Municipalities with Reception Centers - UDI

INTRODUCTION AND METHODChapter 1About the reportThis report examines the experiences six smalllocal communities have gained from operating areception centre. All six have gone through periodsof conflict, this being one of the reasons why theywere selected. The aim of the report has been toobtain more knowledge about these conflicts andto ascertain the extent to which racism and discriminationhave been causes. The report examineswhat the local authorities and the reception centrehave done to prevent or resolve existing conflicts,and what the informants believe are the underlyingcauses of the conflicts. Thus our intention is tofocus on the conflicts that may arise in local communitieswith reception centres and also on whatcan contribute to positive relations.A small sampleThe data material this report is based on is not alarge enough sample for generalisations. We neverthelessbelieve that the material enables usto point to conditions that most probably willalso apply in other municipalities with receptioncentres. Thus our findings may have a degree oftransfer value.Rationale for the report’s approachand research questionsAs conflicts with the reception centres are notuncommon in the local communities, the Directorateof Immigration (UDI) believes that it isimportant to obtain knowledge about these issuesto prevent and resolve such conflicts, and to ensurethat relations between the reception centres/reception-centreresidents and the local authorities/localpopulation will be as satisfactory as possible forall those concerned. Research has previously beenundertaken on some of the questions we examine. 1The UDI feels that this report elaborates on andsupplements this knowledge.The UDI’s core tasksBecause the Directorate of Immigration hasthe overriding responsibility for operating statereception centres, this report deals with importantaspects of the UDI’s own operations. In additionto providing knowledge and information about therelationship between the reception centre and thelocal community, it will also reveal strengths andshortcomings of the UDI’s “service provision” andadministration of the Government’s policy in thearea that covers reception centres. The report maythus serve as a contribution to the UDI’s efforts tostrengthen the quality of its own work.Reception centresThe UDI has found that there are some misunderstandingsas to what a reception centre actuallyis. Some people appear to believe that a receptioncentre is a public institution where asylum seekersmust live while their application is being processed.This is not correct. A reception centre is anoffer of temporary housing for persons applyingfor asylum in Norway. Asylum seekers may livethere while their application is being processedand until they are settled in a municipality, or untilthe application is rejected and they have to leaveNorway. The goal for the stay in a reception centreis that it should be as normal a place to live aspossible for persons in an abnormal life situation,with a simple but adequate standard. A receptioncentre is thus “an offer of temporary housing andaccompanying financial benefits and programmesfor residents who are applying for asylum inNorway”. 2Information and activitiesin reception centresPursuant to the Regulations for Operating ReceptionCentres, the programmes for residents shallhelp them deal with their own life situation duringtheir stay in the reception centre, and help create ameaningful day-to-day life. The programmes shallbe differentiated to suit the residents who are stayingin the reception centre at any particular pointin time, and shall enable the residents to maintaintheir own language and culture. The programmesshall also prepare the residents for possible settlementand integration in Norway or return to theircountry of origin. 31 ) See the literature list2 ) Regulations for State ReceptionCentre Operations, Item 13 ) Quoted from the chapteron objectives in the Regulationsfor State Reception CentreOperations, Item 2.34 ) The procedure of inviting tendersfor the operation of receptioncentres commencedin the summer of 2001

10 )“Århundrets sak på Evje. Hvordankan etableringen av en ventetransittpåvirke lokalbefolkningen”(The Case of the Century at Evje.How can the establishment of atemporary transit reception centreinfluence the local population?). P.15. Project report 29/2002, AnneHalvorsen, Helge Hernes and May-Linda Magnussen, Agderforskning12that the opposition against the reception centre wasgreater than the local population wished to admit.In this section we will examine in more detail whypeople were either positive or negative to the establishmentof the reception centre.Reasons why people were positiveDesire to help refugeesEven if the majority of the narratives we havebeen presented are of a negative nature, there havebeen persons in all the municipalities who havebeen positive to having a reception centre in theirmunicipality. Several have expressed the desireto help people who are seeking refuge. Severalof the informants stated: “We would like to helppeople who are suffering”. They found it importantto help people who needed protection, and spokeabout “doing their part”. Some spoke of gettinga reception centre as a benefit for the municipality.It would introduce new people, traditions andcultures to the municipality, and they believed thiswould have positive ripple effects throughout thelocal community.Economic gain and rise in populationA reception centre means more workplaces, a risein sales in shops and financial support to the hostmunicipality. For a small municipality with fewworkplaces a reception centre may make an economicdifference. Among both the civilian populationand the local authorities the financial advantageswere a not inconsiderable reason for supportingthe establishment of the reception centre. Onerepresentative for the local population stated: “Thereception centre means jobs, more inhabitantsand other cultures. The reception centre and itsinhabitants are a positive contribution to the localcommunity”. Another believed that: “Some peoplein the local community also saw economic gain inthis. Many businesses have gone belly up and thelocal authorities have lots of vacant housing”. Inone of the interviews, increasing the number ofinhabitants was also mentioned. Many inhabitantshad been moving out of the municipality, and somepeople in the local community saw the establishmentof the reception centre as insurance that thelocal community would not die. We recognisethese arguments from other studies. A report fromAgderforskning from 2002 on how the establishmentof a temporary transit reception centre atEvje influenced the local community found that:“The most important argument for establishing thetransit reception centre is the jobs. New workplacesare important to prevent people from movingaway, and may also lead other people to move in” 10 .Reasons why people were negativeThe processes around the establishmentThe most important reason for the resistance in thelocal population against the establishment of thereception centre was, according to the representativesof the local community, the process around theestablishment. In virtually all the local communitiesa number of the representatives stated that theyfelt they had not been involved in the process priorto the establishment and that the reception centrewas forced on them. They generally felt steamrolledand controlled by both the UDI and the operator.In two municipalities the local population feltthat the local authority was not on their side. Theysaw the local authority as being co-conspiratorswith the UDI and the operator. In the words of oneinformant: “People felt that the reception centrewas forced on them. This led to letters to the editorand conflicts with the political administration,which was accused of having established the receptioncentre too quickly”. In one or two other localcommunities people felt that the UDI and the operatorhad arbitrarily done whatever they wanted.Neither the population nor the political administrationof the local authority had been consulted. Oneinformant stated: “There was resistance in both thelocal community and the political administration,but this depended more on the process behind theestablishment”. In several municipalities the localpopulation appeared to believe that they had a rightto take part in making decisions they consideredessential to the local community. What some experiencedin connection with the establishment of thereception centre was the opposite.The most important element in the process behindthe establishment appears to be information, or thelack of information. Several informants from thelocal communities stated that they had received noinformation that a reception centre was to be establishedin their municipality. Others felt that theyhad received inadequate information about whateffect this would have on the municipality and thelocal community. One representative stated: “In

