweighted) Irish 82.5 Reference 45 9,091 Non-Irish 91.6 * 34 806 UK 75.9 n.s. 42 182 EU13 96.3 * 36 80 EU12 96.5 * 29 293 Non-EU 93.1 * 34 249 All 83.4 44 9,895 Of which: Source: Own calculations from the EU-SILC, 2009, weighted. Notes: *Refers to statistically significant differences. Non-Irish includes some with no stated nationality, hence this group is larger than the sum of the national groups. While it is not possible to assess competing explanations without a multivariate model, one factor likely to be linked to better self-reported health among non-Irish nationals is that, with the exception of the UK, they tend to be considerably younger than Irish nationals (see Table 4.3). Another explanation is the ‘healthy immigrant’ effect, based on findings from Canada and the US, whereby the health of immigrants is better than comparable native-born individuals (Nolan, 2011). This is particularly true for recent immigrants, and most non-Irish nationals have been in Ireland for a relatively short time, with the exception of UK nationals (See Appendix 4). It should be noted that while widely used, this measure is of self-assessed health: individuals from different socio-economic groups may assess their health differently, as may those from different parts of the world (see Lindeboom and van Doorslaer, 2004). Nolan (2011) stresses in her paper that the effect of immigrant status in her study is relatively small. In a multivariate model, age, gender, education and household income would play a much greater role in determining health outcomes than country of origin. 83 4.3 Home Ownership Home ownership is the next indicator of integration proposed at Zaragoza. This section considers variation in home ownership by national groups. The economic boom in Ireland was associated with a very dramatic increase in house prices (Fahey and Duffy, 2007). In 1994, the average price of a new house in Ireland was just under €72,000. By 2007 the average price of a new house was €332,000, an increase by a factor of 4.7 (Department of Environment and Local Government, Housing Statistics). Late 2006/early 2007 saw the peak of house prices: since then prices have been falling rapidly as the market collapsed. By Quarter 2, 2009, during the time of the 2009 EU-SILC survey, the average price for a new house in Ireland was €240,000. Table 4.4 presents home ownership rates for private households in 2009. Home owners include both those who own their home completely, as well as those who own their house with a mortgage. Other types of tenancy are either private rented or local authority housing. As is common practice, home ownership rates are presented at household level, with nationality being assigned on the basis of the person who answered the household questionnaire.83 Because of the small number of households, figures for EU13 have been excluded. We assume there to be negligible differences between the nationality of the household head and the person who answered the household questionnaire, who we call household respondents in the discussion. 35 Table 4.4 Home Ownership by Households, 2009 Nationality Home Owners (%) No of households (unweighted) Irish 78.6 4774 Non-Irish 26.5* 367 UK 65.8* 97 EU12 00.0* 119 Non-EU 20.2* 113 All 73.9 5140 Source: Own calculations from the EU-SILC, 2009, weighted. Notes: Non-Irish includes some with no stated nationality, hence this group is larger than the sum of the national groups. EU13 estimates are not presented as the number of households is 37. Table 4.4 shows very substantial differences between Irish and non-Irish nationals in terms of home ownership. Just under 80 per cent of Irish household respondents owned their homes in 2009, compared to 27 per cent of non-Irish household respondents.84 This difference is statistically significant. There is considerable variation in home ownership across national groups. While UK household respondents are more likely to own their own house than other non-Irish household respondents, the proportion (at 66 per cent) is still significantly lower than for Irish household respondents. The lowest rate of home ownership is among EU12 nationals. In 2009 none of these households owned their homes (0 per cent).85 Around 20 per cent of Non-EU household respondents own their house. Previous work by Duffy (2008) using data from 2004 showed that even after controlling for age, education, family cycle, occupation/employment status and region, immigrants are much less likely to own their homes and given the scale of the differences shown in Table 4.4, this is likely to be still the case. This pattern of group differences in home ownership is very similar to that observed in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor where EU-SILC data from 2008 were used. In the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor we reflected on some of these factors. Some of these differences may not be so clearly influenced by recession. The lower rate of home ownership among non-Irish nationals may well reflect preferences for rental property: home ownership rates among immigrants may well reflect home ownership rates in the immigrants’ country of origin. Lower home ownership may reflect the fact that some individuals 36 may view their stay in Ireland as temporary, and may not want to make a long-term commitment like buying a home. Evidence from the study Getting On: From Migration to Integration suggests that EU nationals and students are more likely to view their stay as temporary than other non-EU nationals (MRCI, 2008). Data on PPS numbers combined with employment activity also suggests that a greater proportion of EU nationals have shorter stays than non-EU nationals (CSO, 2009a). In the case of non-EU nationals, they may intend to stay in Ireland, but only have a temporary residence permission, which may make it very difficult to get a mortgage to buy a house. 86 However, overall home ownership rates have fallen slightly since then – 77 per cent of household respondents owned their home in 2008 compared to 74 per cent in 2009. The fall has been particularly marked for the non-EU group (29 per cent in 2008 to 20 per cent in 2009). This may be due to the changing composition of this group, though evidence suggests that more single people left in this period (2008-2009) and that the proportion of families increased, for nonEU nationals as well as EU nationals (Joyce et al., 2011). It could also be that some of the factors explaining lower home ownership by non-Irish nationals have been exacerbated by the recession, and the collapse of the housing market. We cannot rule out that some of the change is related to changes in the EU-SILC sample between 2008 and 2009. NCCRI (2009) found that the requirement to demonstrate credit and employment history poses greater difficulty for immigrant mortgage applicants. 84 Note this overall figure for non-Irish includes EU13 nationals. 85 In 2008 three per cent of EU12 households owned their home. 86 See Chapter 5 for more details on the situation regarding citizenship and long-term residence for non-EEA migrants. This may play even more of a role in 2009, given that in 2009 it was much more difficult to get approved for a mortgage than a few years previously. The borrowing climate in 2009 was such that new migrants entering Ireland could find it very difficult to secure a loan, particularly non-EU immigrants who do not have Irish citizenship or a long-term residence permit indicating a long-term right to reside in Ireland. Affordability constraints may also play a greater role in recession. Though house prices were falling, if some groups of immigrants have higher levels of unemployment and job/income insecurity, they may not be/feel able to afford expensive homes in Ireland. 4.4 Active and Social Participation in Sport: Evidence from the Irish Sports Monitor Participation in sport is an important indicator of social integration. Sport is one of the cultural activities that can facilitate the integration of immigrants and it is increasingly cited in international research as a vehicle for inclusion (Singh, 2008). Relatively little is known about the participation of non-Irish nationals in sport in Ireland, and in this section we aim to address that gap by presenting some initial findings from the Irish Sports Monitor.87 88 The Irish Sports Monitor (ISM) is a telephone survey of participation in sport and physical exercise in Ireland, which began in 2007 and continued throughout 2008 and 2009. Based on regular telephone interviews with adults aged 16 and over, the ISM is primarily designed to track levels of participation in sport and recreational exercise, both for the population as a whole and various subpopulations of interest. The study employs large annual samples: 9,781 in 2009; 6,829 in 2008; 9,767 in 2007. The primary aim is to measure participation levels in the overall population with sufficient accuracy so that levels and trends can be monitored over a number of years (Lunn et al., 2011). The Irish Sports Monitor does record respondents’ nationality, but it is not designed specifically to reach and represent non-Irish nationals. Overall the sample underestimates the proportion of non-Irish nationals, and in particular it underestimates non-Irish nationals from non-English speaking countries (e.g. EU12 nationals). This is not surprising, given that a telephone survey requires very good oral language skills. Given concerns about the sample size and the interest in differences in sports participation between nationality groups, data are pooled from the 2007, 2008 and 2009 ISM surveys. In the data presented below, participation rates from 2007, 2008 and 2009 are combined and a mean participation score is derived from this. This means that we cannot analyse changes in sports participation for different national groups over time, but we can be somewhat more confident in the extent of Figure 4.1 Proportion Who Played Sport in the Past Seven Days, Irish Sports Monitor 50% 45% 40% % answer ‘yes’ 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Irish British Other EU Rest of World Note: Pooled data from the Irish Sports Monitor, 2007, 2008, 2009. Age 16-40. The difference between the Irish group and the British group is not statistically significant: the difference between the Irish group and the ‘Other EU’ and ‘Rest of the World’ groups is statistically significant (p<0.05). 87 There was a special module on sports participation in the Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS) in 2006, but the release does not present any information on sports participation by nationality. 88 Thanks to Dr Elish Kelly and Dr Pete Lunn for their analysis of these data. 37 differences between the groups.89 The analysis is limited to those aged 40 and under, given the low age profile of non-Irish nationals and the relationship between age and sports participation. The nationalities are grouped into: Irish, British, ‘Other EU’ (EU3 to EU27), and ‘Rest of the World’. For the ‘Other EU’ group and the ‘Rest of the World’, it is likely that this sample over-represents individuals with good language skills. To the extent that sport is linked to language skills, this may actually be an overestimate of sports participation for these groups, particularly the ‘Other EU’ group. Figure 4.1 shows the proportion of respondents who played sport in the past seven days broken down by nationality group. Playing sport includes all forms of sport and recreational physical exercise except walking.90 Nearly half of all Irish nationals surveyed (44 per cent) reported playing sport in the past seven days. British nationals reported a very similar rate of activity at 43 per cent. The ‘Other EU’ group report a lower rate of playing sports at 36 per cent, and the ‘Rest of the World’ group report the lowest activity rates, with only 28 per cent stating that they played sports within the past seven days. This mirrors international research findings (Singh et al., 2008) which report that immigrants have a lower participation rate in sport. The Irish Sports Monitor reports note that most active participation in sport is in individual sport (swimming and gym), but further research would be required to investigate whether this varied by national groups. In general, participation in team sports may have more potential to facilitate migrant integration than individual sports, though participation in clubs such as swimming clubs and running clubs are important exceptions. Figure 4.2 presents overall social participation in sport. Social participation is measured as any volunteering, club membership or attendance at games. The figure demonstrates that there is a marked difference in social participation in sport between nationality groups. Whilst nearly half of Irish nationals and British nationals report social participation in sport, 27 per cent of the ‘Other EU’ category report social participation in sport, whilst only 19 per cent of the ‘Rest of the World’ group report participation. The nationality difference is more marked for social participation than for active participation in sport. Figure 4.3 demonstrates the proportion who undertook a voluntary activity associated with sport and exercise activities in the past 7 days. Volunteering for sport means voluntary activity in support of sport or recreational physical activity, for adults or children. Overall, volunteering for sport in the past seven days was low compared to club membership or attendance at sports events: only 8 per cent of Irish nationals reported that they had volunteered for sport in the past Figure 4.2 Social Participation in Sport, Irish Sports Monitor 60% 50% % answer ‘yes’ 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Irish British Other EU Rest of World Note: Pooled data from the Irish Sports Monitor, 2007, 2008, 2009. Age 16-40. The difference between the Irish group and the British group is not statistically significant: the difference between the Irish group and the ‘Other EU’ and ‘Rest of the World’ groups is statistically significant (p<0.05). 38 89 For example, these data will not show any changes in sports participation as a result of recession (See Lunn et al., 2011 for a discussion of this). 90 Respondents were asked the following question: I would now like to ask you about any OTHER physical activities you undertook in the past 7 days for exercise, recreation or sport. Please DO NOT include physical activity for work, transport, or domestic work like gardening or DIY. Please DO include personal exercise, such as swimming, dancing or jogging, as well as all forms of sporting activity, indoor or outdoor, whether undertaken in an organised setting or casually with family or friends. So, in the past 7 days, did you participate in any such activities? YES/NO. Figure 4.3 Volunteering for Sport by Nationality, Irish Sports Monitor 9% 8% 7% % answer ‘yes’ 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Irish British Other EU Rest of World Note: Pooled data from the Irish Sports Monitor, 2007, 2008, 2009. Age 16-40. The difference between the Irish group and the British group is not statistically significant: the difference between the Irish group and the ‘Other EU’ and ‘Rest of the World’ groups is statistically significant (p<0.05). seven days, and 7 per cent of British nationals did so. If we exclude British nationals, there is an extremely low volunteering rate for non-Irish nationals: only 2 per cent of the ‘Other EU’ group reported volunteering, and 1 per cent of the ‘Rest of the World’ group. This is consistent with findings from the QNHS special module on social capital, which found that involvement in voluntary and community groups was lower among non-Irish nationals (CSO, 2009b). Further research would be required to investigate whether this is due to language difficulties, time constraints, cultural differences in attitudes to volunteering or other factors such as lack of integration into communities. Non-Irish nationals may either not be asked to volunteer, not feel welcome, or they may not be interested or in a position to do so.91 It may also be the case that volunteering for sport is lower for non-Irish nationals relative to Irish nationals than other forms of volunteering. For example, in terms of ethnicity, reports from the 2006 Census indicate that minority ethnic groups report a Figure 4.4 Sports Club Membership by Nationality, Irish Sports Monitor 45% 40% 35% % answer ‘yes’ 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Irish British Other EU Rest of World Note: Pooled data from the Irish Sports Monitor, 2007, 2008, 2009. Age 16-40. The difference between the Irish group and the British group is not statistically significant: the difference between the Irish group and the ‘Other EU’ and ‘Rest of the World’ groups is statistically significant (p<0.05). 91 In Getting On: From Migration to Integration, among the 400 Chinese, Indian, Lithuanian and Nigerian immigrants surveyed, sport scored low of the eight options for social activities, while visiting homes, eating/drinking out or religious services were far more important (MCRI, 2008: 121-127). 