Results are excerpts from the referenced publication, and may not be current at the time of the search. Please also note the database is currently in its testing phase. We would welcome any feedback at [email protected]

  • Shelters for asylum seekers and migrants in Mexico
  • Mexico
  • Mexico is a transit country for people migrating to the United States, and has also become an important destination country for many fleeing violence in Central America and elsewhere. In recent years, migration routes through Mexico have become more dangerous due to a rise restrictive policies that put people at greater risk, pushing them into the hands of criminal organizations, human smugglers, and drug traffickers. A network of humanitarian aid organisations have emerged to operate numerous shelters, providing an alternative to immigration detention described as an ‘oasis’ along the dangerous migration routes in Mexico. La 72 is one such shelter operating in the region. La 72 is supported by Doctors without Borders, Asylum Access, the Red Cross, the UNHCR and various Mexican NGOs, and provides legal counsel and representation for those seeking asylum. There are now over 85 organisations like La 72 offering food, shelter, safety, and a ‘humanitarian space’ where migrants can feel dignified and supported. The shelters serve as alternatives to detention, ensuring the right to freedom of movement.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • All
  • Transit
  • Bail for detainees in Malta
  • Malta
  • Immigration detainees may request bail within the context of appeal proceedings before the Immigration Appeals Board (Immigration Act, article 25(a)(6)). Civil society organizations have reported that the Board’s decision is usually not based on the necessity or even the legality of detention but rather on whether the person concerned has accommodation and means to sustain himself, and can provide sufficient financial guarantees to comply with the conditions of bail.

    The failure to apply non-custodial measures with respect to an immigration detainee in the Massoud case was one of the reasons that led the European Court of Human Right to conclude that Malta violated the applicant’s right to liberty. The court found it “hard to conceive that in a small island like Malta, where escape by sea without endangering one's life is unlikely and fleeing by air is subject to strict control, the authorities could not have had at their disposal measures other than the applicant's protracted detention to secure an eventual removal in the absence of any immediate prospect of his expulsion.”[56]
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Immigration detainees
  • All
  • Transit
  • Group homes for unaccompanied refugee children in Spain
  • Spain
  • The regional government of Andalusia last year became the first in Spain to host unaccompanied Syrian refugee children such as Mahmud. Since September, it has welcomed eight youngsters aged 15 to 17 – six boys and two girls – all relocated from Greece. The aim was to provide a safe, nurturing environment in a residential setting with social, health, education and culture and leisure resources designed to “favour their social development” and help them feel integrated. ... Now they live at a group home in a quiet backstreet where the loudest sound is a trilling canary. The youngsters share spotless rooms, sit together for meals and attend secondary schools, in a project run by the regional government of Andalusia and supported by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. ... The children are offered after-school activities as part of the effort to integrate them into the town of 60,000 inhabitants south of the provincial capital, Granada. These range from Spanish evening classes at the Club UNESCO Motril, where Bienvenido teaches, to work experience and volunteering.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Refugees
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Housing and basic care for families in Austria
  • Austria
  • Since October 2011, a facility in Zinnergasse in the outskirts of Vienna serves as a non-secure facility to house people benefitting from a non-custodial measure. It accommodates up to 17 families (or 50 persons) in family apartments. In 2013, 154 people were housed in this facility, including 75 families. Non-citizens accommodated in this facility can leave at will, but they must notify officers. There are always two police officers in residence. The facility is jointly operated by the police and the association Menschen.Leben. The association’s team is present during the day and is in charge of admission to the facility, daily care, food distribution, crisis intervention, interpretation, and conflict prevention (see GDP Profile for Austria, accessed 29 March 2015). Note that Zinnergasse also operates as a secure facility and the detention unit is used to detain both families and unaccompanied minors under the age of 16 for up to seven days.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Holistic care for unaccompanied children in Italy
  • Italy
  • The Zampa law, as the new measure is known, is the first comprehensive act for unaccompanied children in Italy. It calls for a series of measures - fully aligned with UNICEF recommendations - to protect refugee and migrant children, including: Unaccompanied and separated foreign children will not be subjected to “refoulement” or returns that may cause them harm; Reduce the time these children spend in first-line reception centres; Promote guardianship for children by using trained volunteers from the regional child and youth agency and promote foster care and host families for children; Harmonize and improve procedures for age assessment in a child-sensitive manner; Establish a structured and streamlined national reception system, with minimum standards in all reception facilities; Roll out extensive use of qualified cultural mediators* to communicate and interpret needs of vulnerable adolescents. The new law includes additional budgetary provisions on top of €600 million which the Government of Italy had already allocated in 2016 to municipalities, groups and caregivers to help them cope with the large influx of refugees and migrants in reception centres.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Migrants
  • Refugees
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Coaches to help navigate a family's options in Belgium
  • Belgium
  • Under Belgian law the families staying at these units remain legally “detained”; in practice however, the family units are not closed and families have a large degree of freedom of movement albeit with some restrictions. Although there is a 10 pm to 8 am curfew and one adult family member must always remain in the house, this is applied with some flexibility with the prior authorization of the coaches. The families receive a weekly allowance, food vouchers and non-food items. Children are able to attend schools in the locality and families have regular access to physical and mental health services if requiredFamilies are required to sign a “contract” that sets out their rights and obligations while in the family unit as well as the consequences of absconding. Each family is assigned a “coach”, who is in effect a case manager, employed by the Belgian Immigration Department. Coaches are responsible for providing families with individual and holistic support. This support centres on helping families to achieve case resolution, whether this is a right of residence in Belgium, or return with dignity if they are found to have no legal basis to remain. In doing so, they provide logistical and administrative support to families, ensuring that they have access to pro bono legal services and arranging meetings with diplomatic and consular representatives where appropriate, in cooperation with the Immigration Office
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • Children
  • NGO program to support released detainees in the United States of America
  • United States of America
  • CIVIC is national convener of a network of groups providing support to people released from detention. Some of these programs have official partnerships with ICE to run alternative accompaniment programs and others operate post-release accompaniment programs.