12 “Århundrets sak på Evje”.Hvordan kan etableringen av enventetransitt påvirke lokalbefolkningen(“The case of the century atEvje.” How can the establishmentof a transit reception centre influencethe local population). Projectreport 29/2002, Agderforskning13 ) A transit reception centrehouses so-called groundlessasylum seekers, i.e. persons fromcountries where the human-rightssituation is relatively clear andwhere experience shows that themajority of applications for asylumare rejected. In-house UDI memo 1October 200114centre has led to around a ten per cent increase inthe population. Several of the representatives ofthe local community stated that many felt this wasthreatening. In one local community they said:“Those who were negative believed that too manywould arrive in our little local community”. Thelocal-authority employees also felt that scepticismand uncertainty were important reasons why somewere negative to the prospect of having a receptioncentre in their municipality. One informant stated:“There was distress at having too many foreignersin our community”. We recognise this scepticismfrom other reception-centre establishments. Accordingto Agderforskning, inhabitants at Evjeand Hornnes felt “.... uncertainty and scepticismin connection with a scenario where a comparativelylarge group of asylum seekers are to stay inthe district, (one) must bear in mind that this isa relatively small community where most peopleknow each other. This gives Evje’s inhabitants afeeling of control and knowing what’s going on. Alarge number of new “neighbours” may distort orthreaten this feeling” 11Xenophobia and racismEven though neither xenophobia nor racism isa frequent explanation in our material, they arementioned in some municipalities. Some representativesof the local-authority employees feltthat racism and xenophobia in the population alsoexplained why some opposed having a receptioncentre in their municipality. In one of the municipalitiesthe chief city executive stated: “Some ofthe most active opponents may have had somewhatcloudy motives. I had to kick a few out of my homewhen they came there to discuss this issue becausethey had clear racist views”. In another municipalityxenophobia was mentioned as a reason why peoplewere against the reception centre. Accordingto the informants, the argumentation used was “atbest dominated by prejudices, ignorance and scepticism,at worst full of xenophobia and racism”.In some local communities there had been adevelopment from an initial phase where all theopponents of the reception centre stood togetherto a later phase where only a smaller nucleus ofpersons with partially racist attitudes were left.In one of the municipalities we visited, a petitioncampaign was initiated against the establishment ofthe reception centre. Around 100 people signed thepetition stating that they were against the establishmentof the reception centre, but eventually severalasked to be deleted from the list as they did notwant to be identified with the attitudes propoundedby some of the initiators: “The five or six personswho took the initiative probably had racist attitudesthat the sceptics did not want to be identifiedwith”. It would appear that people feel that thereare legitimate and illegitimate reasons for beingnegative to a reception centre in their municipality.One thing is to be sceptical to the reception centrebased on what the local community perceives as“rational” causes, such as the process behind theestablishment, the size of the reception centre, fearof crime and so on, while it is a completely differentmatter to use what the local community feelsto be racist arguments. Then the sceptics drop out.No need for protectionIn several municipalities the local population wasvery concerned with the idea of “genuine” refugees.Several informants stated that they wished tohelp persons who had a genuine need for protection,but as long as the vast majority was returnedto their country of origin this must mean that theydid not have a need for protection. One of theinformants expressed an attitude that was prevalentin many of the interviews: “Some of those whocome here have no reason for being here. They’recriminals and scoundrels. They ruin it for others”.Those who were returned to their countries oforigin were considered scavengers, fortune huntersand criminals. It appears that such an attitude createsdistance to the reception centre. Nobody knowswho actually will be allowed to stay and who hasto leave. One informant stated: “Case processingtimes at the UDI must be reduced so that thosewho are rejected can leave quickly. Otherwise ithurts everybody”. Another informant believedthat: “They’re not seen as genuine refugees butas bandits trying to exploit the reception centreand the rights that are there for asylum seekers”.This phenomenon resembles findings from otherstudies. The report “Århundrets sak på Evje” 12found that the local population feared a rise incrime rates due to the establishment of a transitreception centre. 13 The local population believedthat many of those with groundless applicationsfor asylum basically were criminals, and as theywere in a situation where they were going to leaveNorway anyhow, the inhabitants were afraid theywould feel that they would not be held responsiblefor their actions.

In two of the municipalities we visited, and tosome extent also in a third one, we found specialcircumstances that might illustrate this wish tohelp and protect the “genuine refugees”. In oneof these municipalities a reception centre hadbeen in operation since 1993. In the other, therehad been an intervening period of time betweenthe first reception centre and the current one, butneither the local authorities nor the local populationdistinguished significantly between these tworeception centres. What was special about thesetwo municipalities was that the reception centreswere established during what is referred to as the“Bosnia period”. The majority of the residents inboth reception centres came from Bosnia-Herzegovinaand consisted of families with children.The conflict they escaped from was familiar fromthe media, and the local population appeared tohave been able to identify with the refugees. In thewords of one informant: “We knew about the warin the Balkans, and the local population wanted tohelp people in need. We knew that these were genuinerefugees in a desperate situation. Those whocame to our municipality were most often highlyeducated parents with children, well-functioningfamilies. The children did well in school and thelocal population was positively surprised by therefugees”. Even if there was scepticism againsthaving a reception centre in the municipality in1993, few or no one did anything about it. In thewords of one of our informants: “There was greatscepticism in the district, but little came to the surfaceat the public meeting. One of the reasons wasthat what happened in Bosnia was so close. Peopledidn’t want to speak out against it”.This difference between the “Bosnia period” andtoday’s situation, with respect to the residents, theprobability that the asylum seekers will be allowedto stay in Norway and the local population’sfamiliarity with the conflict, appears to make a differencein how the population looks at the receptioncentre and asylum seekers. The new asylumseekers come from many countries and havevarying reasons for fleeing. Many come from areasof conflict that most people know nothing about,or they come from countries people do not see asareas of conflict.Opposition to the establishment of reception centresis a familiar phenomenon, and above we haveattempted to show some of the causal explanationsfor the scepticism to the establishment of receptioncentres. Even though we will not delve further intothis here, it is interesting to refer to a less familiarphenomenon, i.e. opposition to closing downreception centres. The UDI sees clearly that theopposition to closing down reception centres is atleast as great as the opposition shown when establishingthe reception centre in many of the samemunicipalities. As we attempted to show under theheading “Economic gain and rise in population”, areception centre may have great economic impactin a small municipality. This may help explain whythe local-authority administration often opposesclosing down the reception centre. When it comesto the local population, some of the people mayalso want to retain the reception centre, less basedon economics than personal familiarity with reception-centreresidents or because they feel that thereception-centre residents are a positive element inthe local community. The fact that there is resistanceboth to the establishment and the closing of areception centre illustrates some of the challengesthat exist in this field.The initial period after establishmentof the reception centreIt appears that the conditions in and around thereception centre after the initial phase followingestablishment are important for the further developmentof the attitudes in the local communityto the reception centre. The development in the initialphase appears to influence the relationship betweenthe local population and the reception centrefor a long period of time. Several of the representativesof both the local population and local-authorityemployees explicitly mention unfortunatecircumstances immediately after the establishmentof the reception centre as a direct reason for whypeople wanted to terminate the reception centre. Inone or two of the municipalities we have visited,the establishment led to a rise in the crime rate,particularly shoplifting and pilfering. We also haveexamples where reception-centre residents committedbreak-ins and violent crimes. In one municipalitythe representatives of the local communitystated that: “Initially there were some residentswho very felonious. They ruined very much of thereputation for the residents initially”. There wasalso a great deal of unrest at the reception centrein the form of fighting between residents and loud15