39 higher rate of volunteering for religious reasons than for sport, in contrast to White Irish respondents. This is particularly the case for Black respondents (CSO, 2007)92 Figure 4.4 demonstrates sports club membership. Irish nationals again have the highest participation rates with 41 per cent reporting that they are a member of a sports club. 36 per cent of British nationals are a member of a sports club, whilst only one fifth (21 per cent) of the ‘Other EU’ group and 15 per cent of the ‘Rest of World’ group are. Once again there is only a modest difference between British and Irish nationals, but a marked difference between these two nationality groups and other non-Irish nationals. Figure 4.5 shows the proportion who attended a sports event or fixtures in the past 7 days, either children’s or adult events, as a spectator or supporter, rather than as an active participant. This graph demonstrates that the British nationality group have a very similar rate of attendance in the past seven days to Irish nationals (circa 20 per cent). There is a marked difference between attendance of Irish and British nationals compared with ‘Other EU’ at 8 per cent and the ‘Rest of the World’ at 4 per cent. Overall, British nationals have very similar rates of sports participation to Irish nationals. However, the ‘Other EU’ group and ‘Rest of world’ group report much lower participation rates in sport. While this is true of active participation in sport, the differences in social participation between the ‘Other EU’/ ‘Rest of the World’ and Irish nationals are even more marked. This pattern is remarkably consistent for volunteering, club membership and attendance at games. It has been shown by Irish Sports Monitors reports that most adult sport is individual sport, whereas most social participation is linked to team sports. A significant proportion of volunteering, membership and attendance is GAA activity, which is considerably less common in urban areas, particularly in Dublin (Lunn and Layte, 2010, 2011). Some of the difference between active and social participation in sport may be linked to regional differences in sports participation and the location of non-British migrants, but this would require further investigation. Some of the difference may also be explained by the fact that if migrants have not played Gaelic games as children, they may be less likely to participate as adults. Note that these are descriptive statistics. Previous research has demonstrated that a range of factors linked to sports participation (for example gender, age, income, location) (Fahey et al., 2004; Lunn and Layte, 2010, 2011). Further analysis would be necessary to establish the role of nationality, once we account for these other socio-economic characteristics. 4.5 Summary of Inclusion Indicators Considering these social inclusion indicators the following picture emerges. For the overall comparison between Irish and non-Irish nationals, we find that nonIrish nationals have a somewhat lower disposable household income. However, when we account for Figure 4.5 Attendance at a Sports Event by Nationality, Irish Sports Monitor 25% % answer ‘yes’ 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Irish British Other EU Rest of World Note: Pooled data from the Irish Sports Monitor, 2007, 2008, 2009. Age 16-40. The difference between the Irish group and the British group is not statistically significant: the difference between the Irish group and the ‘Other EU’ and ‘Rest of the World’ groups is statistically significant (p<0.05). 92 40 In 2010 non-Irish nationals comprise 28% of registered volunteers with volunteer centres (direct correspondence with Volunteering Ireland, thanks to Peter Szlovak). This suggests that non-Irish nationals may be more interested in helping out with organisation and events, and particularly becoming involved in volunteer centres, and less interested in getting involved with sport organisations (which is not usually the remit of volunteer centres). differences in needs by using equivalised income, there is difference between the groups. ‘At risk of’ income poverty rates do not differ in 2009 between Irish and non-Irish nationals. However, the rate of consistent poverty is slightly higher for non-Irish nationals. Comparing 2008 and 2009, income differences between Irish and non-Irish have been reduced. In fact in 2009 there was no difference between the median equivalised income of Irish and non-Irish. In 2008 the ‘at risk of poverty’ rate was higher among non-Irish: this is not the case in 2009. However, we do see a change in consistent poverty: in 2008 there were no differences between Irish and non-Irish nationals, consistent poverty is now somewhat higher among the non-Irish group. In particular consistent poverty is now quite high among the non-EU group, though note these are from diverse backgrounds. Non-Irish nationals in general continue to report better health outcomes, with the exception of UK nationals. Patterns of self-reported health are very similar to that observed in 2008. Rates of home ownership are much lower among non-Irish than Irish nationals. Home ownership in 2009 was particularly low among EU12 nationals, and is also low among non-EU nationals. With home ownership the gap has widened somewhat between Irish and non-Irish between 2008 and 2009. Notwithstanding these changes, the two data points used are limited in what they say about change. 2009 was the early part of recession, and as noted, the EUSILC sample changed somewhat between 2008 and 2009. It will be very interesting to see if these trends continue in EU-SILC 2010 data, which will be presented in the next Annual Integration Monitor. Measuring income and poverty is an important component of monitoring integration. In 2010 we voiced some concern about the under-representation of immigrants in the EU-SILC. The fact that the 2009 EUEILC contains a higher proportion of immigrants is a positive development. However, reweighting the data to be representative of the national groups in the population using Census data would go further to address these concerns. The EU-SILC is potentially an excellent, cross-national dataset for comparing income and poverty rates among immigrants across Europe. The forthcoming Household Budget Survey will provide nationality and country of birth information, and could be an important additional source of income and poverty estimates for a future Integration Monitor in Ireland, though does not have the cross-national comparability of the EU-SILC. 93 Finally this Chapter looked at sport. Sports participation, be it active participation in sport or social participation (measured as volunteering, attendance and club membership) is very similar for Irish and British nationals. However, both active participation and social participation in sport is much lower for other non-Irish nationals (‘Other EU’, ‘Rest of the World’): saliently the gap is larger for social participation than active participation in sport. Further research in this area would allow us to investigate whether this relates to the characteristics of the individuals involved in terms of age, health and family status, and also about participation in different types of sport. Box 4.1 Access to Social Services93 Social Welfare The social welfare system is administered by the Department of Social Protection. It is divided into the following main types of payments. • Social insurance payments (for example job seeker benefit, maternity benefit, carers benefit and contributory old age pension). • Social assistance or means tested payments (for example job seeker allowance, disability allowance, pre-retirement allowance, non-contributory old age pension, carers allowance, supplementary welfare allowance). • Universal payments (for example child benefit). To qualify for social insurance payments an individual must have made the necessary number of social insurance (PRSI) payments for the scheme in question and satisfy certain conditions. Social assistance payments are made to those who do not have enough PRSI contributions to qualify for the equivalent social insurance-based payments, and who satisfy a means test. It should be noted however that accessing social welfare can adversely affect a non-EU national’s claim for citizenship or long-term residency as applicants are usually required to have been ‘self supporting’ for a period before application (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). Furthermore certain permissions to remain in the State issued by the Department of Justice and Equality specify that the holder must not become a burden on the State. Dependency on a basic assistance payment would constitute a burden in this context and could invalidate an individual’s right to reside in Ireland (Department of Social Protection, 2011). See http://www.welfare.ie/ for information on social welfare in Ireland; http://www.inis.gov.ie/ for information on immigration requirements and http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/ for more general information. 41 EU law requires that EU nationals are treated equally to Member State nationals in regard to accessing to social welfare. In practice, national administrative rules lead to differing levels of access. This is evidenced in Ireland by the application of a Habitual Residency Condition (HRC) to social assistance payments and to child benefit, which means that all applicants must show they are both resident in, and have a proven close link to Ireland. The HRC is applied to social welfare applications from Irish and non-Irish nationals. When the HRC condition was first introduced there was a requirement for a minimum two year residence in Ireland but this has been replaced with a more fluid assessment of a number of different factors.94 Currently the Department of Social Protection assesses the following: 1. The applicant’s main centre of interest, based on facts such as: location of home; where close family members live; whether the applicant belongs to social or professional associations in Ireland; and any other evidence or activities indicating a settled residence. 2. The length and continuity of the applicant’s residence in Ireland. 3. The length of and reason for any absence from Ireland. 4.The nature and pattern of employment. 5. Future intention to live in the Republic of Ireland as it appears from the evidence (Department of Social Protection, 2011). The evidence used for each factor depends on the facts of the individual case and the final decision reached is to some extent subjective. It is possible to bring an appeal against a negative decision on the HRC to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office. Health Services In Ireland there is universal access to public health care, though costs may apply, for example for GP services: Medical card holders may access certain public health services free of charge in Ireland. Entitlement to medical cards is means tested regardless of nationality. Asylum applicants living in direct provision are also entitled to a medical card. Refugees and those with leave to remain are also entitled to a medical card. The Health Service Executive National Intercultural Health Strategy 2007 – 2012 (NIHS) was developed 94 42 during 2007 and formally launched in 2008. The primary objective of the strategy is to provide a framework through which service providers are supported in addressing the unique care and support needs of people from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The HSE National Intercultural Health Strategy 20072012 provides a framework within which the health and care needs of people from diverse cultures and ethnic backgrounds are addressed, while staff are supported in delivering responsive, culturally competent services. Specific work continues around a range of areas including interpretation, gender based violence among minority ethnic women and issues around the health of asylum seekers and refugees. Within these areas, the approach taken is one of mainstreaming, where actions are aimed at enhancing access for all service users on an equal basis. Housing Services Local authorities in Ireland are the main provider of social housing for people who need housing and cannot afford to buy their own homes. Local authority housing is allocated according to housing need, and rents are based on ability to pay. Rent supplement is available for those in private rented accommodation who cannot afford to meet their housing costs. Both benefits are subject to a means test and applicants must satisfy the habitual residence condition described above, and qualify as eligible for social housing support. To be eligible for social housing support, a person must have a long-term right to reside in the State. The Department of Environment, Community and Local Government has given general guidance to authorities on how to assess whether an applicant for housing support has such a long-term right to reside in the State. A non-EEA national who has been granted Refugee, Programme Refugee, or Subsidiary Protection status is eligible to be considered for social housing support, from the date of granting of such status, on the same basis as an Irish citizen. New asylum applicants are housed within the direct provision where they receive food, accommodation and a payment of €19.10 plus €9.60 per child per week. Provisional figures for end 2011 indicate that there were approximately 5,400 persons seeking international protection, including asylum seekers, accommodated in direct provision centres in the State (Department of Justice and Equality, 2011). Asylum applicants may not receive rent supplement. The HRC was implemented from the date of EU accession, 1 May 2004, and affects all applicants of welfare payments regardless of their nationality. Chapter 5 Active Citizenship95 The active participation of immigrants in the democratic process and the prospect of acquiring Member State citizenship are stressed in the Common Basic Principles on Integration (CBP) as essential to migrant integration. Equal access of immigrants to institutions, goods and services, ensured through the granting of permanent or long-term residence status, is also seen as critical. Three indicators were suggested at the Zaragoza Ministerial conference for the purpose of measuring integration in the active citizenship domain: the share of immigrants who have acquired citizenship; the share of immigrants holding permanent or long-term residence permits; and the share of immigrants among elected representatives. This Chapter presents the calculation of these three indicators based on the best available national data; however several important caveats apply, which are detailed below. It should be noted that the first two indicators do not allow us to directly compare outcomes between Irish and non-Irish; instead they describe the context and the opportunities for integration. This Chapter presents some new information on the number who acquired citizenship and long-term residence permits in 2010. For 2010 we also present a gender and age breakdown of those who have acquired citizenship, and, to give a sense of the countries of origin, we present the top ten nationalities who acquired citizenship during the year. There have been several significant policy developments in the active citizenship domain since the publication of the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, specifically in relation to access to citizenship through naturalisation. These are discussed in section 5.1 below. Continued delays in the enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 mean that Ireland remains without a statutory long-term residence status. Important local-level initiatives have taken place to promote the political participation of migrants in Ireland. Box 5.1 presents details on access to citizenship, Box 5.2 access to long-term residence and Box 5.3 access to political participation. 