    What is a CIVIC Alternative Accompaniment Program (CAAP)?
    CAAP are community-initiated alternative to detention programs run by community groups or nonprofits in a similar manner to the federal Refugee Resettlement Program. Instead of being detained, immigrants are allowed to remain living with family. If they are recent asylum seekers without family, then they are housed with volunteers or in group homes while the courts process their immigration cases. An “alternative accompaniment program” does not include ankle monitors and demonstrates that people nationwide can build effective and humane pathways away from our punitive immigration detention system. CIVIC coined the term “alternative accompaniment” after private prison corporations hijacked the term “alternative to detention.”

    Are there examples of alternative accompaniment programs?
    CIVIC’s Post Release Accompaniment Program (PRAP) is a community-initiated alternative accompaniment program. PRAP provides immigrants who would otherwise be detained with the ability to fight their case from the outside. PRAP assists in helping immigrants obtain release on parole, for example, and provides them with housing, connections to attorneys, transportation to immigration court, and limited financial support. Over the last year and a half, volunteers have secured the safe release of approximately 300 asylum seekers, and CIVIC is now expanding on the scope of its demonstration model by engaging local and federal governments in supporting a community-based alternative to detention that replaces immigration detention beds with holistic community support for all immigrants, eventually capping (and then eliminating) the number of people in immigration detention. With careful data tracking, CIVIC is proving that this new model is less expensive than immigration detention, and also leads to more successful outcomes. [reviews Vera stats] In 2013, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS) and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops both signed Memorandum of Understanding with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administer self-funded community-based alternatives to detention pilot programs. LIRS administered its program in New York/Newark area and in San Antonio. USCCB administered its program in Baton Rouge and Boston.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Immigration detainees
  • All
  • Placement options
  • Egypt
  • Kenya
  • Libya
  • Tanzania
  • United Republic of
  • Zambia
  • Four out of six countries have legislation that permits certain migrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, to reside in the community as an alternative to immigration detention. For example, Zambia’s Immigration Act provides for bail [Section 57) or report orders [Section 14]. Egyptian law allows for directed residence pending deportation, and South African law states that children and pregnant women must be held in appropriate and open shelters. Five out of six countries provided further examples of positive practices. Emergency housing and shelters for vulnerable migrants, asylum seekers and refugees – run by civil society organisations, government agencies, or both in partnership – are in use in Egypt, Kenya, and Zambia. In Kenya, asylum seekers are removed from detention and escorted to refugee camps pending the determination of their claim. In Egypt, Libya and Tanzania, there is evidence of good practice that is not prompted by law. It was reported that asylum seekers arriving in Egypt who are awaiting refugee status determination (RSD) by UNHCR, are not arrested when they approach immigration authorities. However, there is no Egyptian law authorising the residence of migrants and asylum seekers pending RSD. By conducting intake screening that looks not only at the vulnerabilities but also strengths of individuals, some detention centre managers in Libya have created innovative release-to-work programmes whereby migrants are issued ID cards and released under the protection of an employer, whose treatment of the migrants is regularly reviewed. Finally, despite law prohibiting refugees and asylum seekers from traveling more than four kilometres from camps in Tanzania without permits, the Ministry of Home Affairs issues exit permits to refugees who have a credible reason for exiting. Refugees arrested outside camps without permits are usually sentenced to community service rather than imprisonment, fines, and deportation – as was previously the case.
  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • Holistic support for refugee children in Austria
  • Austria