music at all times of the day. One representativestated: “Fighting about the remote control wasoften a problem and a cause of conflicts at thereception centre. For a period of time the policeoften had to drop to address minor events, and thiswas reported in the local media”. Such episodescreated, and continue to create, negative attitudesamong the local population.The unfortunate circumstances caused uncertaintyand a lack of confidence in the local communityand increased opposition against the receptioncentre. People found that the sceptics were rightin the predictions that getting a reception centre inthe municipality would lead to higher crime ratesand distress for the local population. The negativemood spread, and opposition to the reception centreincreased. Even if those who committed crimesonly constituted a minor fraction of the receptioncentreresidents, this has to some extent causedeverybody at the reception centre to be taintedwith the same brush. In the words of one of ourinformants: “The reception centre is described asa ghetto, and there was a lot of petty crime such aspilfering. The attitude of the local population wasthat if one steals, they all do”.The consequences of opposition inthe local communityOnly in one of the municipalities we visited werewe unable to trace any active opposition to the receptioncentre. This applies to the municipality thathad had a reception centre since the Bosnia periodin 1993. The scepticism that came to light in partsof the local population was not expressed here. Inthe second municipality that had had a receptioncentre since 1993 there also appears to have beenno strong protest against the establishment of thisreception centre. The protests came in 1998, whenthe reception centre was re-established after havingbeen closed down.Media and petition campaignsThe two most typical forms of reaction to theestablishment of a reception centre were negativearticles in newspapers and letters to the editor and,to a lesser extent, petition campaigns. It appearsthat the opponents of reception centres were mostactive, and they were also the ones to use themedia to promote their views. Moreover, many feltthat the media had also helped present and, to someextent, also legitimatise the protest against thereception centre. The media presented and reinforcedexisting negative attitudes, several of ourinformants stated. In the words of one of our representatives:“Much negative exposure in the mediasupported an already existing scepticism againstthe reception centre. One of our two local papersmade a real run with this case”. There was also asense that those who were for the reception centrewere not allowed their turn to speak. One informantstated: “There were also some who involvedthemselves strongly in favour of the receptioncentre. They saw the reception centre as a resource,and emphasised the humanitarian aspect of helpingpeople in need. They attempted to present theirviews in the media, but the media were not interested”.Some informants thus believed that the mediaplaced the conflict surrounding the reception centreand the reception-centre residents on the agendawithout any real balance, thus helping to reinforceand intensify the conflict. There was thus a sensethat the media supported the opposition against thereception centre.In addition to articles in newspapers there werealso petition campaigns against establishing thereception centre in one or two municipalities.These generally appear to have been initiated bya small handful of opponents. The atmosphere inthese municipalities was described by informantsas quite heated for a period. In the words of oneof our informants: “There was a petition campaignagainst the reception centre, and protestsfrom many businessmen who were afraid it wouldlead to pilfering and shoplifting. The mood wasvery negative. Not much could be heard from thepositive forces during the first six to nine months.There were many negative letters to the editor anda lot of loud negative talk about the reception centre”.In one of the municipalities it was said thatthe son of the chief city executive was brought totask after having ticked off the box for “positive tothe reception centre” on the petition campaign’s list16

HOW HAS THE LOCAL COMMUNITY’SATTITUDE TO THE RECEPTIONCENTRE DEVELOPED; WHAT MIGHTEXPLAIN THIS DEVELOPMENT?chapter 3As we have attempted to show, the process aroundthe establishment of the reception centre in anumber of municipalities was found to be less thansatisfactory. Representatives of both the local-authorityemployees and the local population felt theywere poorly informed, and that they had too littleopportunity to influence the decision on whethera reception centre should be established, and onwhich terms. Together with a rise in the crime ratein the period immediately following the establishmentof the reception centre, this helped create avery unfavourable starting point for the developmentof positive relations between the receptioncentre and the local population in a majority of themunicipalities we visited.In three of the municipalities there has been a negativedevelopment since the reception centre wasestablished. The negative attitudes that prevailed inconnection with the establishment of the receptioncentre have become entrenched, according toour informants, and they have left lasting traces.Experiences and events during the period after theestablishment and up to the present have not beenof such a nature that could reverse the negative atmosphereand attitudes. In these municipalities therelationship between the reception-centre residentsand the local population is described as continuingto be cool and tense.In the other municipalities developments have gonein a positive direction. Here the attitudes to the receptioncentre and the residents have continuouslyimproved. Even though virtually all the municipalitiessaw the process around the establishment asdifficult and encountered problems with pilferingand conflicts in the initial phase, there are differenceswhen it comes to how far each local communityhas managed to put this behind them.In this chapter we will examine in more detail themunicipalities which have had a positive developmentand discuss reasons for this. We will then presentthe municipalities where developments havegone in a negative direction, and provide explanationsfor this development based on statements fromour informants. To the extent our material permits,we will point out differences between the variousmunicipalities that may help explain why they havedeveloped differently.Positive developmentIn three of the municipalities the majority of theinformants in the various groups characteriseddevelopments in the local population’s attitudes tothe reception centre as positive. There has been adevelopment from many having negative attitudesto the reception centre to most now being positive.In the words of one of our local-community informants:“It has become much more positive. Someof the sceptics are now openly saying that theywere wrong. Even the pensioners’ association haschanged its opinion. People who used to write verynegatively about the reception centre in the mediahave turned around”. Some of the informants fromthe local communities, the local authority andreception-centre employees nevertheless suggestedthat the mood relating to the reception centreappeared to shift according to the composition ofthe residents, the number of residents and unfortunateepisodes. Others felt that the attitudes tothe reception centre were predominantly positive,but that the reception centre was too big. Onelocal-community informant stated: “In three of themunicipalities the majority of the informants in thevarious groups characterised developments in thelocal population’s attitudes to the reception centreas positive. There has been a development frommany having negative attitudes to the receptioncentre to most now being positive. In the words ofone of our local-community informants: “It has becomemuch more positive. Some of the sceptics arenow openly saying that they were wrong. Even thepensioners’ association has changed its opinion.People who used to write very negatively about thereception centre in the media have turned around”.Some of the informants from the local communities,the local authority and reception-centre employeesnevertheless suggested that the mood relatingto the reception centre appeared to shift accordingto the composition of the residents, the number ofresidents and unfortunate episodes. Others felt thatthe attitudes to the reception centre were predominantlypositive, but that the reception centre wastoo big. One local-community informant stated: “Itbecame positive after a fairly short time, but it hasgone up and down with expansions of the receptioncentre and negative episodes. These ups and downshave led to setbacks in the attitudes of the localpopulation”.17

14 ) The quotation is from theforum’s statutes.Reasons for positive developmentInformation measuresAs we have mentioned previously, many people inthe local population felt that the main reason forthe opposition to the reception centre was the lackof information. This was generally confirmed bythe local authorities. Some municipalities implementedinformation measures as a step in turningaround the initial negative attitude to the receptioncentre. These information measures appear to havecontributed to turning the attitude around in thesemunicipalities. Measures ranged from public meetingsto presentations of the reception centre andits residents in information brochures produced bythe local authority. A public meeting must be seenas the simplest type of information measure. Theyare short-term measures and are more a way ofextinguishing fires, as it were. Thus the meetingshad no other or more long-term aims than to informthe local population and resolve the particularconflict being dealt with. In several municipalitiespublic meetings appear to have been necessarydue to a great degree of dissatisfaction in the localpopulation. According to some informants, publicmeetings can have a good effect. In one of the municipalitieswe visited the informants for the localpopulation stated: “The local authority arrangeda public meeting before the establishment. Afterinformation had been issued everything went muchbetter than expected”. Here the local populationappears to have received the information that wasneeded, and the scepticism that some had aboutthe reception centre was not expressed to any greatdegree. Other municipalities have had more longterminformation measures. In one municipalitythe representatives of the local authority statedthat: “The local authority tried to turn scepticisminto something positive. They especially initiatedinformation measures. This went quite okay. Thereception centre has been given ample space in theinformation pamphlets from the local authority”.Another stated: “Recently our municipality hasbeen used as a model for others in establishingreception centres in order to show the positive sides”.Thus the local authority has had a long-termplan with its information. The reception centre andits residents were presented in the local authority’sinformation pamphlet sent to all the householdsin the municipality. The pamphlet told the readerhow many residents were staying at the receptioncentre, the nationalities of the people living thereand provided other relevant information.Good cooperation between the reception centreand the local authorityWhen we asked what the reasons for the positivedevelopment were, what was mentioned mostfrequently by the informants for the local communitywere the local-authority employees and thereception-centre employees, and the good cooperationbetween the reception centre and the localauthority. This was mentioned in two municipalitiesin particular as an especially important reason.One informant for the reception-centre employeesstated: “The local authority and the receptioncentre cooperate very well. This also has a positiveeffect on the local population”. In both thesemunicipalities the politicians and the local administrationhave been positive to the reception centreright from when it was announced that it would beestablished. Prior to the establishment, representativesof both local authorities went on a “studytrip” to neighbouring municipalities with receptioncentres. The local authority has decided that itspolicy is to be positive to the reception centre andthe residents. One of the local-authority informantsstated: “The attitude in the local administration isthat we must be positive. The chief city executivehas instructed everyone in the administration thatthey must be positive and make positive statementsabout the reception centre. This has a positive effecton the local population”. Both parties describethe cooperation between the reception centre andthe local authority as open, and both parties foundthat the other party was willing to both listen andlearn if something was wrong. In the words of oneinformant of the reception-centre employees: “Thelocal authority has an open door policy when itcomes to the reception centre. If something’s thematter, just ask”.Given the importance attached to good cooperationfor achieving a good relationship between thereception centre and the local authority, the reception-centreresidents and the local population, thereis reason to examine more closely what makesthis cooperation function relatively better in somelocations than others. Some municipalities haveattempted to resolve the local community issues18

