Training societies to welcome refugees: opportunities and challenges of scaling up Community Sponsorship in Europe

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates that at the end of 2020, about 26.4 million people had fled from their homes and sought refuge in another country. For many of them, going back to their country of origin or remaining in the country of asylum is not an option. Under these circumstances, the only durable solution for these persons is to be resettled to a third State, which in turn has agreed to admit and protect them. In this context, a number of complementary pathways for admission to third countries have emerged. These pathways have been defined as safe and regulated avenues that should, in principle, complement refugee resettlement; among them, community sponsorship has seen a speedy growth in the most recent years. According to UNHCR, sponsorship “allows individuals, groups of individuals, or organisations to directly engage in refugee admission efforts by providing financial, emotional, social and/or settlement support to help newly-arrived refugees integrate in a third country”. While the first programme has seen its birth in Canada approximately 40 years ago, community sponsorship has recently gained momentum in the European context as well. Here, schemes have been implemented both as a standalone complementary pathway, or as part of the broader national resettlement programme. In most cases, they are in their pilot phase, reason why it is relevant to address a few topical issues.

First, since community sponsorship engages individuals and groups of individuals – also called “sponsors” – in refugee inclusion efforts, it can be assumed that they are central actors in these programmes. In this regard, existing research has shown that to be effective, sponsors require vetting, training and ongoing guidance and support, and that the sustainability of such schemes largely rests on the sponsors’ willingness to participate and their ability to carry out responsibilities. It is therefore fundamental to understand how sponsors are in practice selected, vetted, trained and supported in the European countries where sponsorship is currently implemented.

Another important aspect is related to the current opportunities for scaling up sponsorship in Europe, with different configurations and wider engagement from the public sector and host communities. In this framework, it is crucial to identify what are the core elements that should be included in the design of these models that could contribute to their sustainability, as well as the challenges that could prevent their possible expansion.

These two sets of questions are at the centre of the thesis and a brief summary of the findings will be presented in this article.

Community Sponsorship in Europe, policy and programmes

Since 2013, with the aggravation of displacement at the borders of the European Union, policymakers and civil society actors started to take into consideration how resettlement and other legal pathways to protection in EU Member States could be broadened. In this context, the potential of complementary pathways – including community sponsorship – was recognized in the Pact on Migration and Asylum proposed by the European Commission in 2020. Although the Commission made reference to the commitment to support national community sponsorship schemes “with the aim of developing a European model of community sponsorship”, such expectations have not always been met by Member States. In fact, these initiatives have been implemented in only a few countries, through different models, and the numbers of persons benefiting from the programmes are still quite low when considering the overall global resettlement needs. To date, combining all programs surveyed, the overall number of beneficiaries approaches a little more than 4000.

Against this background, it is however important to highlight that community sponsorship can have multiple benefits for a variety of actors involved. Most importantly, for resettled refugees, logic might suggest that having a social network to whom they can refer to and who will help them get settled – other than governments’ offices and services – will accelerate their social inclusion efforts. Some organisations and researchers have mapped the different practices and projects in Europe. In this work, a selected number of them has been analysed: more specifically, the Humanitarian Corridors in Italy and France, the German “NesT – New Start in a Team”, Community Sponsorship programmes in the UK, Ireland, Belgium and the ‘patrocinio comunitario’ in the Basque country, Spain.  

Understanding sponsorship through the lenses of civil society organisations: (in)formal practices of recruitment, training and support systems for sponsors

It has been said earlier that sponsors are central actors in these programs. Over the years, a few researches have been conducted on the figure of sponsors, the added value of community engagement, and even on the role of emotions in the sponsor-sponsored relation. While acknowledging the many positive aspects of this connection, there is also a consolidated body of research that shows potential complexity and bias in sponsors’ motivations and dynamics at play with refugees, and that recognizes that sponsorship entails a structurally unequal relationship. Therefore, to what extent do organisations involved in community sponsorship in Europe take into account these aspects when designing and implementing the programmes? 

In general, the practice of recruiting sponsors is quite informal among all the analysed schemes, regardless of their type and longevity. In this context, a key element for civil society organisations in order to successfully engage people is having an already established network of volunteers where they can tap into. Except for a few programmes, there are normally no strict applications or selection procedures per se. However, there are a number of criteria that appear to be present in order to be eligible to join a sponsoring group, first and foremost the ability to provide housing for the resettled refugees. Most organisations also include some sort of checks or ask sponsors to provide criminal records in the application file that they need to submit.

As stated earlier, the nature of sponsors’ motivations is a critical question, yet still rarely identified as such in existing community sponsorship programmes. Under these circumstances, it is important to highlight that detecting potential dynamics of paternalism through exploring sponsors’ motivations from an early stage could allow organisations to work on behaviours that could affect the achievement of the overall goal of autonomy for the refugees. Working on these dynamics in a preventative way – through capacity building, for instance – might be preferable than doing it afterwards, when the sponsored persons are already in the country, and unquestioned motivations and expectations could already result in undesired actions.

In fact, the majority of organisations recognize that training sponsors is fundamental. Nonetheless, practices are diversified and context specific. Topics in the curricula can be grouped into three broad categories: a general introduction of the common features of sponsorship; the cultural and geopolitical context in the participants’ countries of origin; the roles of the different actors involved in the programme, including sponsors themselves, and the administrative issues related to their function. Methodology and duration of the trainings are also different, ranging from schemes where there is a dedicated organisation in charge of that, such as RESET in the UK, to those where training as such only takes place in a two-day session prior to the arrival of the refugee family.