  • In Austria, SOS Children’s Villages has 15 years of professional experience in providing quality care to refugee children and supporting their integration. To respond to the current refugee crisis in Europe, SOS Children’s Villages Austria has been creating customized places for 300 children in newly established facilities since 2015, offering a range of alternative care options: small group homes, semi-independent living, foster care, integration and specialised education programmes. Recently, a group home in Linz was established to accommodate 15 unaccompanied refugees. Native-speaking psychiatrists and therapists, as well as professional interpreters, are available to support the children. The nearby public schools offer a great opportunity for the successful integration of the young refugees. SOS Children’s Villages Austria has also set up ‘Biwak’ living communities for unaccompanied refugee children between the ages of 12 and 18, who require a daily structure and specialised socio-pedagogical support. They stay at the ‘Biwak’ until the age of legal adulthood. Furthermore, SOS Children’s Villages Austria advocates for the right of all children to quality care and education, which is not equally ensured to refugee children by current leg- 8 11 islation. For example, compulsory schooling is provided by law for children aged 14-18, but not for young asylum seekers, because of their uncertain status.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Refugees
  • Children
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Information communication technology services for refugees in Serbia
  • Macedonia (FYROM)
  • Serbia
  • ICT services are essential in refugee centres. As a part of its emergency response, SOS Children’s Villages is helping to facilitate this need by setting up more SOS ICT Corners, offering free WiFi, computers, printing/scanning/copying services and charging stations for mobile phones and other electronic devices. Since the closing of the Balkan transit route in early March 2016, many children and young people have been stranded in refugee camps in Serbia and Macedonia. The ICT Corners offer them a place to connect to family members online. For 14-year-old Zafar8 from Afghanistan, who is traveling alone, coming to the SOS ICT Corner in the Serbian refugee centre gives him hope that he will reconnect with his mother and sister back home, with whom he has not had contact in over a month. ICT Corners are also useful for children and young people to gain computer literacy or play educational
    child-appropriate games, guided by SOS ICT staff. SOS Children’s Villages co-workers are teaching children and young people about MS Office and other useful applications. In addition, as a response to the needs of the children visiting the ICT Corners, co-workers are expanding their activities. A technician at the ICT Corner in Preševo, Serbia shares that he and his colleague have started teaching children to speak Serbian. “They are fast learners,” he says.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Refugees
  • Children
  • Bail program in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom
  • Bail is available upon request in the UK within the first 8 days of detention by making an application to an Immigration Officer not below the rank of Chief Immigration Officer (CIO). After the 8 days, they can apply for bail to an Immigration Judge. There are some exceptions. Bail guidance for judges presiding over immigration and asylum hearings instructs them to consider: (a) the reason or reasons why the person has been detained; (b) the length of the detention to date and its likely future duration; (c) the available alternatives to detention including any circumstances relevant to the person that makes specific alternatives suitable or unsuitable; (d) the effect of detention upon the person and his/her family; and (e) the likelihood of the person complying with conditions of bail. Detained asylum-seekers may be required to produce a surety, an individual who agrees to be held responsible for ensuring compliance with bail conditions. This requirement is not automatic: due regard should be given to the fact that people recently arrived in the country may have nobody to whom they could expect to stand surety for them. If there are no reasonable grounds for concluding that the applicant will abscond, a surety would be unnecessary. The Bail guidance and its annexes further describe bail conditions that can be imposed. They make clear that stringency of the conditions should vary according to the circumstances of the applicant and the level of monitoring required. Indication about how to fix the amount of any financial bond is also given.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Immigration detainees
  • All
  • Reporting mechanisms for vulnerable poulations in Hong Kong
  • Hong Kong SAR
  • After a short period in detention, most vulnerable individuals including asylum seekers and torture claimants are released on their own recognisance, which may include conditions of self-surety and minimal reporting requirements. Asylum seekers and torture claimants are issued with recognisance papers from the Hong Kong Immigration Department documenting their status in the community. The recognisance paper is renewable monthly to certify that the person has a claim under process and has permission to stay in Hong Kong. All non-refoulement claimants are required to report in person to the HKID once a month or as scheduled. Failure to report is tantamount to absconding and consequently results in an investigation and potential arrest. A government-funded project run by a non-government organisation arranges housing in the community as well as direct provision of food, clothing and medicine to these clients. Using a case management approach, workers assess each case on intake and develop an appropriate program of response in line with the resources available. Vulnerable clients, such as unaccompanied minors, are given priority and extra support as able. Persons must report regularly to the NGO, though the NGO is not responsible for compliance matters, although known breaches must be reported to authorities