y establishing a cooperative forum with the aimof preventing conflicts. This forum aims to preventand resolve problems of an overriding nature,whether these are conflicts between receptioncentreresidents and the local population, racismissues or criminal offences committed by reception-centreresidents. Two of the municipalitieswe have visited have such a forum and have hadpositive experiences with it.In one of these municipalities the forum forpreventing conflicts came about as a result ofa public meeting. The initiative for the forumcame from the tradesmen and businessmen in themunicipality. The chairman of the business forum,the chief city officer, the police authority and thereception-centre manager meet in this forum. Theforum participants undertook to “individually ortogether take initiatives on cooperative measuresamong asylum seekers and the local community.The aim is to prevent conflicts and increase theunderstanding between the inhabitants, the businesscommunity and the asylum seekers” 14 . In thismunicipality the informants stated that the forumrapidly established good cooperation, and that thishelped alleviate the situation in the municipality.There appear to be a number of factors that determinewhether such a forum becomes a success.The crucial factor may be whether the forum hasa clear mandate. The participants must understandwhy the forum exists and what it is supposed to do.A cooperation forum without a clear mandate mayeasily become a discussion forum where little ornothing specific is accomplished; and such a forummay quickly lose credibility among the participants.Second, there must be a willingness to workat creating a constructive cooperation. One canimagine a situation with, for example, political andadministrative opposition to establishing a receptioncentre in the municipality. In such a situationit might be difficult to create a well functioningforum to prevent conflicts. Sadly, it appears thatthere is a tendency to establish such forums onlyafter there has been a conflict. Based on previousexperience and information in the report the UDIbelieves that it will clearly be beneficial if the localauthority and the reception centre establish sucha cooperative forum to prevent conflicts, and thatthe forum is established prior to or immediatelyafter the reception centre is established.Why only two of the six municipalities in oursample had such forums for the prevention ofconflicts does not emerge clearly from our material.Whether this is because no one saw the need orwhether there are other reasons is difficult to say.It may nevertheless appear that there has beensome uncertainty about what could possibly bedone to turn the negative attitude around andprevent future conflicts. Representatives from oneof the municipalities stated that: “We might haveprevented a number of things. Experiences fromprevious reception-centre establishments shouldhave been shared earlier. We received no information.We had a reception centre for a short periodsome years ago, but we knew much too little aboutwhat we should do. The operator and the UDIshould have provided more information aboutexperiences that had been gained and how tohandle difficult situations”. In some municipalitiesthere was a sense of lacking the necessary knowledgeabout what could or should be done. Severalof the municipalities had little or no knowledgeabout what it meant to have immigrants andasylum seekers in the municipality when they gota reception centre for the first time. When this isadded to the fact that some were opposed to thereception centre, it appears that several municipalitiesfelt they did not have the necessary knowledgeon how to handle the situation.Active reception-centre staffIn two of the three municipalities where therelations between the reception centre and the localcommunity had developed in a positive direction,the reception-centre manager and the receptioncentreemployees were relatively active in relationto the residents. Cultural events were arranged atthe reception centre to acquaint the local populationand the reception-centre residents with eachother. Moreover, the reception-centre residentswere encouraged to get actively involved in thelocal community and to contribute what they could.In the municipalities where the development hasbeen positive, it also appeared that the settledimmigrants were somewhat more familiar withwhat the local authority and the reception centrehad done compared with the municipalitieswhere there had been a negative development. Intwo of the municipalities the settled immigrantsresponded that the reception centre attempted to19

15 ) The UDI: Specification ofrequirements for the operatingregulations, in force from1 January 2004.20improve relations. Referring to the time whenthey themselves lived in the reception centre, oneof our informants stated that: “It was particularlythe reception centre that initiated activities. Thereception-centre manager introduced us to thelocal community. He got us up and about and madeus do things. We arranged parties at the receptioncentre where we informed people about ourselves.We presented ourselves and told them who we wereand so on”. The informants from the other municipalityresponded that: “The local-authority employeesand the inhabitants in the community came tothe reception centre initially. There were severalarrangements when the reception centre was new”.The reception centres that were willing and able toshow the residents the way into societal life andvarious activities appeared to have had moresuccess in establishing good relations between theresidents and the local population. Behind suchparticipation there were often strong and activereception-centre managers and other receptioncentreemployees who had spent much time andenergy on getting the residents involved in “normal”activities in the local community. In caseswhere the reception centre did not push the residentsas hard into various activities and programmes,the residents also appeared less active andthe local population appeared less positive to thereception centre. It may therefore appear as if thereis a relationship between the reception centre’sability to make residents use their resources andenergy in the local community on the one handand the attitudes to the residents and the receptioncentre on the other. This may in turn give positiveside effects in the form of more and improvedrelations between the reception-centre residentsand the local population.The local-authority employees and the localpopulation also emphasised this as an importantcause and requirement for good relations betweenthe reception centre and the local authority. In thewords of one of our local-authority informants:“If the residents are left too much to themselvesand their own abilities very many of them willnot go to public service offices, nor participate invarious activities. Then they will become isolatedand passive at the reception centre. This will makethem less able to cope in general society”.The residents’ participation in the localcommunityClosely related to the ability of the receptioncentrestaff to activate and motivate reception-centreresidents to participate in the local community isthe ability and willingness the reception-centreresidents have to participate in the local community.This was particularly mentioned by informantsfor the local community as an important cause ofthe positive development. In the municipalitieswhere developments had gone in a negative direction,resident participation in community life andvarious activities was also considered importantfor the relations between the residents and the localpopulation. Even if the majority of the municipalitiespointed out that participation in the localcommunity by the reception-centre residents wasrelatively limited, and preferably could have beenbetter, all emphasised that their participation invarious social arenas made it possible to havedirect contact and gain positive experiences withasylum seekers as persons. In two of the municipalitiesthis was mentioned explicitly as a reasonwhy the attitudes to the reception centre and theresidents had developed in a positive direction.Here residents were described as a resource forrather than a burden on the local authority.The reception-centre residents participated onan equal footing with the other inhabitants in thecommunity, and were also respected and receivedpositive feedback from this. They took part involuntary community work activities, they wererepresented on the committee planning celebrationsfor the Norwegian national day on 17 Mayand they joined the night-watch patrol. In thewords of one of the representatives of the localcommunity: “The residents’ participation in thelocal community has helped to give the local populationa positive impression of the asylum seekers,whether the help was to coach the football teamor instruct at aerobics training, help the elderlyto shovel snow or go shopping”.Based on the statements made by our informants,it was particularly the initiative-taking and gogetterspirit behind the reception-centre residents’participation in various activities that was appreciated.The representatives of the local-authorityemployees, reception-centre employees and thelocal population pointed to these two attributes