5.1 Citizenship Ireland was the last EU Member State to move away from a system which granted citizenship to anyone born on the territory. Since 1 January 2005 any child born to non-Irish parents is not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship unless one of the parents was legally resident in Ireland for at least three out of the four years preceding the child’s birth. Access to citizenship is of fundamental importance to the integration of migrants. The relevant indicator suggested at the Zaragoza conference for measuring integration in this regard is the “share of immigrants who have acquired citizenship”. In this report, and consistent with the approach in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, the calculation of this indicator is limited to the population of non-EEA origin. This is partly because freedom of movement within the EU means that a stock figure for all migrants is only available for Census years. There are also few incentives for EU nationals resident in Ireland to adopt Irish nationality and across the EU the naturalisation rates of mobile EU citizens are generally low (EUDO Citizenship 2010). The indicator is also limited to migrants aged 16 and over, due to the fact that non-EEA children do not register with the GNIB and therefore no data are available on younger age groups. The number of non-EEA nationals aged 16 and over holding “live” immigration permissions (in the form of Registration Stamps issued by the Garda National Immigration Bureau) in December 2010 was 133,232.96 A total of 24,969 non-EEA nationals acquired citizenship in the period 2005-2010. Assuming that people who have been through the naturalisation process have made a commitment to remain in Ireland and will not have moved away, their number may be added to the total registered giving a total estimated “immigrant population” of non-EEA origin of 158,201. • Based on available data, it may be estimated that the share of non-EEA adult migrants who naturalised between 2005-2010, as a proportion of the estimated stock of non-EEA adult migrants resident at end 2010, was 16 per cent. This represents an increase of 3 percentage points on the share of non-EEA migrants who naturalised 2005-2009 as a proportion of the estimated stock of resident non-EEA migrants in 2009, reported in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor (13 per cent).97 • The number of non-EEA nationals who acquired citizenship through naturalisation during 2010 was 4,969. As in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor the following caveats apply: firstly it is not known how many people 95 It should be noted that the term “active citizenship” is used here as a broad concept embracing formal and non-formal, political, cultural, inter-personal and caring activities (Taskforce on Active Citizenship, 2007) and as such is not limited to the activities of Irish citizens. 96 Source: Eurostat. 97 If previously naturalised non-EEA nationals are excluded from the denominator for this calculation, this figure becomes 18.7 per cent for 2010 and 14.9 per cent for 2009. 43 Table 5.1 Non-EEA Nationals 16 and Over who Acquired Citizenship During 2010 by Sex Number who acquired citizenship Per cent of total Female 2,361 48% Male 2,608 52% Total 4,969 100% Source: Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service Table 5.2 Non-EEA Nationals 16 and Over who Acquired Citizenship During 2010 by Age Group No. who acquired citizenship Per cent of total 16-39 3,106 63% Over 40 1,863 37% Total 4,969 100% Source: Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service Table 5.3 Non-EEA Nationals 16 and Over who Acquired Citizenship During 2010 by Nationality Nationality of applicant Number who acquired citizenship Per cent of total Nigeria 829 16.7% Philippines 474 9.5% India 355 7.1% South Africa 309 6.2% China (including Hong Kong) 248 5.0% Pakistan 241 4.9% Russian Federation 217 4.4% Bangladesh 190 3.8% Ukraine 181 3.6% Sudan 118 2.4% Zimbabwe 118 2.4% Others 1,689 34.0% Total 4,969 100.0% Source: Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service naturalised prior to 2005 as reliable records do not exist; and secondly it is not known how many people who naturalised subsequently left the State.98 Non-EEA nationals aged 16-39 who acquired citizenship during 2010 substantially outnumber those in the 40+ age group. Tables 5.1-5.3 provide additional information on people who acquired citizenship through naturalisation during 2010. Marginally more males than females acquired citizenship in the period (Table 5.1). Table 5.3 presents the top ten nationalities of adult non-EEA nationals who acquired citizenship in 2010. The top ten nationalities account for two-thirds of all non-EEA nationals who acquired citizenship. Almost 17 98 44 The stock figure used includes certain groups of non-EEA nationals, such as students, Intra-Company Transferees and trainees, whose residence in Ireland does not count as “reckonable residence” when applying for naturalisation. Such groups are included in the estimate because it is a matter of national policy whether or not their residence counts towards eligibility for naturalisation. To exclude them would conflate the “policy outcome” with “policy output” within the indicator. A similar approach is adopted in the Eurostat Pilot Study discussed in Box 1.1. per cent of Nigerian nationals acquired citizenship, followed by 9.5 per cent of Filipino nationals. The next most common were Indian nationals (7 per cent of the total) and South African nationals (6 per cent). Some of the increase in the share of naturalised to nonEEA nationals, as well as the dominance of the Nigerian nationality group, may be as a result of the Irish Born Child Scheme introduced in 2005. As referenced in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor almost 18,000 residence applications were submitted under the Irish Born Child 2005 Scheme (IBC/05). Almost 16,700 applications were approved, of which 37 per cent were in respect of Nigerian nationals. People who had permission to remain under IBC/05 on the basis of parentage of an Irish child, and have been resident in Ireland since 2005, should have reached sufficient reckonable residence to apply for naturalisation in 2010. Without equivalent data for 2009 it is not possible to investigate this further. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 Act as amended provides that the Minister for Justice and Equality has “absolute discretion” in granting an application for a certificate of naturalisation. Ongoing debate has focussed on the discretionary nature of the decision on granting citizenship through naturalisation. The 2011 MIPEX study concluded that while applicants for citizenship in Ireland benefited from relatively short residence requirements and the option of dual nationality, the extent of Ministerial discretion and length of processing times were serious obstacles to integration. Operational problems in processing applications have also been a source of public debate. Research published in May 2011 by the Immigrant Council of Ireland identified problems of long waiting times, lack of information, inconsistent procedural requirements and discretionary decision-making (Cosgrave, 2011). In March 2011 there were approximately 22,000 citizenship applications awaiting decision, approximately 17,000 of which had been awaiting decision for a period in excess of six months with an average waiting time of 26 months. At that time approximately 55 per cent of all citizenship applications received had to be returned to applicants due to forms being incorrectly completed. The Minister for Justice and Equality, who took office in March 2011, stated his intention to reduce the backlog and to cut processing times, in part by putting more efficient procedures in place (Department of Justice and Equality, June 2011). In October 2011 the average waiting time was 23 months; the Department aims to cut this average processing time to six months by Spring 2012, except where there are exceptional circumstances.99 Overall in 2011 the implementation of more efficient processing procedures meant a significant increase in the number of cases decided with double the volume of valid applications being decided in 2011, some 16,000, compared to 2010 when fewer than 8,000 were decided. During 2011 the OPMI supplied funding to the New Communities Partnership to assist migrants to fill in applications for citizenship. This initiative, along with the ongoing support work NGOs such as the Immigrant Council Ireland, MRCI and The Integration Centre provide, has significantly reduced the error rate among such assisted applications. New application forms were introduced in June 2011 and the first formal civic ceremony to mark the granting of citizenship was held in the same month. Persons from 112 countries attended 28 citizenship ceremonies in 2011. The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011 provides for amendments to provisions across a range of civil and regulatory law (see Box 5.1 for details). In January 2012 the Minister for Justice and Equality stated that a key priority for 2012 is completion of work on the development of an English language/civics test for naturalisation applicants. The tests will be administered to all citizenship applicants, the Department has stated that ‘the language – even at a most basic level – together with some knowledge of the way business is conducted in Ireland is an essential part of the integration process for immigrants and must form an integral part of eligibility for naturalisation’ (Department of Justice and Equality, 2012). Box 5.1 Access to Citizenship100 Citizenship through naturalisation An application for a certificate of naturalisation is considered under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended. Foreign nationals living in Ireland may apply to the Minister for Justice and Equality to become an Irish citizen if they are over 18 years, or a minor who was born in the State after 1 January 2005. The applicant must “be of good character” and have had a period of 1 year continuous reckonable residence in the State immediately before the date of application and, during the previous 8 years, have had a total reckonable residence in the State amounting to 4 years. The applicant must intend in good faith to continue to reside in the State after naturalisation and make a declaration of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. Applicants are usually required to have been “self supporting” i.e. not 99 http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/WP11000028 100 See http://www.inis.gov.ie/ and http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/ for more general information. 45 dependent on social welfare for the three years prior to application. Periods spent in Ireland, for example, as an asylum applicant or as a student are not considered when calculating reckonable residence. There is no mechanism for challenging a refusal of an application and there is currently no legal obligation to provide reasons for a refusal of an application for naturalisation. Currently Irish citizenship may be withdrawn no matter how long a person has been an Irish citizen (though not if it would make them stateless). The procedures for applying for and granting of naturalisation have been significantly revised during 2011. A new processing fee of €175 was introduced in November 2011 together with new forms for all applications for naturalisation. If granted citizenship the successful applicant must pay a further fee of €950; €200 for naturalised minors. It is procedurally required for a foreign national parent to have made a successful application for naturalisation before submitting an application on behalf of their minor child who is resident in the State with them (Cosgrave, 2010). Under provisions contained within the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 Certificates of Naturalisation may now be presented at formal citizenship ceremonies. This Act also allows for civil partners to receive treatment equal to married couples in citizenship matters. Citizenship through birth or descent The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 provides that only children born to Irish citizen parent(s) automatically become Irish citizens. A child born on the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship if they have a British parent or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency. Other foreign national parents of children born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland (evidenced by being resident legally for at least 3 out of the previous 4 years) in order for their child to claim Irish citizenship.101 Irish citizens may hold the citizenship of another country without giving up their Irish citizenship. 5.2 Long-Term Residence The share of immigrants who acquired permanent or long-term residence was agreed by the EU Member States as a Core Indicator of Integration Outcomes102, since active citizenship supports migrants’ integration, participation in the democratic process, and sense of 46 belonging. In terms of its impact on integration, longterm residence enables Third Country Nationals to participate more in many areas of life on an equal legal footing with nationals and EU citizens (MIPEX, 2011). In the absence of a statutory scheme Ireland currently operates an administrative long-term residency scheme, which is open only to employment permit holders and their dependent spouses. Data on persons who are granted long-term residence via the current administrative scheme are available for the period 2005 to 2010. See Box 5.2 for a description of access to longterm residence in Ireland. • Available data show that in the six years between 2005 and 2010, 11,377 non-EEA nationals aged 16 and over were granted long-term residence in Ireland. Using the estimate of the stock of the immigrant population of non-EEA origin described above (158,201) it may be stated that the estimated share of the non-immigrant population aged 16 and over who were granted long-term residence is 7 per cent. The equivalent share reported in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor was 5 per cent. 103 • The number of non-EEA nationals who were granted long-term residence during 2010 was 3,706. The main caveat to be applied to this estimation is that it is not known how many people who were granted long-term residence subsequently left the State. In addition the long-term residency scheme started in 2004 and data do not exist on the number of people granted this status in 2004. Finally this calculation excludes persons granted ‘permission to remain without condition as to time’ (see Box 5.2). Access to the existing long-term residence scheme is considered by various NGOs to be too restricted (available only to workers and their families), discretionary and poorly defined in terms of rights and entitlements: the impact of temporary departure from the State for example is not clear (Immigrant Council of Ireland, 2010). The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 includes provision for a more clearly defined long-term residence status. This Bill was reintroduced after the change of government in Spring 2011 and it is anticipated that it will resume the legislative process, with amendments, at Committee stage in early 2012. Non-EEA nationals granted longterm residence under the Bill’s provisions would be entitled to reside in the State, to travel into and out of the State like Irish citizens, to work, and to healthcare, social welfare and education to the same extent as citizens. 101 If children are born outside Ireland their parent or grandparent must have been born in Ireland for them to qualify automatically for citizenship. See www.inis.gov.ie for further information. 102 See http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_13055_519941744.pdf 103 If previously naturalised non-EEA nationals are excluded from the denominator of this calculation the figure becomes 8.5 per cent for 2010 and 5.7 per cent for 2009. However there are important differences between EU Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of Third Country Nationals who are long-term residents, which Ireland has opted out of, and the status proposed under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill.104 In particular, while under Directive 2003/109/EC the renewal of long-term residence is automatic, the proposed Irish status is granted for 5 years initially and may then be renewed. In order to be eligible for longterm residence under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill an applicant must fulfil various conditions including: to be of good character; to speak English or Irish; and to satisfy the Minister for Justice and Equality that they are making efforts to integrate. There are no guidelines in the Bill as to how language skills or levels of integration should be measured. An NGO Coalition Briefing Paper on the Bill states that proposals in the Bill are weak and access to long-term residence status involves satisfying vague qualifying criteria, which are stricter than the current administrative scheme (NGO Coalition, 2011). Ireland scores poorly on long-term residence in MIPEX 2011 due to the lack of a generally accessible long-term residence scheme. The scheme proposed under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill is also criticised for the vague eligibility conditions attached. Box 5.2 Access to Long-Term Residence105 Ireland does not yet have a statutory long-term residence status but operates an administrative scheme instead. The current administrative scheme allows persons who have been legally resident in the State for a continuous period of five years or more on the basis of an employment permit (and their dependent spouses),106 to apply for a five-year residency extension. They may also then apply to work without the need to hold an employment permit. A €500 fee for processing applications under this scheme was introduced in 2009. This long-term residency scheme is available to those who are still in employment and to those with an employment permit who, having completed 5 years work, have been made redundant. The Green Card as introduced (see Box 2.1) was intended to lead directly to the granting of long-term residence. Given the delays in enacting the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill the Department of Justice and Equality introduced an interim administrative scheme in August 2010, whereby a) the holders of Green Cards for two years or b) former Green Card holders who were granted Stamp 4 for 12 months, may be granted a Stamp 4 permission for a further two years. The Stamp 4 issued entitles the holder to work in the State without holding an employment permit. This is subject to the applicant complying with previous immigration and employment permit conditions and being “of good character”. Non-EEA nationals who have lived in Ireland for at least 8 years and who are ‘of good character’ may be permitted to remain in Ireland “without condition as to time”. They receive a Stamp 5 registration on their passport and can work without an employment permit (Becker, 2010). 