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Children
  • Elderly Persons
  • Pregnant and nursing mothers
  • Using exisiting child welfare systems to protect migrant children in Hungary
  • Hungary
  • Since May 2011, following the recommendations set out in a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner, UAM asylum seekers (UAMAS) and UAM beneficiaries of international protection have fallen within the scope of the general child protection regime and a child protection facility in Fót (‘Fót Children’s Home’) has been designated to host them. This change resulted in the qualification of UAMs, primarily, as children and only secondarily as migrants. UAMAS (and non-asylum seeking UAMs who are provided interim placement) have to thereafter be appointed a child protection guardian by the Guardianship Authority, who is legally responsible for the overall care, property management and legal representation of the minor. The child protection guardian is employed by the Department of Child Protection Services (TEGYESZ) and can ensure the guardianship of max. 30 children. Non-asylum seeking UAMs are accommodated in a child protection facility in Hódmezővásárhely run by the Catholic Church within the framework of a contract concluded with the Social and Child Protection Directorate. However, the limited capacity (18 UAMs) of the facility remains an issue. Age assessment must take place within 24 hours of detection of the UAM. It has been reported that the lack of uniform age assessment procedures may lead to the detention of UAMs. In case of doubt, until the minority of the UAM is confirmed, he/she is treated as an adult, thus may be accommodated either in an adult reception facility for asylum seekers or put in immigration/asylum detention if the conditions are met.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Comprehensive reception and care arrangements for unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Austria
  • Austria
  • Guardianship - The Children and Youth Service Authorities becomes the guardian of UAMs. This is for all minors, irrespective of age and status. Usually the guardians’ duties include care and education, asset management and legal representation but some duties may be outsourced to reception facilities, NGOs or law firms. Practical implementation varies according to UAM's place of residence as guardianship is the competence of each individual province and that there are no guidelines concerning its implementation - practice has been criticised as being inconsistent. Each UAM is allocated a "Supervisor" who s/he can refer any questions or problems to. Legal representative - UAMs who seek asylum are also appointed a legal advisor during the admission procedure. Once admitted, have access to free legal advice as per other asylum seekers. Accommodation and reception - Organized reception facilities (apartment-sharing groups (majority)), residential homes; supervised accommodation). Access to education - equal access to primary education as Austrian children; secondary education more challenging and often only with help of NGOs and private organizations. Asylum seeking minors can be granted work permit for vocational training with certain conditions/restrictions. Access to healthcare - general health insurance system. Residence Options -asylum status (permanent residence); subsidiary protection status (1 year residency, extendable for 2 year periods); residence permit or residece permit plus (on grounds of Article 8 ECHR); residence permit for individual protection (trafficking, victim of violence or grounds for tolerated stay); Red-White-Red Card plus ; Tolerated Stay (if removal is not possible). Age Assessment - The multifactorial medical age assessment includes physical, dental and radiological examinations. The combined results of these examinations lead to a defined minimum age. Until the assessment has been undertaken and the results are available, the potential UAM – as a matter of principle – is treated as a minor.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Ad hoc foster care practice in Austria
  • Austria
  • Reception and living in families is not common for unaccompanied minors in Austria. At the moment, the city of Graz in the federated state Styria (Steiermark) is the only place in Austria that accommodates unaccompanied minors in foster families. is is seen by those delivering the family care environment as a good practice which delivers positive outcomes in the children’s lives.