as the qualities and skills the reception-centreresidents had that were most important for developinga good relationship to the local population.According to our informants, people are moreactively responsive to the reception-centre residentswho speak Norwegian. They adopt a differentand more positive attitude, it was claimed. In thewords of one local-authority representative: “Thosewho speak Norwegian, take initiatives and appearpositive probably have an easier time of it thanothers”. A large number of informants claimedthat qualities such as gender, nationality, age, skincolour or similar factors were not as important.Taking the initiative and being willing to try anddo something mean most, it was claimed. Thereception-centre residents also underlined theimportance of language skills, taking the initiativeand having a go-getter spirit. One stated: “It’s alsodifficult to participate in various activities whenyou don’t know the language. Without Norwegianlanguage skills it’s virtually impossible to getemployment, attend school or university”.Needless to say, the extent to which it is desirablethat reception-centre residents should participate inthe local community is open to discussion. Bearingin mind that the majority will be leaving Norway,it could be argued that extensive participationin the local community may create expectationsamong the reception-centre residents that theywill be allowed to stay in Norway. A large degreeof participation creates a sense of belonging in alocal community. On the other hand, there appearsto be a clear link between the reception-centreresidents’ participation in the local communityand the absence of conflicts. It may thus be arguedthat participation in the local community makesit easier for small local communities to accept areception centre in their midst. In the specificationof requirements for reception centres, Item 2.5.2,states: “The reception centre shall, as far as ispossible, ensure that residents are active participantsand help set the agenda for information toand contact with the local community”. 15 The UDIbelieves that when we see such a clear relation betweenresidents’ participation in the local communityand the absence of conflicts, then the reception-centreemployees and other employees in thelocal authority and the local population should putmore emphasis on ensuring that the reception-centreresidents are active in the local community. Ingeneral we can say that the UDI believes that thereshould be more focus on making reception-centreresidents more active in the local community thanis the case today.Absence of conflictAll three municipalities where the informantsresponded that the development had been positivepointed to the absence of lasting conflicts as animportant reason for this. These municipalitieshad had few lasting conflicts between the reception-centreresidents and the local population, andalso internally between reception-centre residents.One informant from the local community statedthat “Pilfering and trouble have been sorted outquickly. There are no conflicts that keep croppingup”. The fact that over time the presence of thereception centre had not led to an increase in thelevel of conflicts or an increase in the crime ratein the municipality appears to have knocked thebottom out of the arguments of the opponents tothe reception centre. When their dire predictionsdid not come true, it appears that the criticism diedaway. The media also appear to lose interest in thereception centre and the reception-centre residentswhen it is evident that the residents were like peoplein general, no more violent nor criminal thanthe rest of the population.The absence of conflicts was also considered bythe reception-centre residents as important for theirrelations to the local population. When there wereconflicts and/or negative events, such as pilferingor other petty crimes, the reception-centre residentsgenerally felt branded as a group. Feeling thissense of being negatively labelled, the residentssaid it was difficult to establish contact with thelocal population. In the words of one resident:“The absence of conflicts is important for usresidents to feel free to participate in the localcommunity and look the local population in theeye”.The opportunity to workThe reception-centre residents focused less thanother informants on the absence of conflicts andcrime. Compared to other explanations, the reception-centreresidents attached by far the greatestimportance to language and employment as conditionsfor positive development and good relationsbetween the residents in a reception centre and the16 ) The operating regulations andthe specification of requirementsmay be downloaded from theUDI’s website. The specificationof requirements supplementsand elaborates on the operatingrequirements.17 ) When the right to instructionin the Norwegian language wasremoved as of 1 January 2003, theauthorities granted NOK 4.8 millionfor activity programmes in thereception centres. The aim of theextra grants was to cover expensesfor extra activity programmes inthe reception centres beyond whatfollows from the operating regulations.Case no. 03/161 Allocationof funds to activity programmes inreception centres.21

22local population. Work was considered importantfor relations with the local population because theworkplace is an important meeting-ground wherefriendships and acquaintances can be made andexperiences can be exchanged. In the words of oneof them: “You become acquainted through work,for better or worse. Some also become friends afterwork. There are many you know to say hello to andtalk to when you meet outside working hours”.Across all the informant groups in the six localcommunities there was broad agreement that theworkplace stood out as a particularly favourablearena for interaction between reception-centreresidents and the local population. Our informantsstated that it is much easier to become acquaintedin a work situation than in any other context.Among the representatives of the local populationwho had become acquainted with reception-centreresidents at their workplace one made a statementthat was quite typical of the perceptions of ourinformants: “When at work it’s necessary to dealwith each other to some extent because you needto do your job. The workplace is a neutral arenawhere it seems natural to talk together, exchangethoughts and ideas. When we meet at work, thereception-centre residents become less anonymous.Instead of being “somebody from work”,they become a person with a name, personality,occupation and cultural characteristics”. The reception-centreemployees told us that they receivesome inquires from, for example, house-ownerswho want their house painted, or employers, suchas schools, senior citizens homes or farmers whoneed labour. Feedback on residents’ work effortswas generally positive, and according to the reception-centreemployees, contributed to increasingrespect for asylum seekers in the local community.As mentioned above, elderly people in a numberof places received assistance from reception-centreresidents to shovel snow, do shopping and so on.This made a positive impression on the elderly,who according to our informants often started witha relatively negative attitude to the reception centreand the asylum seekers.In addition to the workplace functioning as animportant meeting-place for contact and dialoguebetween the reception-centre residents and thelocal population, work also has a number of functionsthat directly or indirectly are important to theasylum seeker and his/her perception of the localcommunity. A clear majority of the representativesfor the reception-centre residents in all the municipalitiesin this study underscored that work helpsasylum seekers feel less of a burden on society. Inthe words of one resident: “When we have work wecan look the local people squarely in the eye. Workgives respect and self-respect. Work gives identity,dignity and integrity”.Expanded information programme withinstruction in the Norwegian languagePursuant to the operating regulations and thespecification of requirements, all reception centresare obliged to offer reception-centre residentswhat is called an information programme. 16 Thisis a programme providing information and socialstudies. The content of the information programmesis the same for all the reception centres, buttheir structure may differ. In the UDI’s experiencea common language group will normally meet twoto four hours a week, most often in the receptioncentre itself.One of the reception centres in this study had amore comprehensive information programme.The content still complied with the requirementfor information and social studies, but there wasalso Norwegian language instruction in the programme.The programme was taught at a schooland instruction was given by Norwegian languageteachers every weekday between 9 and 11 am, thatis, around eight hours more than the norm. Thisprogramme was offered to all adults at the receptioncentre. In addition to the daily instruction, therewere theme days using external lecturers and hiredinterpreters. The programme was partly fundedby extra grants from the state authorities after theright to instruction in the Norwegian language waswithdrawn. 17 This measure was found to be verysuccessful, both in its content, as it put structure,meaning and substance into the reception-centreresidents’ daily lives, and in relation to the localpopulation’s perception of the reception centre andits residents.Even though all the reception centres had accessto extra funding for activities that might to someextent compensate for the withdrawn right toinstruction in the Norwegian language, this studysuggests that the extra funding has been spent inwidely varying ways. This may be because theoperator or reception-centre manager may freely

