The Danish Integration Act's Significance for the Settlement Patterns of Refugees

by Chantal Pohl Nielsen and Kræn Blume Jensen, February 2006

Summary

The objective of this study is to shed light on the significance of the Act on Integration of Immigrants in Denmark (Integration Act) for the settlement patterns and geographic mobility of refugees. The Danish Integration Act, which took effect on 1 January 1999, gave the municipalities in Denmark responsibility for integration. The housing allocation policy for newly arrived refugees has, therefore, become a key instrument for ensuring that this responsibility is distributed in an appropriate manner among the nation’s municipalities. For although refugees represent only a small share of the total number of new arrivals from other countries, they are associated with a substantial amount of high-resource integration work.

In accordance with the new Act, quotas are used to attempt to achieve a more equal distribution of newly arrived refugees among Denmark’s municipalities. The process takes into consideration the individual municipality’s share of the total Danish population and its share of the total number of immigrants and refugees. In order to uphold this distribution to the greatest extent possible, the refugees who have been allocated housing are generally required to remain in their allocation municipality during the three-year introduction period if they want to keep the right to receive an introduction allowance. Refugees may only move out of their allocation municipality without losing the right to this allowance under very special circumstances. A refugee who obtains employment in another municipality may move.

On this basis, the objective of the present report is to investigate the settlement and movement patterns of refugees who arrived in Denmark during the period 1997-2005, i.e. both before and after the Integration Act took effect, in order to pinpoint any role the Act might play. This is a descriptive statistical analysis, the purpose of which is to shed light on the following topics:

The distribution of newly arrived refugees in 1997-2005 among municipalities in Denmark
The number of refugees’ movement away from allocation municipalities
A description of those who move and of the municipalities they move from and to
A descriptive analysis of the employment situations of refugees who move

The presentation of these findings consistently distinguishes between refugees who are covered by the Integration Act and those who are not. Further, a differentiation is made between movements made during the introduction period (i.e. within the first three years of residence in Denmark) and movements made after that period. This serves to illustrate any »before-and-after« effects of the Integration Act on refugees’ movement patterns.

The analyses have been conducted on the basis of akf’s registry-based database, supplemented by information from the Danish Immigration Service. This report is an update and expansion of a previous akf study in the area (see Husted and Blume 2003). It should be noted that the analyses and subsequent conclusions included in this report are based solely on descriptive analyses. Consequently, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions about underlying causal connections. However, this report could – besides the interesting descriptive results – serve as a good foundation for a subsequent model-based and more detailed econometric analysis.

Findings of the study

The study has produced several interesting conclusions. In comparison with akf’s previous study in the area (Husted and Blume 2003), the larger data set makes it possible to draw clearer and more precise conclusions regarding the significance of the Integration Act for the movement patterns of newly arrived refugees. Six main conclusions from the analyses are presented here:

Housing allocation works – the initial spread is greater

Before the Integration Act took effect, the majority of newly arrived refugees were allocated housing in large municipalities. With the implementation of the new housing allocation policy, the study shows that newly arrived refugees are spread out across a greater geographic area. The large municipalities, which used to be the main recipients of newly arrived refugees, have been successfully »relieved«. At the same time, many more of the municipalities that only received a few refugees in the past have received more of the newly arrived refugees since 1999.

More refugees actually stay in their allocation municipality – even after the introduction period

As expected, the Integration Act results in far fewer refugees moving away from their allocation municipality during the introduction period, e.g. during the first three years after their arrival in Denmark. Although some of the refugees who are covered by the Integration Act “save up” a desire to move, which they can realise once the introduction period is over, there are still many who choose not to take the opportunity to move away from their allocation municipality. In total, there is a movement frequency of 7 per cent for refugees who are covered by the Integration Act, compared to 17 per cent for refugees who are not covered by the Act. All in all, the findings suggest that the Act keeps – also in the long run – more refugees in their allocation municipality than was the case before the Act took effect. As a consequence of the new housing allocation policy, there are also substantial differences in which allocation municipalities are capable of keeping their refugees. For those refugees who are covered by the Integration Act and who do not move away from their allocation municipality, there is a very wide distribution across the entire country. And, naturally, this picture is partly a reflection of the post-1999 housing allocation policy, the objective of which was to ensure a wider distribution of the newly arrived refugees.