    The foster care organization Pflegefamilie Austria was more or less coincidentally asked by the city of Graz to accommodate some unaccompanied minors in 2012. Therefore, they have 6 unaccompanied children aged 13-15 living with foster families (children over 16 are accommodated by Caritas in Graz and not in foster families). A distinction is made between children that are allowed to stay in Austria and those that have to return, as the organization strongly believes that a child should be able settle and integrate. Although Pflegefamilie Austria is quite satisfied with the results and even managed to provide foster families with the same cultural backgrounds, it is not aiming to expand this approach, nor is it being requested to.

    Another good practice is taking place in Salzburg, where Kinder- und Jugendanwaltscha (Kija) is preparing a project on accommodating unaccompanied minors in foster families. Kija is the ombudsman for children that exists in every federated state in Austria. It looks at the functioning of the youth care system and advises on changes to the system where necessary. Although Kija does not yet have the financial means for the project and is currently looking for ways to fund it, the first placement (of a 16-year-old Afghan boy) in a foster family in Salzburg was a promising development in August 2014. The social department of the federated state of Salzburg states that this was an exception, as unaccompanied minors do not fall under the regular youth care system but rather under basic care arrangements. However, together with Kija, Asylkoordination Österreich believes foster care is useful and legally possible for unaccompanied minors. They maintain that federated states should realize that a minor is a minor, regardless of where they come from, and that all children should therefore be treated equally.

    The member of the federated state council in Salzburg who is responsible for integration agrees, and embraces the idea of foster care for unaccompanied minors. She has proposed to facilitate it everywhere in Austria within a nationwide working group of people responsible for the reception of unaccompanied minors. She has also urged the federated state of Salzburg to investigate whether such foster care can be organized within the state. The general idea in the federated state of Salzburg is that such a placement will cost €670 euro a month, which is the amount of money received by youth care foster families who care for an 11-year-old.

    The various stakeholders do not regard the general situation in Austria concerning foster care for unaccompanied children as an overnight change, given that integration and awareness of the main issues are still di cult topics concerning refugees in Austria. However, they are beginning to think of ways to realize a more individual approach towards the reception of unaccompanied minors, with foster care being one of the options considered. is is also the case for the youth care department of Tirol, for instance. When contacted about this project, the coordinator for unaccompanied minors in that federated state explained that foster care for unaccompanied minors is not yet available in Tirol but that it is believed to be a good alternative to institutional care and worthy of consideration for the future. Another expert stated that everybody in the field would welcome foster care for unaccompanied minors, especially for the younger ones.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Quota system for asylum seekers in Germany
  • Germany
  • An asylum-seeker distribution system operates in Germany where a quota is calculated on an annual basis per Länder, taking into account their tax receipts and population size (“Koenigsteiner Quota”). Asylum-seekers are assigned to an initial reception centre using a nationwide distribution system called “EASY”. The individual designation of the residence is based on the available reception capacities in one of the 22 initial reception centers; the country of origin of the asylum-seeker; or the presence of core family members in one of the German individual states (spouses, minor children, or – in case of minor asylum applicants - their parents). In cases where other relatives are present in Germany, asylum applicants may apply to be re-allocated to another Länder. With the exception of the so-called “city states” (i.e. Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen where individuals are generally directly allocated to collective accommodation centers or private housing), asylum-seekers in Germany usually stay for a minimum period of 6 weeks in the Initial reception Centre (IRC), where basic provisions are provided in the form of non-cash assistance. Compulsory accommodation in those centers ends if either the asylum-seeker is granted refugee status or temporary protection; if he/she is granted residence on account of marriage in Germany; has received a binding decree ordering his/her deportation that cannot, in the foreseeable future, be executed; or, in any case, no later than 3 months after the asylum application was lodged. Thereafter, asylum-seekers awaiting successful completion of their asylum procedure are usually transferred to open collective accommodation centers (CACs), run by private companies or charity organizations under contract with the municipality, or are privately accommodated. There are restrictions on movement to the district of the federal state in which the centre is located. Exceptions to this rule are authorised. Practice varies by federal state, but generally asylum seekers are not supposed to travel outside their district of assigned residence (some districts are no larger than 15 sq km) without special permission from the competent local aliens authority. They are subject to detention as a penalty if they do so.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Case management and support
  • Asylum seekers
  • All
  • Transit
  • Reception facilities for unaccompanied children in Greece
  • Greece
  • The reception facilities for unaccompanied minors in Greece are operated by non-governmental and sometimes by Governmental institutions, mainly with funding from the European Refugee Fund. At the time of this report, the total capacity was 320 places, although the needs were much higher and there was a waiting list of approximately 200 children. While waiting to be referred to an open accommodation centre, identified minors stayed either in the limited space in the First Reception Centre (FRC) or in detention facilities. It should be noted that both in the FRC and in detention centres, it is foreseen that unaccompanied children are placed in a different section than adults. In January 2013, the European Commission entrusted IOM Greece to address the challenging issue of unaccompanied minors in Greece. The 21-month Programme “Addressing the needs of unaccompanied minors in Greece” included enhanced family tracing and family assessment procedures which, along with the views of the children, could be used in determining whether it was in their best interest to be provided with assistance to voluntary return and be reintegrated in their country of origin. Throughout the implementation of this programme, our main objective was to ensure that each child exercised his or her right to be heard, provided with the necessary care and support they needed and, that ultimately, the best interest of the child was taken into consideration throughout the assistance process and that the outcome of each case was based on the best interest of that child as well. As the report goes on to say, the operational lessons learned included working with both caution and speed to respond to the children’s sense of urgency about family reunion; enabling and assisting communication between the child and family was essential; and the critical need for experienced, motivated and knowledgeable professionals.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Residential schools for unaccompanied children in Israel
  • Israel
  • In ISRAEL, based on a joint decision by an inter-ministerial committee led by the Ministry of Justice, UASC aged between 14 and 17 are integrated in residential schools called “youth villages” together with Israeli youth. Israeli youth opting for this kind of secondary education are mainly from migrant backgrounds or youth facing socio-economic difficulties.