choose which activities to give priority to. Thisopens for relatively large differences between thereception centres. As mentioned under the heading“Active reception-centre staff ”, a characteristic ofthe reception centre where the relationship to thelocal community functions relatively well is thatits management and staff place a major focus onmaking their residents active.The backgrounds of reception-centre employeesRepresentatives of the local-authority employeesand the local population also pointed to the reception-centremanager’s background when explainingwhy the relations between the local populationand the reception-centre residents had developedpositively. In one of the municipalities importancewas attached to the fact that the reception-centremanager had been an asylum seeker herself, thusshe had experienced what it was like to live ina reception centre. According to the informantsfrom the local population and the local-authorityemployees, the reception-centre manager wouldhave more empathy with the problems and challengesencountered by the residents, but alsomore authority relating to what type of behaviourmay and may not be accepted from the residents.Having the same native language as a number ofthe reception-centre residents is an advantage fora reception-centre manager, it was claimed. In additionto language barriers it will be easier to avoidculturally conditioned misunderstandings, it wasalso claimed. One of our informants from the localauthority put it this way: “The reception-centremanager is an enterprising lady with a strong will.She will take exception to unacceptable behaviourat the reception centre, but will also do her utmostto get the reception-centre residents to participatein various activities in the local community”.These statements confirm that the UDI’s recommendationsto employ persons with ethnic-minoritybackgrounds may have a positive effect onoperating the reception centre. This encouragementhas generally been followed. The proportion ofemployees with minority backgrounds in receptioncentres is generally relatively high. In theUDI’s western region an average of 28 per cent ofreception-centre employees had ethnic-minoritybackgrounds.Decentralised reception centresDecentralisation of the reception centre was alsomentioned as a reason that a more positive relationhas developed to the reception-centre residents inone or two municipalities. According to some ofour informants, decentralisation of the whole orparts of the reception centre brought about morenatural and less institutionalised living.The residents would live in regular homes or flatsin the local community. According to the representativesof both the reception-centre residentsand the local population this led to a more naturalrelationship between the local community and thereception-centre residents. They were consideredregular neighbours. Instead of having a receptioncentre with 100 or 200 residents to relate to, thelocals might have four to eight asylum seekersas neighbours in the house next door. The localcommunity believed that it was also easier tobecome acquainted with and see asylum seekersas persons when the reception centre was decentralised.In one of the municipalities it was said thatthe decentralisation of parts of the reception centrehad led to a noticeably better relationship betweenthe reception-centre residents and the local community.The reception-centre residents told us thatthey were invited over to neighbours for coffee,and that, for example, they helped neighbourhoodchildren fix flat tires on their bikes. Thus interactionworks positively on the attitudes and views thereception-centre residents and the local populationhave on each other.Negative development. Barriers topositive interaction between residentsin reception centres and the localpopulationIt is not true to say that the conditions given asexplanations for the positive development in somemunicipalities were completely absent in themunicipalities with a less positive development.Nor can it be said that the problems and barriersfound in the municipalities with a negativedevelopment were not also present to some degreein the other municipalities. The question is thenwhat can explain the differences? Why have thingsgone relatively better in some municipalities thanothers? Neither the method nor the findings allowus to provide clear answers. A systematic compa-23

18 ) Ethnic discrimination in themedia is also presented in Chapter4 of the UDI’s report: “Rapport omrasisme og diskriminering i Norge2001-2002” (Report on Racismand Ethnic Discrimination inNorway 2001-2003).19 ) “Asylmottaket – en total institusjon?”(The Reception Centre– a Total Institution?). RagnhildSollund. The University of Oslo,Institute for Criminology 1996.24rison of the municipalities may nevertheless allowus to point to some conditions that appear to havean effect on the development and the differencesbetween the municipalities. We have pointed todifferences when it comes to information measuresand cooperation between the local authority andthe reception centre, as well as differences relatingto operations of the reception centre and how thelocal authority and the reception centre handleconflicts. The offer of an expanded informationprogramme as compensation for the withdrawalof instruction in the Norwegian language has alsocontributed to improving the relationship betweenthe residents and the local population in one of themunicipalities we have visited.This does not mean that everything is runningsmoothly in the municipalities that have had apositive development. The majority of receptioncentreresidents find living in the reception centreand life as asylum seekers difficult and challenging.Below we will examine in more detailwhat may have contributed to making a positiveinteraction difficult between the reception-centreresidents and the local population in the municipalitieswhere the development, according to ourinformants, has been negative.Causes of negative developmentIn three of the six municipalities in this studythe majority of the informants described thedevelopment as negative. The attitudes of thelocal population were described as poor and theyhave steadily deteriorated. There was little talkof violent conflicts, it was rather a more generalnegative attitude to the reception centre and thereception-centre residents. What can explain thisdevelopment? What can explain that the attitudesof the local population to the reception centre aredominated by passivity or negativity?Conflicts, changes in the resident populationand crimeAs mentioned in the introduction to the reportthere were major fluctuations in the number ofasylum seekers arriving in Norway from the startof the 1990s. From 1997 to 1999 the number ofasylum seekers more than quadrupled, from 2271to 10 160 applicants. A large proportion of thesecame from Somalia as a result of the civil war andanarchy there. A large number also came fromformer Soviet republics, Eastern European statesand the former Yugoslavia. The explosion in thenumber of asylum seekers coming to Norwaypeaked in 2002 at 17 480 persons.In the municipalities where the attitudes of thelocal population today are characterised as indifferent/passiveor negative, the informants pointedprecisely to the large number of asylum seekerswho came to Norway and the reception centresfrom around 1998 and up to the present. Representativesof the local-authority employees andthe local population stated this was an importantmilestone in their history as a reception municipality.The conflicts and events in the wake of thearrival of new groups in the municipalities wereunderlined as important explanations for why theattitudes to the reception centre and the asylumseekers had grown less positive over time. Onerepresentative of the local population told us that:“The attitude to the reception centre turned withthe arrival of a large number of asylum seekersfrom Eastern Europe. These were often single men.With their arrival the community experienced theftand other criminal offences. This involved just alittle group, but the local population changed toa negative attitude to the reception centre and itsresidents in general”. This negative period lasted,according to our informant, for a year or two. Itcame to a head with a knifing episode and a majorbrawl. Then the local population had had enough.There was a petition against the reception centre,and people wanted it closed down. Later the situationhas calmed down, but the relationship betweenthe local population and the reception centre hascooled significantly, it was claimed.Neither the local authority nor the receptioncentre initiated measures to resolve the conflict inquestion. We saw this in several of the municipalities.First came the conflict, then, apparently, thesituation eventually calmed down. The fact thatno measures were initiated in most of the municipalitiesmay indicate that the reception-centreemployees and local-authority employees believethat the time aspect itself is decisive. The situationwill settle down eventually. It is nevertheless theUDI’s unequivocal perception that this is not correct.Even if the conflict in question is not an openconflict, we can see troubles boiling beneath thesurface in several of the local communities for along time after the event. The fact that no attemptis made to resolve the conflicts in any other way

