Issues for future data collection

While both the OECD and the EU continue to highlight the importance of monitoring integration (European Services Network and Migration Policy Group, 2013; OECD 2015; 2016), the value of such monitoring will only be as good as the evidence on which it is based.

For an Integration Monitor primarily based on repeated national social surveys, an important issue is how well the migrant population is represented in these surveys. Some groups, both Irish and non-Irish nationals, are excluded from survey data, such as those residing in institutions, communal accommodation, direct provision centres and the homeless, a group that may be particularly disadvantaged and has grown considerably in recent years. This means that asylum seekers will be excluded from measures of poverty using SILC, for example, if they are living in direct provision centres. To the extent that non-Irish in self-reported health may therefore signal a degree of health disadvantage

among Muslims, but this would require further investigation.

FIGURE 6.11 SELF-REPORTED HEALTH STATUS BY RELIGION

Source: CSO Statbank Table E9094, Census 2016.

6.5 SUMMARY

This chapter has sought to make the most of published Census data to sketch the socio-demographic characteristics of Muslims in Ireland, and to evaluate the extent to which they are successfully integrating into Irish society. We find that much of the recent increase in the Muslim population is due to natural increase. Approximately one-in-three Muslims was born in Ireland. By 2016, over half (55 per cent) were Irish citizens. Regarding the flow of Muslim immigrants in recent years, we observe a shift in origin, with more arriving from South Asia, and fewer from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Muslims in Ireland are more likely to be students and are on average more highly educated. However, we also find that they have lower employment and higher unemployment rates. They live disproportionately in urban areas, in particular in Dublin, and a sizeable majority live in private rental accommodation.

On the basis of this relatively extensive analysis of the published Census data, it is not possible to evaluate the claims made by Scharbrodt et al. (2015) and Fanning (2018), that there are essentially two Muslim populations in Ireland – one a highly educated, settled class of professionals, the other a more disadvantaged group fleeing conflict and persecution in the developing world. Nor is it possible to investigate whether outcomes differ for African and Asian Muslims, for example. Using Census microdata to address this question and others raised in this chapter would be an exciting avenue for future research.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Very good Good Fair Bad/very bad

nationals are disproportionately excluded from surveys, their disadvantage may be underestimated. Other groups, while not excluded from the data by design, may be under-represented in the surveys.

In the short term, it is important that efforts be continued to encourage the participation of non-Irish nationals in the SILC and the LFS, the major sources of information on income, poverty and the labour market in Ireland. Immigrant or ethnic minority boost samples, like in many other European countries, could address the problem of small sample sizes in these ongoing large-scale surveys. Small sample size is a particular problem for SILC. Chapter 4 showed high rates of deprivation and poverty among non-EU nationals, yet we know this is a very diverse group. Employment rates vary considerably between Asian and African nationals, for example (Chapter 2). It would be of considerable benefit to the monitoring of integration in Ireland to know which national groups are most disadvantaged. Ireland needs a survey that allows us to track poverty and deprivation among migrant groups.

While it is only carried out every five years, small numbers are not a problem in the Census of Population. Chapter 6 of this Integration Monitor illustrates what a rich resource this is. The Census is invaluable for measuring the outcomes of smaller population groups, and is now easier to access than before. And of course the Census has a role not just in investigating outcomes, but for adjusting ongoing surveys and creating valid estimates of the migrant population, given that Ireland lacks a population register. As noted in Chapters 1, 2 and 3, the recent 2016 Census has led to revised population and migration estimates, as well as a revised Labour Force Survey.

Of course some indicators are specific to the migrant population and will never be collected on national surveys. Migrants’ feeling of belonging in Ireland, their intentions to stay, motives for migration, migration history, social contact with the Irish population, work experience in their country of origin could only be collected in a dedicated survey of migrants. Some smaller scale surveys of immigrants have been collected, for example the cross-national Socio-cultural Integration Processes among New Immigrants in Europe (SCIP) survey of new Polish immigrants in 2011 and 2013 (Diehl et al., 2015). But a large survey of the migrant population in Ireland has not yet been fielded.

The fact that a significant group of immigrants are now Irish citizens may be a positive development in terms of their integration, but this does present a challenge for monitoring integration. By measuring integration on the basis of nationality, as this publication does to be consistent with previous Integration Monitors, and because it is sometimes the only option, we are likely to miss an

increasing number of naturalised citizens. This is particularly relevant for migrants of non-EEA origin, given that we estimate up to 45 per cent of them may have become Irish citizens by the end of 2017. Any statistics on the basis of nationality will miss an important proportion of the population it is designed to measure, and those remaining in the non-Irish group may differ from those who have naturalised. To address this issue, at least in part, Chapter 2 examines outcomes of foreign-born Irish nationals. This is very useful, yet around half of these were born in the UK and came to Ireland many years ago. Their profile is rather different to recent migrants who naturalised in the past five to ten years.