Major cities and ghetto districts are still attractive

There is no doubt that the refugees move to the major cities and the large municipalities when they move away from their allocation municipalities. The tendency to move away from a small municipality is also relatively large compared with the tendency to move away from a large municipality. However, the Integration Act appears to have resulted in a smaller tendency to move away from the small municipalities compared to previously – also when the refugees are no longer obliged to remain in their allocation municipality, i.e. after the introduction period. Furthermore, refugees show a clear tendency to move to municipalities with large populations of immigrants from non-western countries. Thus, they presumably follow social/ethnic networks. With regard to specific deprived neighbourhoods (i.e. 15 neighbourhoods/ghetto districts that the Danish Government has focused on with its initiative to combat the formation of ghettos), the findings show that only a few move away from these areas, while relatively many move to them, and that this pattern also applies for movements made after the introduction period. The Integration Act appears not to have an effect on this pattern.

The rules for introduction allowance clearly influence the decision to move

In general, young refugees are most willing to move. The differences in movement frequency according to age group are greatest for refugees who are covered by the Integration Act and who choose to move during the introduction period. The study also shows that refugees who are single are more likely to move compared to refugees who are married/living with a partner. This trend is also most significant for refugees who are covered by the Integration Act and who choose to move during the introduction period. Furthermore, households with children are less likely to move during the introduction period than households without children. Together, these findings suggest that the Integration Act has a clear influence on movement patterns. The lower movement frequency among these groups can also be explained by the fact that refugee families with children (which are often included in the married/living with a partner group) establish relationships to schools, institutions, after-school schemes, etc., which means they are less inclined to move away from their allocation municipality. The duty to support is also greater for families with children (and, for that matter, also for those who are married/living with a partner) compared to singles, which makes them more vulnerable to the risk of losing the right to receive the introduction allowance which, in general, happens when they move away from their allocation municipality during the introduction period.

Employment opportunities and integration initiatives do not appear to influence the decision to move

Employment opportunities, described in terms of the unemployment rates in the municipalities that refugees move to and those that they move away from, do not appear to have any significant influence on the movement patterns of refugees. At least, it is not possible to prove that refugees move to municipalities with low unemployment and, thus, presumably better employment opportunities (all things being equal). This finding is the same for refugees who are covered by the Integration Act and for those who are not covered by the Act. However, there is a slight trend for refugees to move away from municipalities with high unemployment rates and this trend is strongest for refugees who are covered by the Integration Act and who move after the introduction period. When the most “popular” municipalities among refugees are compared with municipalities which other AKF studies (Husted and Heinesen 2006) highlight as being especially effective in the area of integration, there appears to be very little overlap. Thus, it is not possible to prove that the integration efforts of municipalities have any influence on the movement patterns, i.e. that refugees move to the municipalities that are most effective in the area of integration when they move away from their allocation municipality.

Many refugees do find employment after moving, however

The findings show that refugees who move generally achieve a more positive employment situation than in the control group since more are employed. However, employment is relatively unstable for both groups. Whether the movement takes place during the introduction period also plays a role in relation to the refugee’s employment situation. The group of refugees who move during the introduction period has a higher employment rate in the period after moving than the group of refugees who do not move until the introduction period is over. Possible explanations for this might be that the first group moves because they expect to find (or have been promised) employment in the new municipality of residence or because they generally have more human resources and, therefore, take the chance, renouncing the right to receive an introduction allowance.

The correlation between the individual refugee’s decision to move away from the allocation municipality and his/her subsequent employment situation, however, is not unambiguous. The employment analysis also examines whether the individual refugee moves from or to employment. For those refugees who are unemployed when they move and who choose to move during the introduction period, 7 per cent find employment within three months after moving. In contrast, the findings for refugees who are employed when they move and who move during the introduction period show that 17 per cent are unemployed three months after moving. As the study’s other findings suggest, however, there are a large number of factors that also play a role in the movement patterns of refugees. A model-based econometric analysis could shed light on the significance of the individual factors in more detail, as well as reveal the causal connections.