5.3 Voting and Elected Representatives All residents in Ireland, regardless of nationality, may stand and vote in local elections. As a result of this provision, which is unusual in a European context, Ireland’s political system is generally deemed to be inclusive and to offer favourable conditions for integration. Irish citizenship is required in order to stand or vote in General elections. Rules on voting and standing in elections in Ireland are discussed in more detail in Box 5.3. The recommended “Zaragoza Indicator” of integration in this domain is the share of immigrants among elected representatives. • The last Local elections took place in June 2009 at which four immigrants were elected, originating from Nigeria, the Netherlands, Russia and Lithuania. There are 1,627 local authority members in Ireland107 and this gives a per cent share of 0.2 per cent. • A total of 37 migrant candidates stood in the 2009 local elections, of which 14 originally came from Nigeria and eight from Poland meaning that 10 per cent of immigrant candidates were elected. • The last General Election, in which only Irish and UK citizens may vote, took place in February 2011. Out of 564 candidates nationwide108, one candidate was originally from Libya, one from Cameroon and two were from Nigeria (Mutwarasibo, 2011). None were elected.109 104 Under the terms of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community by the Treaty of Amsterdam, Ireland does not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title IV of the EC Treaty unless Ireland opts into the measure. Ireland has given an undertaking to opt in to measures that do not compromise the Common Travel Area with the UK. 105 See http://www.inis.gov.ie/ and http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/ for more general information. 106 In order to apply for long-term residency as a spouse/dependant, the applicant must be legally resident in the State as a spouse/dependant for the required 5 years. Long-term permission does not exempt the spouse/dependant(s) from employment permit requirements. 107 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2009). Information leaflet: How Members of Local Authorities are elected. Available at www.environ.ie. 108 http://www.irishelection2011.com. 109 Note it is difficult to be definitive on whether or not candidates have a migrant background in the General Election. It depends on whether a candidate wants this to be known or not, as all are Irish or UK citizens. Some may also be second-generation migrants. 47 Research has shown that there has been some progress in terms of measures aimed to improve immigrants’ and ethnic minorities’ participation in Irish politics. In a survey of Irish political parties in relation to immigrants and integration Fanning, et al., (2009) detected political efforts to engage with immigrants in Ireland. Good practice initiatives discussed in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, such as the Voter Education Campaign run by the New Communities Partnership and the Africa Centre110 and the Voter Registration Campaign run by Dublin City Council, have been built upon in the past year.111 The Integration Centre (2011) recommends that migrants with long-term residence should be allowed to vote in all elections. • In September 2010 the Immigrant Council of Ireland undertook the “Count Us In” campaign to remind General Election 2011 candidates that naturalised Irish citizens and second-generation migrants have a right to vote. The initiative was in response to reports from migrants that candidates and canvassers had not engaged with them during the campaign. The group also campaigned for the appointment of a migrant representative to the Seanad. The “Count Us In” campaign is supported by the integration office of Dublin City Council. • Crosscare Migrant Project will launch a new migrant integration scheme “Opening Power to Diversity” in January 2012.112 The scheme, which is supported by the European Commission and the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration, aims to encourage migrant participation in, and understanding of, politics in Ireland by placing migrants to “shadow” TDs or Senators for two days per week over a sixmonth period. However despite the favourable conditions for migration integration to politics in Ireland, challenges remain. The continued uncertainty over the future of the Ministerial Council on Integration is a concern in this regard. MIPEX 2011 scored Ireland at 100 per cent on electoral rights and political liberties but more poorly on consultative bodies.113 The Integration Centre (2011) recommends that an Expert Migrant Consultative Group should be established to provide advice and migrant proof legislation/policies. 48 Box 5.3 Access to Political Participation Ireland is a parliamentary democracy. The two houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament) are Dáil Éireann (the House of Representatives) and Seanad Éireann (the Senate). Each of the Dáil’s 166 members is a Teachta Dála (TD) directly elected by the people through General Elections. General Elections take place at least once every five years; the most recent one was held in February 2011. By-elections are held if a TD (Member of Parliament) dies or resigns. Only Irish and UK citizens may vote in General Elections. UK nationals may do so by virtue of reciprocal voting rights in Ireland and the UK. Only Irish citizens may stand at General Elections or vote in Referenda. Local elections are also held at maximum five-year intervals to elect Councillors to Local Authorities. There are 114 Local Authorities in Ireland comprising: 29 County Councils, 5 City Councils, 5 Borough Councils and 75 Town Councils. All residents: Irish, EU and nonEU, may vote or stand in local elections. In order to vote an individual’s name must have been entered on the electoral register. The City and County Councils compile a register of electors every year. In order to be included in the register a person may have to provide proof of identity.114 5.4 Summary of Findings on Active Citizenship The share of non-EEA persons who have naturalised in the period since 2005 has increased since the publication of the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. The share of Non-EEA nationals holding long-term residence to the estimated stock has also increased. There have been no elections for local government since the publication of the 2010 Monitor therefore the third indicator remains the same. Despite clearly positive conditions for political participation, migrants in Ireland are facing challenges accessing both citizenship and long-term residence. There have been several improvements to policy and practice regarding access to citizenship through naturalisation in Ireland; this cannot be said of longterm residence. The access to long-term residence remains unsatisfactorily limited and the rights associated with the status are poorly defined. In relation to the political participation of migrants in Ireland, the doubt surrounding the future of the Ministerial Council on Integration is a concern. 110 New Communities Partnership and the Africa Centre, 2010 111 We cannot confidently state whether the proportion of candidates with migrant backgrounds in the General Elections was low or high, as it is difficult to distinguish exactly how many candidates are of migrant background. This is because in order to qualify to stand, all candidates must be English or Irish citizens. 112 See www.livinginireland.ie. 113 http://www.mipex.eu/ireland 114 See http://www.checktheregister.ie/. Chapter 6 Thematic Focus: Immigrant Children in Irish Schools 6.1 Introduction The rapid rise in immigration of non-Irish nationals into Ireland has not only meant that the adult population has become more diverse, but also that children and schools have become more diverse in terms of nationality, language and ethnicity. How do these children fare in Irish schools? In Chapter 3 we discussed the academic performance of 15-year-olds. In this Chapter we look more broadly at the educational experience of nine-year-olds, comparing the children of immigrants with Irish children using the Growing Up in Ireland study (GUI). Chapter 3 presented published information: this Chapter presents original analysis. Indeed this is the first analysis of these data that systematically compare a range of outcomes academic achievement, attitudes to school, engagement, support for learning at home and peer relationships - for immigrant and non-immigrant children. A number of recent studies highlight the challenges faced by the Irish education system in dealing with national and linguistic diversity, given little previous experience of this (Devine, 2005; Smyth et al., 2009; Gilligan et al., 2010). Qualitative studies focus on the experience of children (Devine et al., 2008; Darmody et al., 2011) and other studies, while including children’s voices, focus more on school-level processes (Smyth et al., 2009; Byrne et al., 2010). The GUI is a large nationally representative longitudinal study of nineyear-olds (8,570 children), and has the child at the centre of the study. It is a rich dataset with a range of different outcomes and perspectives useful for examining the experience of education – that of the child, their primary caregiver and their teacher. A growing international literature considers the academic performance of the children of immigrants, yet the focus is predominantly on academic achievement and immigrant/native gaps in educational performance (Heath and Brinbaum, 2007; OECD 2010). While performance in reading and Mathematics forms part of this Chapter, this Chapter takes a broad view of the child’s educational experience, both at home and at school, drawing on Williams et al., (2009, Chapter 7). As well as comparing achievement scores in reading and Mathematics (Section 6.3), we also look at other important factors and how they differ for Irish and immigrant children: children’s attitudes – to their school, their teacher and whether they look forward to 115 school; their engagement with school, in terms of absenteeism and homework completion (Section 6.4). We consider support for learning at home – mothers’ literacy and numeracy levels, how often parents help with homework and their aspirations for their children (Section 6.5). Finally, we look at peer relationships and whether these differ between Irish and immigrant children (Section 6.6). Together these form a comprehensive picture of the educational experience of nine-year-olds. Note that while the charts in this Chapter are based on a representative sample of nine-year-olds in Ireland, they are descriptive. Children and their families will vary by many other characteristics which will affect outcomes, not just their parents’ place of birth or the language spoken in their home, and readers should bear this in mind. These children will have been in Ireland for different lengths of time, and may find themselves in very different family situations. Even within country groupings, there is a great variety of countries of origin. Indeed while we frequently refer to the group as immigrant children, they are more precisely the children of immigrants. The reasons for this, and how we define the group, are outlined below (Section 6.2). 6.2 Defining the Children of Immigrants in the Growing Up in Ireland Study The Growing Up in Ireland Study The analysis in this Chapter is based on the first wave of the Growing Up in Ireland study, a national representative sample of 8,570 nine-year-olds, their families and teachers (Williams et al., 2009).115 The sample was generated through the primary school system, where a total of 910 randomly selected schools participated in the study and children were selected from the schools. As is typical in surveys of this nature, the sample was re-weighted to ensure that the information is representative of nine-year-olds in Ireland. The data were collected between September 2007 and June 2008; the majority of children in this study were born in 1998, some were born in 1997. Defining Immigrants in the Study The initial plan was to define immigrants in this Chapter according to their nationality, as is the case in most of this Integration Monitor. However, children of immigrants in this age cohort are entitled to Irish This study is based on the Researcher Micro File (RMF) from the Child Cohort (at nine years) of Growing Up in Ireland, made available through the CSO and DCYA. Growing Up in Ireland data have been funded by the Government of Ireland through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs; have been collected under the Statistics Act, 1993, of the Central Statistics Office. The project has been designed and implemented by the joint ESRI-TCD Growing Up in Ireland Study Team. © Department of Children and Youth Affairs. 49 Figure 6.1 Place of Birth of Immigrant Mothers (weighted) UK 9,9% 10,10% Western Europe 19,19% Eastern Europe Africa 37, 37% Asia 18,18% 7,7% Other Western, S America citizenship if they were born in Ireland of non-Irish parents (see Chapter 5), so a significant minority of second-generation immigrants could be classified as Irish. The alternative of using “born abroad” was also seen as problematic: many nine-year-old children born abroad may be the children of Irish immigrants who returned in the early part of the economic boom. So it was decided to use information from the primary caregiver, hence the focus is on the children of immigrants. This has the advantage that it is the most commonly used definition in the international literature on the educational outcomes of immigrants, like the OECD studies, PISA (OECD 2006, 2009). Immigrant mothers are those who are born abroad and define themselves as ethnically not Irish.116 According to this definition, 91.3 per cent of the mothers are Irish; 8.7 per cent immigrant.117 For some outcomes we are also interested in country of origin, which is taken from mother’s place of birth for immigrants. Immigrant mothers come from a wide range of countries. For analysis purposes we divide the immigrant group into: UK, Western Europe, Eastern Europe (including Russia, Ukraine and other countries in this region), Africa, Asia, ‘Rest of the World’ (US, Canada, Australia, South America).118 Figure 6.1 shows the proportions in each group, weighted to be representative. Unfortunately the numbers of immigrants from Western Europe and the ‘Rest of the World’ groups are too small to be presented separately, though they are included in the overall definitions of immigrants. 119 Language spoken at home has been shown to be a key factor in both academic and social outcomes (Perkins et Figure 6.2 Immigrants by Language Spoken at Home 4.8% 3.9% Irish Immigrant English speaking Immigrant, Non-English speaking 91.3% 50 116 Their ethnicity could be White, non-Irish; African, Asian, Other, as in the Census. This rules out Irish people born abroad. The small number of Irish Travellers in the sample are coded as Irish for this analysis. 117 Note some of these mothers have been here for more than 20 years. However, if they were born abroad and describe themselves as of non-Irish ethnicity, they are counted as immigrants. 118 While some East European countries are not in the EU, given the role of socio-cultural and linguistic factors in educational outcomes, it was seen as better to group Ukraine etc. with Eastern Europe, though this is different from other Chapters in the Monitor. 119 The threshold for inclusion in these data is 100 for showing proportions. al., 2010; Eivers et al., 2009; Smyth et al., 2009). The GUI study asks respondents which language they speak at home,120 and immigrants are also subdivided into whether they speak English at home or another language.121 than the sample of Irish mothers. 