What are the alternatives to monitoring based on nationality and/or place of birth? One possibility is to use a more durable measure like ethnicity or ancestry to include both naturalised citizens and second-generation immigrants when measuring integration (Waters, 2014). Yet some have criticised the ethnicity or ancestry approach as being too subjective and linked to identity (Massey, 2018). Another alternative currently under discussion at European level, is to include a question on standard social surveys (LFS, SILC) about the country of birth of the respondents’ parents. The increasingly permanent nature of migration in Ireland means researchers and policymakers working on integration need to think carefully about whose outcomes they are measuring and how they do this; and those collecting data, such as the Central Statistics Office, need to continue to develop measures to respond to the changing migrant population in Ireland. Survey data are crucial for monitoring immigrant outcomes, but administrative data sources are another potentially rich resource for measuring a range of migrant outcomes. The clear advantage is that administrative data record all recipients of a given training, benefit, or examination outcome, for example, and if migrant status is recorded this allows monitoring of both participation and outcomes. This assumes the data are usable and accessible for the purpose, which may not be the case. Administrative data are limited by the underlying policy; in particular the continued lack of residence permit data on non-EEA children is a challenge. Under Action 8 of the Migrant Integration Strategy a data gaps working group has been set up to identify both shortcomings in data collection and under- use of existing data. Ideally, administrative data would form an important complement to outcomes measured using survey data.

With the exception of data gathered on residence permits (see Chapter 1), refugees are not identified in national survey or general administrative data in Ireland. While recent migration debates in Europe have been dominated by the refugee crisis, and Ireland has increased its intake of resettled and relocated refugees, there is no way of tracking how well refugees are integrating into Irish society in terms of employment, income and poverty, political participation and socio-cultural integration, aside from occasional ad hoc studies, such as the nationals are disproportionately excluded from surveys, their disadvantage may

be underestimated. Other groups, while not excluded from the data by design, may be under-represented in the surveys.

In the short term, it is important that efforts be continued to encourage the participation of non-Irish nationals in the SILC and the LFS, the major sources of information on income, poverty and the labour market in Ireland. Immigrant or ethnic minority boost samples, like in many other European countries, could address the problem of small sample sizes in these ongoing large-scale surveys. Small sample size is a particular problem for SILC. Chapter 4 showed high rates of deprivation and poverty among non-EU nationals, yet we know this is a very diverse group. Employment rates vary considerably between Asian and African nationals, for example (Chapter 2). It would be of considerable benefit to the monitoring of integration in Ireland to know which national groups are most disadvantaged. Ireland needs a survey that allows us to track poverty and deprivation among migrant groups.

While it is only carried out every five years, small numbers are not a problem in the Census of Population. Chapter 6 of this Integration Monitor illustrates what a rich resource this is. The Census is invaluable for measuring the outcomes of smaller population groups, and is now easier to access than before. And of course the Census has a role not just in investigating outcomes, but for adjusting ongoing surveys and creating valid estimates of the migrant population, given that Ireland lacks a population register. As noted in Chapters 1, 2 and 3, the recent 2016 Census has led to revised population and migration estimates, as well as a revised Labour Force Survey.

Of course some indicators are specific to the migrant population and will never be collected on national surveys. Migrants’ feeling of belonging in Ireland, their intentions to stay, motives for migration, migration history, social contact with the Irish population, work experience in their country of origin could only be collected in a dedicated survey of migrants. Some smaller scale surveys of immigrants have been collected, for example the cross-national Socio-cultural Integration Processes among New Immigrants in Europe (SCIP) survey of new Polish immigrants in 2011 and 2013 (Diehl et al., 2015). But a large survey of the migrant population in Ireland has not yet been fielded.

The fact that a significant group of immigrants are now Irish citizens may be a positive development in terms of their integration, but this does present a challenge for monitoring integration. By measuring integration on the basis of nationality, as this publication does to be consistent with previous Integration Monitors, and because it is sometimes the only option, we are likely to miss an

Refugee Integration Capacity and Evaluation (RICE) report (UNHCR, 2014). This is true regardless of whether they have come here as part of a refugee programme, or seeking protection, later determined to be Geneva Convention refugees. This gap is all the more problematic given that research shows that refugees face greater challenges when compared to other groups of migrants, for example in the labour market, due to lower language proficiency, trauma and lack of support from social and other networks (Connor, 2010; Bevelander, 2011).

Many studies have stressed that integration takes place at local level, and understanding neighbourhoods and their composition plays an important role (Casey, 2016). National and ethnic concentration within neighbourhoods is a major topic in international research (Massey and Mullan, 1984; Charles, 2003), but has received less recent attention in Ireland. An investigation of how national/ethnic groups are distributed across localities in Ireland using Census data is now underway, and should significantly enhance our understanding of the experience of integration at local level in Ireland. The accurate tracking of racist incidents is crucial and addressing underreporting is an action under the Migrant Integration Strategy. Academics and various NGOs such as ENAR Ireland, the Immigrant Council of Ireland, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and NASC Ireland have expressed concern about the under-reporting of racism (Haynes and Schweppe, 2017). IReport, an online system of reporting was established in 2013 with public funding.87 _{Data on volunteering would usefully enhance our} understanding of migrant participation and integration in local communities.