than allowing time to pass, or removing the personswho have been involved in the conflict fromthe reception centre, means that there is wear andtear on the local population, and this underminestheir tolerance of the reception-centre residents.When a new conflict arises, perhaps years later,and with completely new residents than during theprevious conflict, it does not take much before thelocal community reacts negatively.GeneralisationThe reception-centre residents also attachedimportance to conflicts and crime when explainingwhy the local population was sceptical or negativeto asylum seekers. Several stated that they understoodthe reactions of the local population. Oneof our informants said: “If foreign nationals hadcome to my country and been caught stealing, wewould also have been angry and negative to suchpeople”. However, what appeared far more difficultfor the reception-centre residents was that they feltthey were subjected to too much generalisation.“When a few people steal, it causes suspicion toattach to all those who live at the reception centre,”it was claimed. When there had been thefts orfighting in the municipality, the police came to talkto the residents at the reception centre to find theperpetrator. According to the residents this meantthat they were under suspicion and subjected toprejudice. After periods when there had been alot of pilfering, the reception-centre residents inseveral of the municipalities found themselvesbeing tailed and watched in shops. In their eyesthey were victims of generalisation and prejudice.Some reception-centre residents also attachedimportance to how negative incidents involvingasylum seekers received more attention and leftlasting negative memories in people than similarincidents in which only Norwegians were involved.This exacerbated the situation and made itdifficult to establish good relations between thereception-centre residents and the local population.In the words of one of our informants: “I don’t feelwelcome here. It’s difficult to face people when youknow what they think about us”.The media were blamed for some of this generalisation.The reception-centre residents wereespecially concerned with how newspapers andTV helped create stereotypical perceptions ofimmigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Thenational media were seen as having a particularlynegative focus, while local papers drew a morebalanced picture. 18 According to our informants,the international situation contributed to reinforcingthe negative attitudes in the population. Oneof the reception-centre residents stated: “Mediacoverage of 11 September and other acts of terrorismcontributes to producing negative perceptionsof Muslims in particular and asylum seekers ingeneral”. There was broad agreement on this in thevarious informant groups.The generalisation problem recurred in all the municipalitiesexcept one. In this municipality a pointwas made of the fact that the local community wassmall: “Everybody knows who everybody is. Becauseof this transparency you also know which ofthe reception-centre residents are causing troubleor committing crimes. Then it’s easy to distinguish“the good guys” from “the bad guys”, and see themajority of reception-centre residents as “normal”,decent people”. In the same municipalitythe reception-centre residents thought the sameway about the local population. They emphasisedthat negative attitudes and actions focused on thereception-centre residents came from particularindividuals in the local community, while the localpopulation in general was found to be pleasant andhelpful. This municipality is, however, no smallerthan the others and has not witnessed less pilfering,conflicts and violence than the other municipalitiesin the study. The municipality has nevertheless hadvery positive experiences with settling refugees,particularly Bosnian refugees. Positive experienceswith the first group helped give the lie to theprevailing scepticism and prejudices. This mayhave contributed to challenging people’s prejudicesand leading them to reassess their views on asylumseekers. Statements by both the local-communityinformants and the local-authority representativesappear to indicate that a more balanced view mayhave emerged in the wake of this. Our material isinsufficient in size to determine whether or not thisis the primary cause for the relatively low level ofgeneralisation in this municipality. The local authorityand the local population at any rate attachedgreat importance to the positive experiences theyhad gained with the Bosnian refugees as the explanation.In the words of one of our informants forthe local population: “The asylum seekers turnedout to be just like other people. They’re verydifferent too”.25

20 ) In the framework plan forresidents in state receptioncentres which came into force on1 January 2005, the UDI proposesthat settled immigrants who wereformerly residents at the receptioncentre may be used to informreception centre residents whosedecision is positive about how it isto be settled and how it is to starta new life outside the receptioncentre. This would be a voluntarymeasure.26The number of residentsIn the municipality where the attitudes of neighboursand the rest of the local population to reception-centreresidents appeared to have developedparticularly negatively, our informants were particularlykeen on pointing out that the cause of thenegative attitudes was to be found in the operationof the reception centre. The informants from localpopulation stated that the way the reception centrewas run generated conflicts. The local populationclaimed that it appeared that the residents were notoffered any programmes at the reception centre.They felt that the operator was exclusively interestedin making a profit, which meant piling inas many residents as possible, while offering aslittle activities as possible. The local populationstated that they wished to see asylum seekers asindividuals, but that they found this difficult due tothe many negative incidents. “All the turbulence inthe reception centre makes us negative to all wholive there, even if we on one level know that onlya few are behind this”. It was also pointed out thatlittle blame was being attached to the residentsthemselves. “It’s the great number of residentsand the operation of the reception centre that’s the problem,” some claimed. “Packing so manyindividuals with such painful experiences behindthem in such a small space is asking for trouble”,it was claimed.The local population in several municipalities wasconcerned with how resident experiences of warand persecution may have made them mentallyvulnerable and unstable, and that it is very unfortunateto live too densely and so close to others insuch a situation. This, in combination, with nothingto keep residents occupied and too poor follow-upby the operator and the UDI would, according toseveral of our informants, explain the tenseatmosphere, turmoil and the occasional openconflict at the reception centre, which in turncaused suffering in the neighbourhood and localcommunity. Conflicts internally at the receptioncentre have previously been explained as follows:“Suffering a common fate is not necessarilycommon comfort. Asylum seekers in a difficult lifesituation do not necessarily become nicer, moresolidarity-inclined or anti-racist by living in closequarters with others who also are having a difficulttime”. 19In one of the municipalities the neighbours ofthe reception centre felt that it should have beenstaffed night and day and that the reception centreshould have been obliged to offer its residentsmore and better activity programmes. In the samemunicipality a neighbour of the reception centrestated: “There should be stricter rules for the residents”.We have not asked explicitly about internalconflicts at the reception centre in this study.Conflicts between reception-centre residents have,as here, surfaced as explanations for why the localpopulation is sceptical or opposed to the receptioncentre. It is nevertheless clear that internal conflictsat the reception centre are a problem, and that thelocal population sees this as threatening.As we also suggested under the heading “Scepticismand uncertainty”, representatives of both thelocal population and the local-authority employeesbelieved that the number of residents at the receptioncentre should be lower, also keeping in mindthat the number of asylum seekers is too high comparedto the number of inhabitants in the municipality.When the reception centre was established,the municipalities in this study found that during abrief period of time they received between 150 and200 asylum seekers, i.e. around 15-20 per cent ofthe population in the municipality. Many felt thistransition was too big. In a small municipal centre,the reception-centre residents become highly visible.In the words of one informant from the localpopulation: “There are limits to how many personsa small local community can absorb. Putting somany strangers in a small Norwegian municipalityis challenging fate. No wonder there are conflicts”.The reception-centre residents were thinking aboutthe size of the local community when explainingwhy there were conflicts and/or hostility betweenreception-centre residents and the local population.“Small communities are less open to foreignnationals,” one of the reception-centre residentsbelieved. Reference was also made to how manyasylum seekers come from large cities and find itdifficult to adapt to a small community. Somereception-centre residents felt that this combinationcould be unfortunate. Cultural differences werealso suggested as being part of this. In the wordsof one of the residents: “Many Norwegians areafraid of us foreign nationals. They have differenttraditions and a different religion”.