Managing sponsors’ expectations is a relevant aspect already included in training curricula, but which would still deserve more attention in the future. Sometimes, sponsoring groups tend to expect that refugees will “integrate” faster than it actually happens. This in turn can cause, or has in some cases caused, tensions between the groups and the refugees themselves. Instead of projecting their expectations, sponsors should probably elaborate and think of an “exit strategy” that equips refugees with the tools towards autonomy. This way, when the sponsorship period ends, they can lead an independent life and will not rely on the support of sponsors. However, all of this should take place bearing in mind that refugees will need to take their own time to adjust to the new circumstances in the country of arrival.

While sponsorship is certainly an enriching experience, this journey is not always an easy one. Frictions can arise in the relationship between sponsors and refugees, hosting communities can be sceptical, and much more. In light of this, intermediate organisations play a substantial role in supporting, monitoring and guiding groups of volunteers. This happens through a variety of methods, which range from a more or less prominent presence of the organisation: from monthly or less frequent monitoring calls, to an almost constant contact with both sponsors and refugees via WhatsApp, but also through the set-up of a Help Desk, peer learning sessions among sponsoring groups and monitoring visits in the presence of a cultural mediator.

What ways forward for a Community Sponsorship model embedded in the “social fabric”?

When thinking about the expansion of community sponsorship, one of the first factors that might come to mind concerns numbers. Community sponsorship as a model will continue to exist and possibly expand only if there is a certain number of refugees who are offered resettlement places. In this context, advocacy from civil society is key, but the ultimate decision on increasing resettlement quota stands on governments.

An important component related to this and that should be included in the design of a sponsorship model is the principle of additionality, which means that sponsored refugees are “over and above” the quota of admission for refugees resettled under the national scheme. A successful sponsorship model should in fact increase the availability of durable solutions for persons in need of international protection. In addition, setting up a monitoring and evaluation system from the start of the programme is key. There is in fact still relatively little evidence on the impact of sponsorship schemes in Europe, and monitoring and evaluation could provide evidence to assist policymakers and practitioners in the identification and solution of challenges.

Within this framework, in a view of scaling up these pilot schemes, there are also other elements worth considering. First, it has to be recognized that knowledge about community sponsorship within the broader civil society is quite limited. This in turn has an impact on the scope of potential sponsors who can be reached and engaged, stressing the need to strengthen promotion strategies through, among others, social media, press conferences and word-of-mouth. Storytelling in particular has been identified as one of the key activities that would help fostering knowledge about refugee sponsorship. An example of a promotion strategy through storytelling is the one set up by The Open Community in Ireland.

In addition, for sponsorship schemes to grow, it would be useful to expand the “type” of potential sponsors who can be reached. Indeed, in European programmes, sponsoring groups have usually formed out of faith-based organisations or church parishes, sometimes called “the usual suspects”. Instead, diversifying the scope and composition of groups and engaging other sectors of society such as universities and businesses can be beneficial from several aspects. When it comes to diversity in the group for instance, previously sponsored families or members who have a similar cultural and linguistic background to those of the refugees would be an added value. They would be vital in creating relationships where power dynamics are more balanced and reciprocal.

In this context, it is important to highlight some of the outstanding issues that require further consideration. One of them is the adequate length of social inclusion support provided by sponsors. Currently, sponsors provide support for one or two years, depending on the scheme. Mindfulness about this aspect in the program design is necessary, in order to avoid situations where after the sponsorship period has ended, the individuals remain outside of the support system in place for refugees or persons in need. A second major challenge is the difficulty in finding accommodation for the sponsored individuals. While this is mainly attributed to the housing crisis in Europe, it also has an impact on the roll out and possible scaling up of community sponsorship. Lastly, attention should be paid to the financial side of these programmes. At the moment, the burden is mainly on civil society organisations or sponsors themselves, but in the long term, this might not be sustainable. More funding by public authorities is feasible, but it is also true that the State could be disincentivized to do so, as long as civil society takes care of that.

Conclusions

Community sponsorship has emerged in a context where, altogether, resettlement places pledged by States are well below documented needs. Therefore, a pending question remains on how does and will community sponsorship fit into this picture or contribute to changing it. When implemented as a standalone pathway, sponsorship allows civil society to assist in the entry and stay of refugees in third countries, providing an additional avenue for admission. In practice, it increases the number of refugees who have access to protection and durable solutions, and actually operates as a responsibility-sharing tool.

Political support and engagement from public authorities is fundamental to provide a legal framework for community sponsorship to exist, and to possibly make it grow. At the local level, public authorities have the potential to champion community sponsorship in their area. Among other, they could support groups in finding housing, inform and train local agencies that will work with refugees, and facilitate the coordination between the different actors involved in the programme. Chiefly, they have the potential to change the narrative around migration and refugees.

As seen throughout the article, there are still a few areas for improvement of these programs, from sponsors’ recruitment and training to some of the outstanding challenges, which stress the need for further evaluation and exchanges of practices to ensure that these programs deliver successfully. With the set up of new citizen-led initiatives, more or less formalised, to host refugees in the context of the Ukraine crisis, these experiences also create an opportunity to further consider if and how the community sponsorship model can be applied and possibly shaped in emergency response situations in the future.

As one professional interviewed for this research suggested

“if we manage to make sure that these kinds of projects are culturally accepted in Europe, that it becomes more and more popular, then they will not be threatened by political changes. I think the fact that they are rooted and well accepted at the local level is key for their sustainability.”
(Guilhem Mante, Fédération de l'Entraide Protestante)