30 per cent of immigrant mothers who speak English at home have a university degree or more and almost 40% of nonEnglish speaking mothers compared to 15 per cent of Irish mothers in this sample. Figure 6.2 shows that this alternative subdivision gives 4.8 per cent English speaking and 3.9 per cent nonEnglish speaking immigrants along with 91.3 per cent Irish in the total sample. In the rest of the Chapter we compare either all immigrant children to Irish children, or by immigrant language group or by groupings of countries, though the reader should appreciate there is considerable national and linguistic diversity (in terms of language spoken) within these groups. Given the impact of parents’ education on the educational experience of children, it is useful to note that the sample of immigrant mothers is more highly educated 6.3 Academic Performance in Reading and Mathematics To examine the academic achievement of nine-yearolds in the GUI study, Drumcondra Reading and Mathematics tests were administered in the schools. These tests have been developed for Irish schools and are based on the national curriculum (see Williams et al., 2009 for more details).122 For presentation, the nineyear-olds are grouped into five groups on the basis of test results.123 Each group (quintile) contains 20 per cent of the whole sample. The focus here is on the lowest Figure 6.3 Proportion in Lowest Quintiles in Reading by Immigrant Language Group and Country Grouping 45% 40% % of 9- year- olds 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Asia Africa Eastern Europe UK Ireland Immigrant, Non-English speaking Immigrant, English speaking Irish 0% Note: Western Europe and ‘Rest of the World’ are excluded from the country groupings as the number of cases was too small for detailed analysis of these groups. The difference in the proportions of Irish and Immigrant students from a non-English-speaking background is statistically significant for the indicator presented (p<0.05). The difference in the proportions of Irish and Eastern Europeans is also statistically significant. All other proportions do not differ significantly from the proportion of Irish children in the lowest reading quintile. 120 ‘What language or languages do you and your partner speak with the study child most often at home?’ 121 In reality, many families speak a number of languages at home. Where an immigrant mother records that the family speaks one or more languages other than English, they are defined as non-English speaking. Ethnically Irish mothers who speak multiple languages (i.e. English and Irish) are counted as Irish. 122 Note these are tests specifically designed for Irish schools and based on the Irish primary curriculum. This is in contrast to the PISA tests which are international and have more of a focus on reading as a life skill. PISA tests are also designed for 15-year-olds, whereas the Drumcondra tests are for nine-year-olds. In the Growing Up in Ireland study, a shorter version of the tests was used to reduce the burden on schools participating. 123 Prior to analysis these test scores were adjusted according to class level and child’s age so they are comparable across levels. 51 Figure 6.4 Proportion in Lowest Quintiles in Mathematics by Immigrant Language Group and Country Grouping. 25% % of 9- year- olds 20% 15% 10% 5% Asia Africa Eastern Europe UK Ireland Imigrant, Non-English speaking Immigrant, English speaking Irish 0% Note: Western Europe and ‘Rest of the World’ are excluded from the country groupings as the number of cases was too small for detailed analysis of these groups. None of the proportions presented are significantly different from the proportion of Irish children in the lowest Mathematics quintile. quintile that is the 20 per cent of children with the lowest test scores, as an indicator of underachievement and potential difficulties with reading in English and Mathematics. We also look at the 20 per cent of children with the highest scores in reading and Mathematics (high achievers). 2009, which found lower mean reading scores for children who usually spoke a language other than English at home in 2nd and 6th class (Eivers et al., 2009; see also 2010 Annual Integration Monitor), and also with PISA data on literacy levels for 15-year-olds (see Chapter 3). International studies, while often reporting the experiences of second and/or subsequent generations of immigrants, typically highlight large immigrant/native gaps in educational performance, though this varies by country (OECD 2006, 2010; Heath and Brinbaum, 2007; de Pásztor 2008). Figure 6.3 presents the proportion in the lowest quintiles in reading by immigrant language group and country grouping. Figure 6.3 shows no difference between the immigrant children who speak English at home and Irish children, yet immigrant children who do not speak English at home are much more likely to be in the lowest quintile in reading (28 per cent), and this difference is statistically significant. The same pattern holds if we compare mean reading scores. This is consistent with the findings from the National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading in Looking at country groupings, immigrants whose mothers are from the UK are equally likely to be found in the lowest reading quintile as Irish children. Yet children whose mother is from Eastern Europe are much more likely to be in the lowest quintile on reading almost 40 per cent of them are. This difference between East European and Irish children is statistically significant. Children whose mothers are from Africa are slightly more likely to be in the lowest quintile, and children whose mothers are from Asia are somewhat less likely to be in the lowest reading quintile, but neither of these differences are statistically significant. 52 Table 6.4 presents the proportion of each group in the lowest quintiles in Mathematics. Overall, the immigrant children are slightly less likely to be in the lowest Mathematics quintile, both English-speaking and non- English speaking immigrants, though the difference with Irish children is not statistically significant. In terms of country groupings, none of the group differences between country groups and Irish children are statistically significant. performance in mathematics, though not at primary level. In terms of English reading, the achievement gap is all the more salient given the high educational achievement of the non-English speaking immigrant mothers discussed above. What is salient from Figure 6.4 is that none of the immigrant groups are more likely to be in the lowest quintile in Mathematics, unlike reading. This pattern is replicated if we use mean reading scores instead of looking at the proportion in the lowest quintile. Focusing on the high achievers, Figure 6.5 presents the proportion of children from each immigrant language group in the highest quintiles in reading and Mathematics. This is broadly consistent with the national assessments of English reading and mathematics, which show no difference between children who speak English at home and those who do not in terms of mean scores in mathematics in sixth class. There is a modest difference in mean mathematics scores in second class, but then Figure 6.4 presents the lowest quintile, not mean scores. As Chapter 3 has shown, for 15-year-olds there is a difference in mean mathematics scores between immigrants with another language and immigrants with English/Native Irish (see Chapter 3). This suggests that at second level, language difficulties may affect Reflecting patterns of children in the bottom quintile, those who are struggling with the subject, we find immigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds less likely to be in this quintile in English reading (only 11 per cent versus 20 per cent of Irish), and this difference is statistically significant. Immigrants who speak English at home are slightly more likely to be in the top reading quintile than Irish peers, but this difference is not statistically significant. There are small differences in the proportions of immigrants and Irish children in the top quintile in Mathematics, but these differences are not statistically significant. Figure 6.5 Proportions in Highest Quintiles in Reading and Mathematics by Language Group 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Reading Irish Immigrant, English speaking Maths Immigrant, Non-English speaking Note: The difference between the proportions of Irish and immigrants from a non-English speaking background in the highest quintile is statistically significant (p<0.05). None of the proportions in the other groups differ significantly from the proportion in the Irish group. 53 6.4 Attitudes to School and Engagement Children’s attitudes to school and their engagement can impact on learning and subsequent academic outcomes, absenteeism and their risk of drop out (McCoy et al., 2007). In this section we examine differences in children’s attitudes to school, whether or not they like school, like their teacher and whether they look forward to school. It then considers engagement with schooling, measured by absenteeism and homework completion, drawing on teacher’s reports. Child’s Attitudes to School Children were asked whether they always /sometimes / never liked school, their teacher or looked forward to school. Figure 6.6 shows the proportion of Irish and immigrant children to respond ‘always’ to these questions. Note that for each indicator we see more positive attitudes towards school by the children of immigrants. This was also found by Smyth et al., (2009), in their study: principals consistently report higher than average motivation among immigrant students in Irish primary schools. International research has also found that, particularly first-generation immigrant students are motivated learners and have positive attitudes towards school (OECD, 2006). Figure 6.7 presents the proportion of children who say they always like school by country groups. While a somewhat lower proportion of immigrants from the UK report liking school, we find very positive attitudes to school among Eastern European, Africans and Asian children. This is an indicative graph: patterns by country of origin group are very similar for ‘look forward to school’ and ‘like teacher’. Devine (2005) notes how teachers reported the positive attitude of immigrant children in Irish schools was having a positive influence on other children in the school, particularly in workingclass areas. Absenteeism (Teacher Report) Research has shown that children who are more frequently absent have lower academic outcomes and a more negative learning experience (McCoy et al., 2007). Teachers were asked to record ‘the number of days each child had missed school since the beginning of the school year’. Immigrants in general are somewhat more likely to be absent for seven days or more (36 per cent) than Irish children (30 per cent), but for the whole sample the difference is not statistically significant. However, figure 6.8 shows considerable variation by country group: 45 per cent of East Europeans were absent for seven days or more, compared to 11 per cent of African children. There is no information on reasons for absence: it could be that East European children are visiting family in their country of origin.124 Proportion Not Completing Homework Teachers were also asked whether or not the study child came to school with their homework not completed. Figure 6.9 shows the proportion not completing Figure 6.6 Child’s Attitudes to School (Percentage Saying ‘Always’) by Irish/Immigrant 0.7 0.6 Irish % of 9-year-olds 0.5 Immigrant 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Look forward to school Like your teacher Like school Note: The difference in the proportions of Irish and Immigrant students is statistically significant for each of the indicators presented (p<0.05). 124 54 If we set the threshold higher for absence by taking say absent for 11 days or more, the numbers become very small. Figure 6.7 Children Reporting that they ‘Always’ like School by Country Groups 60% % of 9-year-olds 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ireland UK Eastern Europe Africa Asia Note: Western Europe and ‘Rest of the World’ are excluded from the country groupings as the number of cases was too small for detailed analysis of these groups. The difference between the proportion of Irish children and the proportion of children from Eastern Europe, African and Asia are statistically significant for this indicator. The difference between children from the UK and Irish children is not significant. Figure 6.8 Proportion Absent for Seven Days or More Since School Year Began by Country Grouping (Teacher Report) 50% 45% % of 9-year-olds 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Ireland UK Eastern Europe Africa Asia Note: Western Europe and ‘Rest of the World’ are excluded from the country groupings as the number of cases was too small for detailed analysis of these groups. The difference between the proportion of Irish children and children from Eastern Europe is statistically significant for this indicator. All other group proportions are not significantly different from the Irish proportion. 55 homework occasionally or regularly by country grouping. Around 22 per cent of Irish children occasionally do not have homework completed, 5 per cent of them regularly do not have homework completed. The corresponding figures for the overall immigrant group are 28 per cent (regularly) and 9 per cent (occasionally). Once again there is marked variation by country grouping. Over one third of children from the UK, Eastern Europe and Africa regularly do not have homework completed. The total proportion (regularly and occasionally) is highest for African children (over 40 per cent), though the proportion of children regularly not completing their homework is highest for East Europeans (17 per cent). No Asian children are reported by teachers as regularly not completing their homework. 6.5 Support for Learning at Home (Mothers’ Reports) Educational outcomes are not just influenced by the school environment. A number of studies highlight the importance of support for learning at home (Fan and Chen, 2001; Pomerantz et al., 2007). In this section we focus on three different aspects of the home learning environment: the mothers’ literacy and numeracy levels; supports for the child’s education provided in the form of help with homework; and parental encouragement or aspirations for the child’s educational success. The focus here is primarily on mothers’ involvement: mothers are most often the primary carers of children and their role in their children’s education is well documented (see Manicorn, 1984). Mothers’ Literacy and Numeracy Skills A mother’s literacy and numeracy skills will influence her ability to support their child’s learning – both learning at home and also their engagement with their child’s school (Darmody and McCoy, 2011). Mothers were asked about functional literacy in English (whether they could read aloud from a children’s story book and whether they could read and fill out forms in English) and numeracy (whether they could tell if they had the correct change from a €5 or a €10 note). While in Figure 6.9 Proportion Not Completing Homework, ‘Occasionally’ or ‘Regularly’ by Country Grouping (Teacher Report) 50% Occasionally not completed 45% 40% Regularly not completed % of 9-year-olds 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Ireland UK Eastern Europe Africa Asia Note: Western Europe and ‘Rest of the World’ are excluded from the country groupings as the number of cases was too small for detailed analysis of these groups. The difference in the proportions of Irish children and children from the UK, Eastern Europe and Africa is statistically significant for this indicator (p<0.05). The difference in the proportions of Irish children and Asian children is not statistically significant. 56 Figure 6.10 Mothers Lacking Functional Literacy by Immigrant Language Group 14% 12% % of 9-year-olds 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% Immigrant, Non-English Immigrant, English Irish Immigrant, Non-English Irish Immigrant, English 0% Read and fill out forms in English Read aloud from children’s storybook in English Note: The difference between Irish and Immigrant non-English speaking mothers is statistically significant (p<0.05) for both indicators. The difference between Irish and immigrant English-speaking mothers is not significant for either. general literacy levels of mothers of nine-year-olds were high, there are very marked differences according to the immigrant language group (Figure 6.10). Only 2 per cent of immigrants who speak English at home cannot read aloud from a storybook or fill out a form in English, which is lower than corresponding figures for Irish mothers. However, just over 12 per cent of mothers who do not speak English at home say they are unable to read aloud from a story book in English, and 11 per cent say they are unable to read and fill out forms Figure 6.11 Mothers Lacking Functional Numeracy by Immigrant Language Group 5% % of 9-year-olds 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Irish Immigrant, English Immigrant, Non-English When buying things with €5 or €10 can tell if you have the right change Note: The difference between Irish and Immigrant mothers (both English speaking and non-English speaking) is not statistically significant for this indicator. 