    UASC are placed in small groups in these youth villages gathering up to 150-300 young people (the number of UASC generally constitutes a maximum of 10% of the total school population). Each child that arrives from detention centres undergoes an intake and his/her situation is monitored by the staff in charge (usually a child and youth care worker/social worker). Children are divided in the youth village by age groups, boys and girls separately, and live together with Israeli youth in the same groups. Emphasis is on a community approach – e. g. where staff live with their families alongside the students. The staff includes directors, teachers, educators, child and youth care workers, social workers and other psycho-social staff as needed and also volunteers like national service volunteers. Children are provided with a safe environment, access to local school and all other comprehensive services in accordance with their developmental needs (health care, dental care, cloth- ing, full board accommodation, sports and other social activities, pocket money, psychological counseling if needed, etc.). Wherever possible, Israeli “host families” are matched with the UASC for hosting them in vacation periods.
    Children enjoy freedom of movement and are provided with identity certificates that are issued by each youth village separately. The Israeli immigration authority issues UASC living in youth villages a “conditional release” visa, similar to the visa all asylum-seekers receive in Israel. The youth villages are supervised and financed by the Ministry of Education. From 2008-2014, more than 400 UASC from African countries were placed in the youth villages.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Migrants
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Reporting and Monitoring Requirements in Egypt
  • Egypt
  • Article 30 of Entry and Residence of Aliens in the Territories of the United Arab Republic and their Departure Therefrom (1960) (Amended by laws Nos.49/1968, 124/1980, 100/1983, 99/1996 and 88/2005) – should a deportation decision be difficult to enforce, the Director of Passport, Immigration and Nationality may order the non-resident in question to reside at a particular place and report to a specified police station according to a specified time frame until deportation occurs. Non-citizens who violate the terms of an order of deportation or banishment, fail to reside at a designated residence, or provide false statements or knowingly submit false documentation to Egyptian authorities can be sentenced with up to two years imprisonment and/or to pay a fine of up to two thousand pounds (Arts. 38, 40).

