F. Domergue - ELIPA : a tool for measuring integration

23,902 views

Published on

Integration: knowing, measuring, evaluating 17-18 giugno 2013

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
23,902
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Financée par FEI et FER
  • In France, there are « official statistical surveys » : like census, labour force survey, …
    It means that they have been declared « of public interest » and with a sound methodology by an official body (independant, gathering authorities and civil society).
    Internal costs : building the questionnaires, testing them, preparing the data, teaching surveyors, monitoring : about 2 full time equivalents (high skilled statisticians) during 4 ½ years.
    NSI national statiscal office
  • Expliquer CAI
  • Mêmes personnes réinterrogées + langues et régions
  • Parcours individuels très différents selon le sexe et la durée de présence en France
    + origine moins important que motif et DP
    Hamper
  • Test de langue au CAI, nombre d’heures proposé suivant le niveau estimé
    Involved
    Intervertir 52 et 48 pour hommes et femmes
    Regarder la colonne ensemble
  • Comparer bénéficiaires/ non bénéficiaires ?
    Ils sont différents et donc difficilement comparables. Tous n’ont pas besoin de la formation linguistique
    Variables utilisées : sexe, natio, motif, DP, diplôme, activité, âge arrivée, niveau français, langue durant enfance
  • Comparer bénéficiaires/ non bénéficiaires ?
    Ils sont différents et donc difficilement comparables. Tous n’ont pas besoin de la formation linguistique
    Variables utilisées : sexe, natio, motif, DP, diplôme, activité, âge arrivée, niveau français, langue durant enfance
  • F. Domergue - ELIPA : a tool for measuring integration

    1. 1. ELIPA : a tool for measuring integration Department of Statistics, Studies and Documentation General Secretariat for Immigration and Integration Florent Domergue Roma – 17th June 2013
    2. 2. • ELIPA • Presentation of the survey • Characteristics of the new migrants • Analysis • Labour market inclusion of the new migrants • Language training impact for the new migrants – Summary –
    3. 3. Presentation of the survey
    4. 4. – Enquête Longitudinale sur l’Intégration des Primo Arrivants – • French public statistical system survey • Conducted alongside OECD, INSEE, INED… • Funded by both the Ministry and the European Commission • Total cost : 3 M - 3,5 M € (internal costs not included)
    5. 5. – Field – • Migrants who got their first residence permit in 2009, allowing them to stay in France at least one year (but likely to stay indefinitely). • Aged 18 and over • Coming from « third countries », i.e. outside EEA and Switzerland • Signatories of the « reception and integration contract » (R&I)
    6. 6. – Agenda – • 1st wave : spring 2010 • 6,107 people interviewed • 2nd wave : spring 2011 • 4,756 people interviewed • 3rd wave : spring 2013 • 3,540 people interviewed
    7. 7. – Aims of the survey – • Knowledge of the integration path of the new migrants • Economy (activity, income) • « Human capital » (language skills, education) • Living conditions (housing, family and social life, access to rights…) • Evaluation of public policies of reception • Migratory and administrative processes • Assessment of the R&I
    8. 8. Characteristics of the new migrants
    9. 9. At the time of getting their residence permit : • 48 % have been in France for less than 2 years • 16 % for 2 to 4 years • 36 % for 5 years and over – Migrants did not settle in France at the same time –
    10. 10. – Main profile : family migration, coming from Africa – Economic migration Family migration Asylum Others Total All new migrants 9 72 13 6 100 Proportion of women 20 59 42 44 52 Median age 36 32 31 33 32 Average length of stay in France 8 3 3 10 4 Nationality Europe 5 4 10 3 5 Africa 76 73 38 69 68 Algeria 7 22 1 6 17 Morocco 8 14 0 9 12 Tunisia 5 10 0 3 8 Other african countries 56 27 37 52 32 Asia 12 17 49 23 21 Turkey 2 7 8 6 7 Other asian countries 10 10 41 17 14 America and Oceania 7 6 3 5 6
    11. 11. Labour market inclusion of the new migrants
    12. 12. - Migration leads to a breakdown of employment - Labour force participation rate • Before migration : 57 % 2010 : 69 % 2011 : 71 % Before migration 2010 2011 Gender Men 6 24 18 Women 10 48 34 Length of stay in France in 2010 Less than 2 years 8 47 30 2 to 4 years 6 36 28 5 years and over 8 19 17 All new migrants 8 33 24 Unemployment rate (%)
    13. 13. - Length of stay in France determines women’s labour market inclusion - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Less than 2 years 2 to less than 4 years 4 to less than 6 years 6 to less than 8 years 8 years and over 2 years in the labour market 2 years in employment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Less than 2 years 2 to less than 4 years 4 to less than 6 years 6 to less than 8 years 8 years and over At least 1 year at home 2 years at home % % Length of stay in France in 2010 Length of stay in France in 2010 Women in the labour market in 2010 and 2011 Women at least one year at home in 2010 and 2011
    14. 14. - For the men, length of stay only impacts being employed in the long run - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Less than 2 years 2 to less than 4 years 4 to less than 6 years 6 to less than 8 years 8 years and over 2 years in the labour market 2 years in employment Length of stay in France in 2010 Men in the labour market in 2010 and 2011 %
    15. 15. - Different timelines with regard to family and work - Men • Migration in order to get a job / improve their work prospects • Less often living in a couple than women Women • Family at the heart of the migratory project • A late labour market inclusion
    16. 16. Language training impact for the new migrants
    17. 17. - Who is the language training prescribed to ? - • 20 % of the new migrants are involved • Up to 400 hours Not prescribed Prescribed Women 52 66 Men 48 34 Not prescribed Prescribed Employed 51 29 Unemployed 24 20 Student 10 7 At home 12 37 Other inactive 3 8 Not prescribed Prescribed French-speaking Africa (Maghreb not included) 35 3 Non french-speaking Africa 4 6 Maghreb 39 24 Asia 11 52 Europe and CIS 5 12 Not prescribed Prescribed Less than 2 years 42 71 Between 2 and 4 years 16 16 Between 5 and 9 years 29 10 10 years and over 12 3
    18. 18. - Sub-cohorts building - Two similar populations apart from the completion of the language training and a control group : • Trained cohort • Counterfactual cohort • Control cohort
    19. 19. ’Trained’ improve slower than ‘Counterfactuals’ … ... but they increasingly speak french with their friends 48 35 62 37 6 4 52 65 38 63 94 96 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 Trained Counterfactuals Control Low Medium and fluent Level of french by the cohort in 2010 and 2011 Language spoken with friends by the cohort 5 10 16 18 42 42 44 54 42 49 46 51 50 36 42 33 12 8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 Trained Counterfactuals Control French French and others Other languages
    20. 20. – Conclusion – • People in distress are identified • No net impact of the training on the fluency in french • The training achieves its goal • However, the beneficiaries are not fully satisfied • Is the training ambitious enough ? Prescribed Not prescribed Prescribed Not prescribed Prescribed Not prescribed Low level 64 36 67 33 56 44 Medium level 21 79 26 74 15 85 Fluent level 2 98 3 97 1 99 All Women Men
    21. 21. Thanks for your attention

    ×