57 Figure 6.12 Provides Help with Homework by Immigrant Language Group 80% Always/Regularly 70% Now and Again % of 9-year-olds 60% Rarely or Never 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Irish Immigrant, English speaking Immigrant, Non-English Note: The difference between Irish and Immigrant non-English speaking mothers is statistically significant (p<0.05). The difference between Irish and immigrant English-speaking mothers is not significant. in English. This will certainly have an impact on their practical ability to support their child’s learning in English. The pattern is rather different for mothers’ numeracy. This is measured as the response to the question ‘when buying thing with €5 or €10 can you tell if you have the right change?’ Figure 6.11 shows that lack of numeracy skills are less common among immigrant mothers, both English speaking and non-English speaking, than Irish mothers, though the differences are small and not statistically significant. Figure 6.12 presents how often parents help their children with homework. A clear pattern emerges whereby immigrant mothers are less likely to provide help with homework, this is particularly true of nonEnglish speaking immigrant mothers and is statistically significant. Further research would be needed to investigate here whether these differences are due to Figure 6.13 Aspirations: Mother’s Expectations of Child’s Education 90% Leaving/ Apprenticeship/Diploma 80% % of 9-year-olds 70% Degree or higher 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Irish Immigrant, English speaking Immigrant, Non-English speaking Note: Less than 1 per cent of mothers expected their child to achieve junior cert or lower. The difference between Irish and immigrant mothers’ expectations is statistically significant (p<0.05). 58 Figure 6.14 Number of Close Friends Child Has (Mother’s Report) 0.6 Irish % of 9-year-olds 0.5 Immigrant, English speaking 0.4 Immigrant, Non-English speaking 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 None 1 2 or 3 4 or more Note: The difference between Irish and Immigrant, non-English speaking children is statistically significant at p<0.05 for this indicator. The difference between Irish and Immigrant, English speaking children is not significant. lack of resources (parents feel unable to help because of lack or literacy skills, for example); lack of time (if both parents are working, or particularly shift work) or other reasons.125 functional literacy in English. Mothers in this group may assume their child’s reading achievement may improve over the remainder of their time in the schooling system. A final element of support for child’s education is educational aspirations. The child’s mother was asked how far she expected her child to go in their education (Junior Certificate; Apprenticeship/Trade; Diploma/Certificate, Degree or Postgraduate Degree). 6.6 Children’s Peer Relationships Figure 6.13 shows that while educational aspirations of parents for their children are high in this study (less than 1 per cent of the sample expect their child to achieve Junior Certificate or lower), they are particularly high among immigrant parents (Figure 6.13). In fact over 80 per cent of immigrant parents who do not speak English at home believe their child will achieve a degree or higher. This is likely to be linked to their own educational achievement, given that 30 per cent of immigrant mothers who speak English at home and 40 per cent of immigrant mothers who do not speak English at home have a third-level degree. This compares to around 15 per cent of Irish mothers who have a third-level degree. However the high educational aspirations of non-English speaking mothers is interesting in the light of lower achievement of this group in English reading, and that in spite of the high educational achievement of the group on average, a much greater proportion of these mothers lack Finally we consider peer relationships, using information on number of close friends and on the experience of bullying. Having close friends can indicate social integration, and improve a child’s quality of life. There is no specific information about friendship patterns within schools, but the child’s mother is asked how many close friends the child has. Here we find that a higher proportion of non-English speaking immigrants have no friends, though the overall proportion is small. In general, the number of friends is somewhat lower for immigrant children, and for immigrants from nonEnglish speaking backgrounds this difference is statistically significant. However, the most salient finding is that the vast majority of nine-year-olds have two or more close friends.126 Bullying and victimisation represent a worrying aspect of children’s experiences with their peers. Being the victim of bullying has been associated with unhappiness and school avoidance, and with many different types of adjustment problems in childhood, adolescence and in adulthood (Ladd, 2005). Previous work on racism in Irish schools might lead us to expect a higher 125 Qualitative data on parental involvement from the Adapting to Diversity study suggested lack of time was one factor in understanding lower involvement of migrant parents in the children’s education/school activities (Darmody and McCoy, 2011). 126 No information is provided in the study about the national or ethnic background of the children’s friends, which would clearly be interesting in this context. 59 differences in this sample are modest and not statistically significant. Clearly national or ethnic background is just one of many reasons why a child might experience being bullied or picked on. Further research would be required to explore in detail the experience of bullying and the reasons for it, and how and if this varies between immigrant children and Irish children. proportion of immigrant children to experience being bullied (Devine et al., 2008; Darmody et al., 2011a). Both children and mothers in the Growing Up in Ireland study were asked about bullying. The following analysis is based on children’s reports, as previous reports have shown that parents may not always be the best informants about bullying (Williams et al., 2009). Children were asked about whether they had been bullied or ‘picked on’ in the previous year by a child or an adult. Figure 6.15 presents child’s reports of bullying for different country groupings. Note that this question is subjective and how children respond may differ according to perceptions: these simple frequencies also do not indicate how frequently bullying occurred. In terms of the impact of bullying, children who were bullied were asked to consider the extent to which the bullying incident(s) had caused them to feel upset. Preliminary analysis suggests that the immigrant children are somewhat more likely to report being upset ‘a lot’ by bullying than Irish children (47 per cent versus 41 per cent), and less likely to report that they were ‘not at all’ upset (7 per cent versus 11 per cent).127 The study also asks the child about the nature of bullying, and asks them about whether they had bullied or picked on others, but a detailed analysis of these factors is beyond the scope of this Chapter (see Williams et al., 2009 for a discussion). The graph shows quite a high proportion of children (40 per cent in the overall sample) report having been bullied or picked on the past year. This proportion is exactly the same for immigrant children from Englishspeaking backgrounds. The proportion of children who report having been bullied or picked on is slightly higher (44 per cent) for children from non-English speaking backgrounds, though this difference is not significant. Further analysis (Figure 6.15) shows that the proportion of children from East European and African backgrounds reporting bullying is slightly higher than for children from Irish or UK backgrounds, and the proportion of children reporting bullying is somewhat lower for children from Asian backgrounds. However, the Figure 6.15 Prevalence of Bullying (Victimisation), Child Reports 50% 45% % of 9-year-olds 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Asia Africa Eastern Europe UK Ireland Immigrant, Non-English Immigrant, English Irish 0% Note: The difference between Irish and any of the immigrant groups is not statistically significant for this indicator (threshold p<0.05). 127 60 These differences are statistically significant (p<0.05). 6.7 Summary of Findings on the Children of Immigrants in Irish Schools Using a large sample of nine-year-olds in Ireland, this Chapter has clearly demonstrated, at least at a descriptive level, achievement gaps in English reading for immigrants who do not speak English at home (measured as the proportion of the group in the lowest quintile in reading). The same is not true for immigrants who do speak English at home. This is consistent with other measures of reading ability in Ireland for primary school children. The proportion in the lowest quintile is highest for East European children. For Mathematics, there is no difference between the likelihood of Irish and immigrant children being in the lowest quintile. Note English and Mathematics are core subjects in the Irish school curriculum, but not the only ones. However, children who are struggling with English are likely to have difficulties in other subjects where competence in English is required. The achievement gap is all the more salient given the high educational achievement of mothers in this group. The achievement gap for English reading should be seen in the light of the information presented on attitudes and aspirations. Here immigrant children are, for the most part, highly motivated students with more positive attitudes to school than their Irish peers. In addition, their parents have very high educational aspirations for them. In terms of engagement, measured as reports from teachers on absenteeism and homework completion, a somewhat more complex picture appears. According to teachers, immigrant children are, on average, more likely to regularly or occasionally not complete homework. There is no marked difference in absenteeism between immigrant children and Irish children, though Eastern European children are more likely to have been absent for seven days or more than others. Considering mothers’ educational resources, lack of functional literacy among mothers who do not speak English at home, which is much higher than for other mothers, is likely to hinder their ability to support their children’s learning. These mothers (and their spouses) are also less likely to be in a position to provide help with homework than either immigrant mothers who speak English at home, or Irish parents. This in turn may be linked to the fact that immigrant children are more likely not to have completed homework. In terms of peer relationships, quite a high proportion of children in this sample report that they have been bullied or picked on in the past year. Overall the differences between the proportion of immigrant and non-immigrant children who report this are small and not statistically significant. As noted at the outset, these findings are descriptive. Further research would be required to investigate how these differences are linked to factors such as how long the child has been in Ireland, their families’ financial resources/socio-economic status and the educational resources of the mother, among other factors. School and classroom level information could also be used. The Growing Up in Ireland study would be excellently suited to such research. The fact that this survey re-interviews the children at age 13 will give the opportunity to monitor individual outcomes over time, to assess the integration of immigrant children in schools. 61 Chapter 7 Issues for Policy and Data Collection As noted at the outset, the primary function of this report is to assess outcomes in relation to the integration of immigrants in Ireland. In this Chapter we reflect, in brief, on some of the policy issues to emerge for this report, and reflect on some implications for future data collection. 7.1 Policy Issues In the employment domain, once again the most obvious issue of concern is that the rate of unemployment among non-Irish nationals is much higher than among Irish nationals, and it has risen since 2010. Given the very low rate of self-employment among non-Irish nationals presented in Chapter 2, the implementation of an Immigrant Investor Programme and a start-up Entrepreneur Programme for Immigrants is to be welcomed. In Chapter 3 and Chapter 6 we discuss the achievement gap in English reading for both 15-year-old and nineyear-old immigrants who are not from an Englishspeaking background. Given these findings, continuing cuts to the budget allocation for teaching English as an Additional Language is of concern. The lack of clearly defined strategy for English language provision for adults is a problem, particularly if English language competence may be included as an eligibility criterion for Irish citizenship (see below). In Chapter 4 we note a rise in consistent poverty among the non-EU sample for 2009. This finding should be treated with caution as the EU-SILC sample of non-Irish is small. Furthermore, it has changed between 2008 and 2009 so differences may be due to differences in the composition of this very diverse group. Notwithstanding these caveats, this increase in poverty is a cause for concern and needs to be monitored in subsequent years. In Chapter 5 we note that regarding applications for naturalisation, significant progress has been made on certain barriers to integration identified in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor. More efficient processing procedures mean that most applicants may now expect much reduced processing times. A citizenship ceremony has also been introduced in order to formally celebrate the acquisition of Irish citizenship. It remains to be seen whether other problems, such as inconsistent 128 procedural requirements and discretionary decision making, identified in research conducted by the Immigrant Council of Ireland (Cosgrave, 2011), will also be addressed. The Minister for Justice and Equality has recently signalled that an English language/civics test for naturalisation applicants will be introduced, stating that ‘the ability to speak the language - even at a most basic level - together with some knowledge of the way business is conducted in Ireland is an essential part of the integration process for immigrants and must form an integral part of eligibility for naturalisation’.128 Full information is not yet available however the introduction of such tests would represent a significant new direction for Ireland. Several NGOs, including The Integration Centre, have expressed their concern that such a test would again lengthen processing times, and such tests would need to be carefully devised. It would be prudent to conduct research into fair and appropriate tests, and their impact, prior to their introduction. Continued delays in the enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 mean that Ireland remains without a statutory long-term residence permission. The problems regarding limited access to the current administrative scheme, identified in the 2010 Annual Integration Monitor, persist, as do uncertainties about the exact nature of conditions attached to the status. There is also continuing lack of clarity regarding the scheme proposed under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. For example, the entitlements of family members of longterm residence holders are not clearly set out in the Bill. In Chapter 1 we document a significant decline in the funding of the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration, and a decline in funding to organisations it supports. This decline in funding is a cause for concern. In relation to the political participation of migrants in Ireland, the doubt surrounding the future of the Ministerial Council on Integration is also a concern. 