    (Editor's note: United Arab Republic is Egypt's law).
  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • Foster care for unaccompanied children seeking asylum in France
  • France
  • In 2011, 16 representatives from 10 EU Member States reviewed and evaluated each country’s approach to caring for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. The top-ranked practice with 400 points (79 per cent of all possible points) is the placement of UAMAS under 16 years of age with foster families, as practised in the UK. Comparisons were made between the UK practice and similar practices in other EU Member States such as the Netherlands or France, where children are also placed with foster families. Compared with the UK, placement of children in other countries does not take place on such a wide scale, foster families do not receive state support, and only younger children benefit (in the Netherlands children up to 13 years of age and children who are considered vulnerable).
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Refugee Camp Design Promotes Family Based Care in Ethiopia
  • Ethiopia
  • The Shire operation in Ethiopia in recent years has seen an average of around 100 unaccompanied children (UAC) arriving per month. Sheer numbers dictated that as a last resort, small group-care would have to be an interim option pending efforts to place children in family based care including reuni cation with their family members. A major struggle was the camp layout, with one section of
    Mai Aini refugee camp being designated to house over 1,000 unaccompanied children. This camp layout discouraged more family and community-based child protection responses, with the general refugee community considering the ‘group-care children’ as predominately the responsibility of the international community and local authorities. To overcome this, an inte- grated shelter layout was designed for a newly opened camp, whereby UAC live side by side with families who agree to support the children, in communities of 8 shelters facing each other with communal space in the middle (instead of rows of shelters) to facilitate social interactions.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Refugees
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Transit
  • Avoiding detaining children in families pending return
  • Belgium
  • Families with children who
 are required to leave Belgium are accommodated in individual open housing units, called return-houses. ‘There are two categories of family in the return-houses: the families who were arrested on the territory and the families who asked for asylum at the border. Family unity is maintained even when children have turned 18 years old. Family members are allowed to exit the house, providing that one adult member of the family remains present in the unit. Children are allowed to attend school, even though it is sometimes difficult to ensure in practice (due to lack of available places in schools, short period prior to the return, etc). Families have access to health care in addition to an obligation to a medical check when entering the return- houses and to a fit-to fly examination before return. Within the return houses, families receive counselling from a return-coach, who works for the Foreigners Office. Each coach works with 3 to 4 families at a time and is in almost daily contact on behalf of the families with the authorities. The coach’s role is to prepare families for return whilst exploring the possibilities of them receiving a residence permit and supporting them in their current situation. They provide families with information and coordinate the involvement of other actors working with the family, for example, lawyers, and help children enrol in school. They also prepare families for regularisation of their stay. From October 2008 up to February 2011, 145 families with 268 children stayed in the return houses. Amongst them, 60 families returned to their country of origin or to a third country. In very few cases were coercive measures necessary for the return.’
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • Children
  • Conditions that can be applied in New Zealand
  • New Zealand
  • Section 315 of the New Zealand Immigration Act 2009 states that the officer may in his/her absolute discretion, decide that instead of detention, persons can

    (a) reside at a specified place:
    (b) report to a specified place at specified periods or times in a specified manner:
    (c) provide a guarantor who is responsible for—
    (i) ensuring the person complies with any requirements agreed under this section; and
    (ii) reporting any failure by the person to comply with those requirements:
    (d) if the person is a claimant, attend any required interview with a refugee and protection officer or hearing with the Tribunal:
    (e) undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

    The person is subject to arrest and detention if they fail to comply with the conditions of their release or in order to execute a deportation order. The application of these conditions is at the discretion of the immigration officer.


