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]

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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