7.2 Issues for Future Data Collection The adequate representation of non-Irish nationals in social surveys is crucial for a monitoring exercise of this nature. If we are to be confident that we are representing the experience of non-Irish nationals accurately, and monitoring change over time, we also Press Release 5/01/12 Response to Statement by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter 4/1/12 63 need to be sure that they are appropriately represented in the surveys we are using, however challenging this may be. of the problems of identifying second-generation immigrants, which is important for monitoring immigrant integration in the future. Firstly, we see it as urgent that accurate population estimates be published, and their implications for estimates of migration and the labour force. Given the importance of measuring integration, an ethnic minority boost sample in an ongoing large-scale survey like the QNHS or the EU-SILC should be considered. This would be of considerable benefit to the monitoring of integration in Ireland. In the short term, we recommend that continued efforts be made to encourage the participation of nonIrish nationals in the EU-SILC and the QNHS. The increase in the proportion of non-Irish nationals in the EU-SILC between 2008 and 2009 is encouraging in this regard, but concerns about this sample remain. As this is the only ongoing source of data on income and poverty, this is a salient point. In the medium term we propose that ethnicity be measured in the QNHS, the EU-SILC and other large scale surveys, as in the 2006 and 2011 Censuses and the Growing Up in Ireland study. This would overcome some 64 It is to be welcomed that surveys like the Sports Monitor now collect data on nationality/country of birth, but it would be useful if samples could be adjusted to account for differential non-response, using information from larger surveys. As noted in Chapter 1, at EU level, the issue of monitoring the integration of immigrants has received increasing prominence. The usefulness of such an exercise depends in no small measure on the data on which it is based. Bibliography Barrett, A. and E. Kelly (2010). The Impact of Ireland’s Recession on the Labour Market Outcomes of its Immigrants. IZA: Bonn. Barrett, A., A. Bergin and D. Duffy (2006). “The Labour Market Characteristics and Labour Market Impacts of Immigrants in Ireland”, The Economic and Social Review 37, No. 1: 1-26. Part 1. Central Statistics Office: Dublin. CSO (2011). Annual Population and Migration Estimates. Central Statistics Office: Dublin. CSO (2010). Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). Central Statistics Office: Dublin. Barrett, A., S. McGuinness and M. O’Brien (2011). “The Immigrant Earnings Disadvantage across the Earnings and Skills Distributions: The Case of Immigrants from the EU’s New Member States”, British Journal of Industrial Relations. London. CSO (2009). Community Involvement and Social Networks 2006. Results from the Social Capital module of the Quarterly National Household Survey, Q3 2006 and the Social and Cultural Participation module of the Survey on Income and Living Condition. Central Statistics Office: Dublin. Barrett, A. and D. Duffy (2008). “Are Ireland’s Immigrants Integrating into its Labour Market?”, International Migration Review, 2008, Vol. 42. CSO (2007). Quarterly National Household Survey: Sport and Physical Exercise, Quarter 3 2006. Central Statistics Office: Dublin. Becker, H. (2010). “Immigration and Citizenship Law”, in B. Moriarty, E. Massa, (eds.) Human Rights Law. Law Society of Ireland: Dublin. CSO (2007). Census of Population 2006: Volume 5 Ethnic or Cultural background (Including the Irish Traveller Community). Central Statistics Office: Dublin. British Council and Migration Policy Group (2011). Migrant Policy Index 3 (MIPEX). Cukier, J. (2010). OECD Factblog “Immigrants take the brunt of the jobs crisis”. (Available at: http://blog.oecdfactblog.org/?p=92). Burstrom, B. and P. Fredlund (2001). “Self Rated Health: Is It as Good a Predictor of Subsequent Mortality among Adults in Lower as Well as in Higher Social Classes?”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 55, No. 11. Byrne, D., F. McGinnity, E. Smyth and M. Darmody (2010). “Immigration and school composition in Ireland”, Irish Educational Studies. Vol. 29, No. 3. Coakley, L. (2011). Where Do I Go From Here? The Leading Factors in Voluntary Return or Remaining in Ireland. IOM: Dublin. Coghlan, D., H. Fagan, R. Munck, A. O’ Brien and R. Warner (2005). International Students and Professionals in Ireland: An Analysis of Access to Higher Education and Recognition of Professional Qualifications. Integrating Ireland: Dublin. Cosgrave, C. (2010). “Irish Nationality and Citizenship Law: Issues Arising in the Naturalisation Process and the Case for Reform”, Presentation given at UCC Conference: Gender Equality, Citizenship and Multiculturalism in Contemporary Europe, September 10th 2010. Cosgrave, C. (2011). Living in Limbo- Migrants Experience of Applying for Naturalisation in Ireland. Immigrant Council Ireland: Dublin. Darmody, M. and S. McCoy (2011). “Barriers to School Involvement: Immigrant Parents in Ireland”, in M. Darmody, N. Tyrrell and S. Song (Eds.), Changing faces of Ireland, Exploring Lives of Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Children. Sense: Rotterdam. Darmody, M., N. Tyrrell and S. Song (Eds.) (2011b). Changing faces of Ireland, Exploring Lives of Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Children. Sense: Rotterdam. Darmody, M., E. Smyth, D. Byrne and F. McGinnity (2011a). “New School, New System: the Experiences of Immigrant Students in Irish Schools’, in Bekerman, Z. and T. Geisen (Eds.), Migration, Minorities, and Learning Understanding Cultural and Social Differences in Education. Springer. Department of Education and Skills (2011a). Discussion paper on a regulatory framework for school enrolment. Dublin: DES. Department of Education and Skills (2011b). Language Support for Migrants: A Value for Money Review. Dublin: DES. Department of Education and Science (2010). Intercultural Education Strategy. (Available at: http://www.integration.ie). CSO (2012). This is Ireland – Highlights from Census 2011, 65 Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, (2011). Circular Housing 47/ 2011. (Available at: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHo using/ Housing/FileDownLoad,29412,en.pdf). Department of Justice and Equality, (2011). Press release: “Minister Shatter introduces major changes to citizenship application processing regime”. (Available at: http://www.inis.gov.ie/). Department of Justice and Equality, (2011). Annual Report 2010. Department of Justice and Equality: Dublin. Department of Justice and Equality, (January 2012). Press release: “Immigration in Ireland 2011 – a year-end snapshot – major changes and more to follow”. (Available at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR12000001). Department of Justice and Equality, (September 2011). Press release: “Government to establish a new enhanced Human Rights and Equality Commission – Shatter”. (Available at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Press_releases_equalit y_disability). Department of Justice and Equality, (October 2011). Press release: “Shatter announces Working Group on establishment of enhanced Human Rights and Equality Commission”. (Available at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Press_releases_equalit y_disability). Department of Justice and Equality (March 2011). Press release: “Statement by Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr Alan Shatter, TD, on the implications of the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Ruiz Zambrano”. (Available at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR11000019). Department of Social Protection, (2011). “Habitual Residence Condition: Guidelines for Deciding Officers on the determination of Habitual Residence”. (Available at: http://www.welfare.ie/). Devine, D. (2005). “Welcome to the Celtic Tiger? Teacher responses to immigration and increasing ethnic diversity in Irish schools, International Studies in Sociology of Education. Vol.15, No. 1. Devine, D., M. Kenny and E. MacNeela (2008). “Naming the ‘Other’: Children’s Construction and Experience of Racism in Irish Primary Schools”, Race, Ethnicity and Education, Vol. 11, No. 4 66 Duffy, D. (2010). “The Housing Tenure of Immigrants in Ireland: An update using QNHS microdata for 2005 and 2006”. ESRI, mimeo: Dublin. Duffy, D. (2007). “The Housing Tenure of Immigrants in Ireland: Some Preliminary Analysis”. ESRI Working Paper No. 188: Dublin. Eivers, E., S. Close, G. Shiel, D. Millar, A. Clerkin, L. Gilleece and J. Kiniry (2010). The 2009 National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading. Educational Research Centre: Dublin. Equality and Rights Alliance (2011). “Response on Proposed Merger of the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission”. (Available at: http://www.eracampaign.org/uploads/Equality_&_Rights_Al liance Submission_to_merger_working_group.pdf). EUDO Citizenship (2010). “Citizenship laws and policies in the European Union”. Policy Brief. (Available at: http://eudocitizenship.eu/). European Commission (2011). “Eurobarometer- Migrant Integration”. (Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_5969_ migrant_en.pdf). European Commission (2011). “EU initiatives supporting the integration of Third Country Nationals”.(Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_autre_document_tra vail_service_part1_v5.pdf). European Commission (2011). “Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions. European Agenda For The Integration Of Third Country Nationals”. (Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_ACT_part1_v10.pdf). Eurostat (2011). Eurostat Indicators of Immigrant Integration – A Pilot Study. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg. Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (2011). National Skills Bulletin 2010. FÁS: Dublin. Fahey, T. and D. Duffy (2007). “The Housing Boom” in T. Fahey, T, H. Russell and C. Whelan, Best of Times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger. IPA: Dublin. Fahey, T., R. Layte and B. Gannon (2004). Sports Participation and Health among Adults in Ireland, Books and Monographs, No. 178.ESRI: Dublin Fan, X., and M. Chen (2001). “Parent Involvement and Students’ Academic Achievement: a Meta–Analysis”. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 13, No.1. Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children’s Peer Relations and Social Competence. A Century of Progress. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. Gilligan, R., P. Curry, J. McGrath, D. Murphy, M. Ní Raghallaigh, M. Rogers, J. Scholtz and A. Gilligan-Quinn (2010). In the Front Line of Integration: Young people managing migration to Ireland. Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College: Dublin. Lindeboom, M. and E. Van Doorslaer (2004). “Cut-Point Shift and Index Shift in Self-Reported Health”, Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 23, No. 6. Gitlin, A., E. Buendia, K. Crosland and F. Doumbia (2003). “The Production of Margin and Center: WelcomingUnwelcoming of Immigrant Students”, American Educational Research Journal, 40 (1): 91-122. Guerra, G. and R. Patuelli (2012). The Influence of Role Models on Immigrant Self-Employment: A Spatial Analysis for Switzerland. The Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis: Rimini. Health Service Executive (2011). “National Intercultural Health Strategy 2007 – 2012. Update September 2011”. (Available at: http://www.integration.ie). Heath, A. and Y. Brinbaum (2007). “Explaining Ethnic Inequalities in Educational Attainment”, Ethnicities 7: 291305. Hierländer, R. and P. Huber (2010). “The Labour Market Situation of Highly Skilled Migrant Workers in the EU”, in P. Huber et al., Migration, Skills and Productivity, Research Report 365, the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies: Vienna. Immigrant Council of Ireland (2010). Briefing Paper: “Long-Term Residence and Citizenship”. Immigrant Council of Ireland: Dublin. The Integration Centre (2011). The Roadmap to Integration. The Integration Centre: Dublin. Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (2010). “New Immigration Regime for Full-time Non-EEA Students: Final Report and Recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee”. (Available at: http://www.inis.gov.ie). Johnson, M. K., R. Crosnoe and G.H. Elder (2001). “Students’ Attachment and Academic Engagement: the Role of Race and Ethnicity”, Sociology of Education. Vol. 74, No.4. Joyce, C. (2011). Annual Policy Report 2010: Ireland. European Migration Network. ESRI: Dublin. Joyce, C., P.J. O’Connell and E. Quinn (2011). “Where did Paddy, Pawel and Peng go next? Migration Patterns of Celtic Tiger Young and other Residents of the Irish Habitat”, Presentation to Metropolis Conference, Ponta Delgada, Sept 14th, 2011. Lunn, P. and R. Layte (2011). The Irish Sports Monitor. Third Annual Report, 2009. The Irish Sports Council/ESRI: Dublin. Lunn, P. and R. Layte (2010). The Irish Sports Monitor. Second Annual Report, 2008. The Irish Sports Council/ESRI: Dublin. Lunn, P., R. Layte and D. Watson (2009). The Irish Sports Monitor. First Annual Report, 2007. The Irish Sports Council/ESRI: Dublin. Lyons, Z. and D. Little (2009) English Language Support in Irish Post-Primary Schools: Policy, Challenges and Deficits. Trinity College and Integrating Ireland: Dublin. Manicorn, A. (1984). “Feminist Frameworks and Teacher Education”, Journal of Education, 166, pp.77-87. McCoy, S., M. Darmody, E. Smyth and A. Dunne (2007). Attendance and Students’ School Experience. ESRI and National Education and Welfare Board: Dublin. McGinnity, F., E. Quinn, P. O’Connell and N. Donnelly (2011). Annual Monitoring Report on Integration. ESRI and The Integration Centre: Dublin. Migration and Citizenship Research Initiative (2008). Getting On: From Migration to Integration, Chinese, Indian, Lithuanian, and Nigerian Migrants’ Experiences in Ireland. Immigrant Council of Ireland: Dublin. Mutwarasibo, F. (2011). “Electoral Rights for Non-Citizen Residents in Ireland: Reflections on the 2004 and 2009 Local elections and Beyond”, Presentation to the 2011 EUDO Dissemination Conference: Inclusive Democracy in Europe, Brussels. New Communities Partnership, the Africa Centre, (2010). Voter Education Report. (Available at: http://www.newcommunities.ie). NGO Coalition (2011). “NGO Coalition Briefing Paper on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010”. (Available at: http://www.integrationcentre.ie). Nolan, A. (2011). “The Healthy Immigrant Effect: Initial Evidence for Ireland”, Health Economics, Policy and Law. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174413311000040X). O’Connell, P. and F. McGinnity (2008). Immigrants at 67 Work - Ethnicity and Nationality in the Irish Labour Market. The Equality Authority and ESRI: Dublin. Children’s Academic Lives: More is not Always Better”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77, No.3. OECD (2006). “Where Immigrant Students Succeed - A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement”, in PISA 2003. OECD: Paris. Quinn, E. (2011). Temporary and Circular Migration: Ireland. European Migration Network. ESRI: Dublin. OECD (2007). Matching Immigrant Background and Employment: A Challenge for Immigrants in Host Countries. OECD: Paris. OECD (2009). OECD Reviews of Immigrant EducationIreland. OECD: Paris. OECD (2010). Closing the Gap for Immigrant Students: Policies, Practice and Performance. OECD: Paris. OECD (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD: Paris. Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (2011). Annual Report 2010. Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner: Dublin. Papademetriou, D.G and A. Terrazas (2009) Immigrants and the Current Economic Crisis. Research Evidence, Policy Challenges and Implications. MPI: Washington DC. Pásztor, A. (2008). “The Children of Guest Workers: Comparative Analysis of Scholastic Achievement of Pupils of Turkish Origin throughout Europe”, Intercultural Education. Vol. 19, No .5. Quinn, E. (2010). Satisfying Labour Demand through Migration, Ireland. European Migration Network. ESRI: Dublin. Reception and Integration Agency (2011). Annual Report 2010. Reception and Integration Agency: Dublin. Russell, H., B. Maitre and B. Nolan (2010). Monitoring Poverty Trends in Ireland 2004-2007. ESRI Research Series Number 17: Dublin. Singh, G.K., S.M. Yu, M. Siahpush and M.D. Kogan (2008). “High Levels of Physical Inactivity and Sedentary Behaviors among US Immigrant Children and Adolescents”, Archives Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 168, No.8. Smyth, E., M. Darmody, F. McGinnity, D. Byrne (2009). Adapting to Diversity, Irish Schools and Immigrant Students. ESRI: Dublin. Social Inclusion Division (2008). National Report for Ireland on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-2010. Stationery Office: Dublin. UNHCR (2011). Do 1 Thing Campaign Document. UNHCR: Dublin. (Available at : http://www.unhcr.ie/images/uploads/pictures/pdf/do_1_thi ng_PDF_Campaign_Overview.pdf). Penninx, R. (2010). “Fostering Integration. Lessons from Europe’s Experience in Integration Policies for Ireland”, Keynote lecture given at the occasion of the closing seminar of ICI’s Mentoring Programme, Dublin, June 29th, 2010 Whelan, C.T. (2007). “Understanding the Implications of Choice of Deprivation Index for Measuring Consistent. Perkins, R., G. Moran, J. Cosgrove and G. Shiel (2010). PISA 2009: The Performance and Progress of 15-Year-Olds in Ireland, Summary Report. Educational Research Centre: Dublin. Whelan, C.T., R. Layte, B. Maitre, B. Gannon, B. Nolan, D. Watson, D. and J. Williams (2003). Monitoring Poverty Trends in Ireland. Results from the 2001 Living in Ireland Survey, Policy Research Series No. 51, ESRI: Dublin. Pinkowski, J. (2009). “Challenges and Opportunities for Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Dublin. Dublin City Council: Dublin”. (Available at: http://www.tcd.ie/immigration/css/downloads/Pinkowski.p df) Williams, J., S. Greene, E. Doyle, E. Harris, R. Layte, S. McCoy, C. McCrory, A. Murray, E. Nixon, T. O’Dowd, M. O’Moore, A. Quail, E. Smyth, L. Swords and M. Thornton (2009). Growing Up in Ireland – National Longitudinal Study of Children: The Lives of 9-Year-Olds. The Stationery Office: Dublin. Pomerantz, E.M., E.A. Moorman and S.D. Litwack (2007). “The How, Whom and Why of Parents’ Involvement in 68 Appendix 1 Common Basic Principles For Immigrant Integration Policy In The European Union 1. Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. 2. Integration implies respect for the basic values of the European Union. 3. Employment is a key part of the integration process and is central to the participation of immigrants, to the contributions immigrants make to the host society, and to making such contributions visible. 4. Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions is indispensable to integration; enabling immigrants to acquire this basic knowledge is essential to successful integration. 5. Efforts in education are critical to preparing immigrants, and particularly their descendants, to be more successful and more active participants in society. 6. Access for immigrants to institutions, as well as to public and private goods and services, on a basis equal to national citizens and in a nondiscriminatory way is a critical foundation for better integration. for integration. Shared forums, inter-cultural dialogue, education about immigrants and immigrant cultures, and stimulating living conditions in urban environments enhance the interactions between immigrants and Member State citizens. 8. The practice of diverse cultures and religions is guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and must be safeguarded, unless practices conflict with other inviolable European rights or with national law. 9. The participation of immigrants in the democratic process and in the formulation of integration policies and measures, especially at the local level, supports their integration. 10. Mainstreaming integration policies and measures in all relevant policy portfolios and levels of government and public services is an important consideration in public policy formation and implementation. 11. Developing clear goals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms are necessary to adjust policy, evaluate progress on integration and to make the exchange of information more effective. 7. Frequent interaction between immigrants and Member State citizens is a fundamental mechanism 69 Indicator Definition Data Source Employment Rate The proportion of the population of working age (15-64) who are employed. Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Unemployment Rate The proportion of the labour force (employed plus unemployed) of working age (15-64) who are unemployed. Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Activity Rate The proportion of adults of working-age (15-64) who are in the labour force (employed and unemployed). Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Self-Employment Rate The proportion of the employed population who are self-employed (that is working in his/her own business, professional practice or farm for the purpose of making a profit). Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Highest educational attainment Share of population aged 15+ with third-level, post-leaving cert, upper secondary and no formal/lower secondary education. Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment* Share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary (third-level) education. Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Share of early leavers from education and training* Share of population aged 20-24 with no more than lower secondary education and not currently in education. Labour Force Survey (QNHS) Mean achievement scores for 15-year-olds in reading and mathematics* (PISA) scores. Mean achievement scores for 15-year-olds in reading and mathematics by immigrant status using PISA test PISA 2009 Median net income population. Median net income - median net (household and equivalised) income of the immigrant population and the Irish EU-SILC 2009 ‘At risk of poverty’ rate median. ‘At risk of poverty’ rate – share of population with net disposable income of less than 60 per cent of national EU-SILC 2009 Consistent poverty rates Proportion of population both (1) at risk of poverty and (2) living in households that lack 2 or more basic items such as food, clothing or heat. EU-SILC 2009 1. Employment 2. Education 3. Social Inclusion Appendix 2 Definition of Indicators 70 Table A2.1 Definition of Indicators Share of population perceiving their health status as good or very good The share of population aged 16+ perceiving their health status as good or very good. EU-SILC 2009 Ratio of property owners to non-property owners among immigrants and the total population Percentage of property owners among immigrant and Irish household respondents. EU-SILC 2009 Share of immigrants that have acquired citizenship (best estimate) The share of the estimated non-EEA immigrant population who have acquired citizenship (best estimate). Statistics provided by the Dept of Justice and Equality Share of immigrants holding permanent or long-term residence permits The share of the estimated non-EEA immigrant population granted long-term residence (best estimate). Statistics provided by the Dept of Justice and Equality Share of immigrants among elected representatives* Share of immigrants among elected local representatives. Immigrant Council of Ireland 4. Active Citizenship Notes: Employment and Unemployment are defined in this table and elsewhere in this report using the standard International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) definitions. People are defined as employed if they have worked for pay in the week preceding the survey interview for one hour or more, or who were not at work due to temporary absence (i.e. sickness or training). Unemployed persons are those who did not work in the week preceding the interview, but were available to start work in the next two weeks and had actively sought work in the previous four weeks. ILO unemployment estimates differ from both the live register of unemployment and from the individual’s own self assignment of their principal economic status. *Indicates where definitions of the indicators differ slightly from those proposed at Zaragoza, based on data constraints. Share of immigrants among elected local representatives instead of share of immigrants among elected representatives; mean achievement scores for 15-year-olds in reading and mathematics instead of the proportion of 15-year-olds achieving level 1 or under in the PISA assessment tests; share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment instead of the share of 3034 year-olds with tertiary educational achievement; share of early leavers from education and training aged 20-24 instead of 18-24. 71 Appendix 3 Valid Permits by Reason Table A3.1 All Valid Permits by Reason on 31 December of Each Year, Annual Data REASON 2008 2009 2010 Total 141,816 134,152 133,232 Family reasons 16,896 17,266 20,085 Education reasons 37,936 35,304 36,798 Remunerated activities reasons 49,504 40,421 33,682 Refugee status N/A N/A 3,119 Subsidiary protection N/A N/A 35 37,480 41,161 39,513 Other reasons Source: Eurostat Note: N/A - data are not available 72 Appendix 4 Key Datasets Utilised for This Research Report This appendix includes a brief discussion of the key datasets used (QNHS for Chapters 2 and 3; EU-SILC for Chapter 4). Note these are general population surveys, and none were specifically designed with migrants/non-Irish nationals in mind. As discussed in Chapter 1, the preliminary population estimate from the 2011 Census was 4.58 million,129 a difference of 97,000 persons from the CSO Population and Migration Estimates. The CSO has indicated it will publish revised population estimates for the years 2007 to 2011 (i.e. the period over which this differential arose), in 2012, and will also adjust the QNHS data for this period to account for this population undercount, once a thorough analysis at a detailed level of the differences with the final Census results has been completed. A4.1 Quarterly National Household Survey The Quarterly National Household Survey is undertaken by the Central Statistics Office and its main objective is to provide estimates of short-term indicators of the labour market (employment and unemployment). The survey is continuous and targets all private households in the State. The total sample per 13-week quarter is 39,000: it is achieved by interviewing 3,000 households per week.130 A two-stage sample design is used. In the first stage 2,600 small areas or blocks are selected with about 75 dwellings on average. In the second stage of sampling, 15 households are surveyed within each block. Households are asked to take part in the survey for five consecutive quarters and are then replaced by other households in the same block. The survey results are weighted to agree with population estimates broken down by age, sex and region. There are a number of reasons why the QNHS may underrepresent non-Irish nationals. Firstly, the QNHS is a survey of private households only, certain groups are excluded in the selection of the sample. Most especially of concern for this Integration Monitor is that the survey will exclude asylum seekers living in direct provision. Secondly, information is collected from interviewers, most of whom are not bilingual, which leads to a concern that immigrants with poor English language skills may be underrepresented. Thirdly, those whose status in Ireland is illegal/irregular may be more likely to refuse to participate. Table A4.1 presents age by nationality in 2009 for 18-65 year-olds. Here we see that of the working age population, the majority of non-Irish nationals are in the 25-44 age group, as in the 2010 Integration Monitor. A smaller proportion of non-Irish nationals are 45 and over than Irish nationals (Table A4.1). How long an individual has been living in a country is seen as having a key influence on many integration outcomes. From Table A4.2 we see marked differences between the groups in terms of how long they have been living in Ireland. Here we see that the majority of non-Irish nationals (54 per cent) came to Ireland in the years 2005-2011. Almost three quarters of the EU12 group came since 2005. Table A4.1 Age by Nationality, QNHS Q1, 2011 15-24 (%) 25-44 (%) 45-64 (%) No. of cases Irish 18 45 37 32838 Non-Irish 15 65 20 4103 UK 12 44 44 755 EU13 16 64 21 348 EU12 13 77 11 1833 Non-EU 14 71 15 1167 All 18 48 35 36941 Of which: Source: Own calculations derived from the QNHS microdata Q1 2011. Notes: Percentages are weighted, no of cases unweighted. 129 CSO Census of Population 2011, Preliminary Results 130 Since Q1, 2009 the QNHS is now undertaken on a calendar quarter basis: Q1; January to March: Q2; April to June: Q3; July to September and Q4; October to December. 73 Table A4.2 Year of residence by nationality, Q1 2011 Born in Ireland (%) 1910-1994 (%) 1995-1999 (%) 2000-2004 (%) 2005-2011 (%) No of cases Irish 95 2 1 1 1 52,107 Non-Irish 5 7 6 28 54 5,062 UK 9 24 16 23 29 1,031 EU13 3 15 16 21 45 404 EU12 3 0 1 23 73 2,206 Non-EU 4 3 5 44 45 1,421 All 87 3 1 3 5 57,169 Of which Source: Own calculations derived from the QNHS microdata Q1, 2011. Notes: Percentages are weighted, no of cases unweighted. A4.2 The European Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) ensure the sample was representative of the population, though not specifically of non-Irish nationals. The European Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) is an annual household survey carried out in European member states allowing comparable statistics to be compiled across Europe. In Ireland the survey is undertaken by the Central Statistics Office and covers a broad range of issues in relation to income and living conditions of the general population. It is the official source of data on household and individual income and also provides a number of key national poverty and deprivation indicators. In Q2 2009, households being selected for the EU-SILC survey for the first time or substitute households were drawn from a new sample. Up to this, the 1996 Census was used as a sampling frame, updated using visual enumeration in 2002. From Q2 2009 onwards the 2006 Census of Population was used as a sampling frame (CSO, 2010). This is likely to have had implications for the sample of non-Irish nationals between the two surveys, given the rapid immigration of non-Irish nationals in the period between 2002 and 2006. The EU-SILC survey involves both cross-sectional and longitudinal dimensions. The cross-sectional element involves data on households that entered the sample in 2009 (referred to as panel or wave 1); whereas the households in the survey for the second, third or fourth time are considered to be longitudinal households. Given the sample design the EU-SILC has similar problems representing migrants as the QNHS, concerning asylum seekers, language difficulties and irregular migrants. Given the smaller sample, the issue of representing smaller, hard-to-reach groups is even more challenging. As can be seen from Table A4.3, the proportion of non-Irish nationals is quite a bit lower in the EU-SILC than in the QNHS.131 The weighted proportion of non-Irish nationals for all adults aged 15 and over is 9.7 per cent in EU-SILC 2009, compared to 11.5 per cent on the QNHS, Quarter 2 in the same year. The sample design used for SILC is based on the methodology adopted for the Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS). Both surveys aim to provide a nationally representative sample of private households and use a two stage stratified cluster sample. In 2009, the first stage comprised the selection of 1,690 blocks which are geographically defined continuous groups of households (CSO, 2010). The second stage of sampling involved the random selection of sample and substitute households for each block. The sample was weighted to compensate for both the effects of clustering and to 131 74 There is a considerably greater proportion of non-Irish nationals in the EU-SILC 2009 sample than in the 2008 sample. In the Annual Integration Monitor 2010, we noted how the weighted proportion of non-Irish nationals for all adults aged 15 and over is 6.9 per cent in EU-SILC 2008, compared to 13.8 per cent on the Some differences in the samples may result from the fact that the EU SILC data draw from a whole calendar year, and the QNHS is one quarter only. That said, the QNHS proportions do not vary so much across the quarters covered by the EU-SILC 2009. Table A4.3 Non-Irish Nationals in EU-SILC 2009 and QNHS Q2, 2009 Proportions (Weighted) Proportions (Unweighted) No of cases (Unweighted) EU-SILC (%) QNHS (%) EU-SILC (%) QNHS (%) EU-SILC (N) QNHS (N) Irish 90.4 88.5 92.0 90.9 9,245 64,457 Non-Irish 9.6 11.5 8.0 9.1 809 6,484 UK 1.9 2.4 1.8 2.0 184 1,423 EU13 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 80 606 EU-10 3.5 4.7 2.7 3.7 274 2,605 Non-EU 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.6 271 1,850 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10,054 70,941 Of which: Total Notes: Own calculations using the EU-SILC and the QNHS microfiles. Population aged 15+. EU-SILC data are all those with valid nationality data. QNHS, Quarter 2 in the same year. This suggests that the 2009 EU-SILC survey is more representative of nonIrish nationals than the 2008 EU-SILC survey.132 It is most likely that most of this difference in the EU-SILC samples is attributable to changes in the sampling frame described above. Once we take into account the under-representation of non-Irish nationals in EU-SILC, i.e. we would expect the weighted QNHS proportions to be about one fifth 132 higher than the EU-SILC proportions in each case. From Table A4.3 we see that, relative to their proportions in the QNHS sample, in the EU-SILC sample the EU13 group and the non-EU group are over-represented, and the UK group and the EU-10 group are underrepresented, though the differences are not large. The distributions by national group are broadly similar in the two samples (see Table A4.3). The weight used in both years is the one used and provided by the CSO ‘euroweight’. 75 Notes Notes Notes