  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Bail program in Canada
  • Canada
  • Toronto Bail Program - see Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Enforcement Manual 20 – Detention Section 5.12. Under contract with the Canadian Border Services Agency, the Toronto Bail Program (TBP), a non-profit entity, operates to support immigration detainees, including asylum-seekers and persons awaiting removal, to be released from detention via bail. The TBP acts as the “bondsperson” for those who have no family or other eligible guarantors to pay bond and in this way, removes the financial discrimination inherent in other bail systems. Under the TBP, no payment is made, rather asylum-seekers are released on the basis of the TBP’s guarantee. The TBP carries out interviews to assess suitability of candidates for their supervision. Asylum-seekers agree voluntarily to cooperate with TBP and all immigration procedures, including any reporting conditions set by the TBP. As per the contract signed between the asylum-seeker and the TBP, they agree to appear for all appointments, to notify the TBP of a change of address and to participate in meaningful activities while in Canada (e.g. education, vocational training, work). Reporting requirements generally reduce as trust is established between TBP and the asylum-seeker. Unannounced visits to the asylum-seeker’s residence may be organized by the TBP. Failure to comply with reporting obligations may result in the TPB informing the provincial authorities, in which case the person would be placed under a Canada-wide arrest warrant. TBP makes it explicit that failure to report may result in return to detention.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • All
  • Conditions including designated address in Lithuania
  • Lithuania
  • In Lithuania, meanwhile, the Pabrade Foreigners Registration Centre contains both detainees and non-detainees. Oddly, therefore, it is both a place of detention and an alternative to detention. There is segregation of detainees and non-detainees, but similar services are provided to both groups. Detainees are only able to exit with permission and escort, whereas those not detained are able to leave unsupervised for a period of up to 72 hours upon notifying the management. For those asylum seekers in the full determination procedure and for children, accommodation in a more open centre (Rukla Reception Centre) is also possible, and those not in need of State support may live independently with relative ease. While there are no specific statistics on compliance with the Lithuanian system (and the number of applicants in total is currently small), it can be noted that only ten per cent of cases in 2002 and 40 per cent in 2003 were classed as ‘terminated’. As cases may be terminated for reasons other than absconding, this represents the upper limit of those that might have done so, and compares well with Hungarian figures, for example. The percentage of claimants who are detained and therefore unable to abscond must of course be taken into account when directly comparing the effectiveness of national systems. Also, the relevant legislation in Lithuania is only two years old, so it may be too soon to fully evaluate the regime’s effectiveness.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • Open houses for families departing Belgium
  • Belgium
  • Open housing facilities (“family identification and return units”, or “family units”) for undocumented families living in Belgium, families who apply for asylum at the border, as well as asylum-seeking families under the Dublin Regulations. Each family is assigned a “coach”, who is in effect a case manager, employed by the Belgian Immigration Department. Coaches are responsible for providing families with individual and holistic support. This support centres on helping families to achieve case resolution, whether this is a right of residence in Belgium, or return with dignity if they are found to have no legal basis to remain. In Belgium, the centralised ‘Fedasil’ system, which provides asylum seekers with accommodation, is not specifically designed to improve compliance. The different types of accommodation provided – collective centres or private flats – are allocated based on need rather than on an asylum seeker’s risk of absconding, and an asylum seeker is not considered to have absconded until he or she fails to appear for five days or fails to collect his or her financial assistance. In accordance with the incoming EU Directive, judicial oversight of a decision to assign someone to a place of accommodation is available, so that an applicant can be granted an exemption in exceptional circumstances. A large percentage of asylum seekers are believed to abscond during the Belgian asylum procedure,144 though far fewer in the earlier stages now that the transit route to the UK has been made less accessible.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • Children
  • Open return centres with reporting requirements in Germany
  • Germany
  • In Germany, special return centres (‘Ausreisezentren’) have been established in a few federal States to accommodate undocumented illegal migrants, including persons found not to be in need of international protection and who refuse to return. Persons of the above-mentioned category are ordered to take up residence in these Centres, which are formally open. The residents, however, have to report on a regular basis (e.g. three times per week) and they are informed about their legal situation in regular conversations with a view to obtaining their cooperation in the administrative process and encouraging their departure from Germany. The standard of amenities in such Centres is generally set at a level that also acts as a disincentive to remain in Germany – that is, only basic needs are met.177 Nongovernmental critics of this policy call for a greater use of the concept of ‘supported voluntary return’ – meaning the provision of counselling and incentives, including financial and practical assistance and vocational training, to promote mandatory return with the consent and cooperation of the person to be returned. This concept has seen a revival recently in Germany, with several projects at the Länder or district level, in most cases jointly carried out with various nongovernmental partners and co-funded by the European Refugee Fund. These projects are succeeding in minimising the use of pre-deportation detention, but also helping people see when return home may be in their best interests, and to make this a dignified process.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • All
  • Conditions that can be applied in the Netherlands
  • Netherlands
  • PART 2. SUPERVISION MEASURES
    Section 52

    1. Aliens may be required by Order in Council:

    (a) to give notice of any change of address or change in their place of residence in the Netherlands and of their departure to another country;
    (b) to furnish such information as may be of importance in the application of rules prescribed by or pursuant to this Act;
    (c) to assist in the recording of data with a view to identification;
    (d) to submit to a medical examination performed in the interests of public health in order to check for the presence of a disease designated by or pursuant to the Infectious Diseases Act or in the course of assessment of an application for a residence permit;
    (e) to report within a given period of their arrival in the Netherlands;
    (f) to report periodically;
    (g) to hand over the document or written statement referred to in section 9 evidencing the lawful residence.

    2. In cases in which Our Minister considers this to be necessary in the interests of public policy (ordre public) or national security, he may impose an individual obligation on an alien to report periodically to the chief of police.
  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All