The number of residents was also seen as aproblem in relation to public services and otherservice programmes in the municipality. In a majorityof the municipalities it was seen as a problemthat public services and other programmes werenot adapted to the large number of asylum seekers.This was expressed by the local-authority employeesin particular. Some felt that the compensationpaid to host municipalities was inadequate comparedwith the increase in costs and resources usedto serve residents and provide municipal services.The reception-centre residents were perceived asa challenge by the employees. They complainedthat their employer did not follow up adequately,for example by offering courses and raising skillsin cross-cultural communication and multiculturalunderstanding for employees. According to someof the informants from the local authorities thishelped explain the too infrequent use of publicservices by the reception-centre residents. Anin-house study undertaken at one of the receptioncentres we visited showed that 80 per cent of the residentsaid they did not use the local public services.In some municipalities the local-authority employeesalso mentioned the lack or limited use of interpretersas a problem when it came to using public services.Providing interpreting in various languages may be achallenge for a small municipality.Inadequate and incorrect use of interpreters is afamiliar problem the authorities have spent largeresources to cure in recent years. The UDI hasinitiated interpreter training projects and launchedmeasures to assure the quality of interpreting inthe public sector. Training in the use of interpretersfor civil servants is another measure the authoritieshave launched as a result of this absence of awarenessabout using interpreters.Communication barriers in the encounter betweenemployees in the public services and users withethnic-minority backgrounds are also familiar tothe public authorities. Courses, further training andguidance methodology in multicultural understandingfor employees in public services have beendeveloped in recent years. The aim is to strengthenthe competence of employees so they feel they aremastering the situation to a higher degree and areable to provide equal public services to all usergroups, regardless their ethnic background. Thestatements made by the local-authority employeesshow that the measures are adequate, but thatmany continue to lack competence in multiculturalunderstanding.Unrealistic expectationsA common trait of the municipalities in this studyis that there is relatively limited contact betweenthe reception-centre residents and the local population.The representatives of the local population,local-authority employees and reception-centreemployees described the reception centre as aworld unto itself and the lives of residents asrelatively separated from the rest of society. Severalhave described this relation as a non-relation.Neither do the settled immigrants and refugeessocialise much with the reception-centre residents.They gave the impression of living busy lives withjobs and children without any time to cultivatesocial ties to persons at the reception centre. In thecourse of our conversations none of the settledimmigrants expressed that they were better informedabout or more involved in the reception centrethan the rest of the local population. The role theymight have played as mentors for the receptioncentreresidents – guiding them into the localcommunity – had not been filled by any of theinformants among the settled immigrants. 20 Thereason for this is unclear. Causes may include awish to distance oneself from the reception centre,and an unwillingness to be associated with thereception centre and its residents. This may bedue to personal experiences that life in a receptioncentre is “okay”, so that contact with settledimmigrants is not important. Or perhaps the contrary:Those who have been settled may have suchsad memories from their period as a resident in areception centre that they literally repress the existenceof the reception centre. Our material doesnot allow us to support any of these explanations,but the fact remains that contact between settledimmigrants and the reception-centre residents isvery limited.Some representatives of the local population in themunicipalities appear to be relatively flabbergastedby the passivity and low level of social participationof the reception-centre residents. They pointedout that the reception-centre residents tend to congregate,often displaying little interest in becomingacquainted with the local population. In the words21 ) Volume 3 of “Norsk Innvandringshistorie”(Norwegian ImmigrationHistory), Knut Kjelstadli(ed.), Pax forlag 2003, p. 307, saysthe following about the “nationalcommunity effort”: “In the autumnof 1993 planning commenced forthe settlement of 10 000 persons,primarily Bosnians. The processwas to be carried out in the courseof 1994. This involved four timesas many as the previous year. Forthe first time all 403 municipalitiesin Norway were asked to receivea number of refugees, and specialhousing solutions and an informationstrategy were developed.Gunnar Berge, Minister of LocalGovernment, called settling thegroup of Bosnian refugees a“national community effort”, anda number of NGOs were invitedto take part. Due to what in aNorwegian context was the largenumber of refugees, there was in1994 a need to settle four or fivetimes as many in the municipalitiesas had been possible during thepreceding years.”27

22 ) When we apply the strongword racism, it is because ourinformants used it to characteriseattitudes and actions. When categorisingthe attitudes and actionsreferred to here as “racism”, thisis thus in keeping with the informants’subjective perceptions andown understanding of the term.In the Government’s action planagainst racism and discrimination,racism is defined as “the idea thatthere are different races or ethnicgroups with different characteristics,and that these differenceslegitimise negative discrimination.It is a rationale and justificationof negative discrimination ofindividuals or groups based ontheir ‘race’, skin colour or nationalor ethnic origin.”23 ) It is debatable whether this andother phenomena dealt with in thissection can be defined as racismand discrimination. The basis forcategorising it as “racism anddiscrimination” has, as mentionedabove, been the informants’ ownstatements and perceptions.24 ) See the UDI’s reports “Art ogomfang av rasisme i Norge 1999-2000” (The Nature and Scope ofRacism in Norway, 1999-2000)and “Rapport om rasisme ogdiskriminering i Norge 2001-2002”(Report on Racism and Discriminationin Norway, 2001-2002).28of one of our informants: “The main impressionis that the residents keep to themselves, also thoseliving outside the reception centre. The problem isthat they isolate themselves, also when attendingschool and taking part in recreational activities.”The local population in the majority of the municipalitiesdid not appear to believe that they had anyresponsibility for initiating first contact. Indifferencewas often what the local population calledtheir relationship to the reception-centre residents.One of our informants put it this way: “Relationsbetween the local population and the receptioncentreresidents are dominated by quiet mutualacceptance. It’s OK. Uncertainty, both for themand for us, as to whether they will be allowed tostay in Norway means that no one cares abouteach other. It’s in the nature of things”. This perceptionof absence of interest proved to work bothways. The residents repeatedly stated that they feltthe local community did not want to get involvedor want to become acquainted with them.It is a relevant question to ask how much of a problemthis really is, and how much participation andinteraction between the reception-centre residentsand the local population are realistic and desirable,from both parties’ points of view. Could it bethat quiet mutual acceptance is the most naturalrelationship between a local community and areception centre, where neither the residents northe local population have a clue as to who will beallowed to stay and who will have to leave? As wesuggested previously in this chapter, it appears thatparticipation in the local community has the effectof preventing conflicts. Another aim is also thatthose who are granted residence in Norway shouldget the best possible start to their new lives. As noone knows with certainty who will be allowed tostay and who will have to return to their country oforigin before the applications for asylum have beenfinally processed, social participation should bethe aim for all the reception-centre residents. Thatwould help create content in the daily lives of thereception-centre residents, regardless the outcomeof the application for asylum, and thus give a betterstart for the residents who will be staying inNorway, while also having the effect of preventingconflicts with the local population. The UDI thereforebelieves that both the reception-centreemployees and the local-authority employeesshould put a harder effort into having more interactionbetween the local population and the reception-centreresidents than is currently the case.Many residents are not genuine refugeesEarlier in the report we discussed how the attitudesof the local population on the establishment of thereception centre are influenced by the fact that somany of the residents are not granted asylum/residence on humanitarian grounds. Our materialsuggests that this also makes the local populationless interested in having contact with the reception-centreresidents once the reception centrehas been established. Knowing that so few will beallowed to stay thus is part of the explanation asto why there is limited socialisation between thereception-centre residents and the local population.It is also apparent that this makes some membersof the local population sceptical and negative toasylum seekers as a group. Even though a proportionof the residents do need protection, and thusare entitled to asylum or are granted residence onhumanitarian grounds, the local population cannotknow which of them this applies to. Because thelocal inhabitants cannot know whether they aredealing with economic refugees, criminals or persecutedindividuals, they appear to hesitate to havecontact with the reception-centre residents. This isan important reason why they remain sceptical anddistant to the reception-centre residents in general,say some of the people in the local community.In the words of one informant from the localcommunity: “The greatest problem is that societyis naive and gullible. Those who come and mightcreate something new are not allowed to. They letin too many in this country that shouldn’t be here”.This may have roots in the need to protect oneself.If it turns out that the person one has investedemotions and time in has no legitimate ground toreside in Norway, people may easily feel they havebeen tricked, it was claimed. These were attitudesthat the reception-centre residents recognised andwhich were felt as uncomfortable, and which couldmake the local population wary to a degree. Whatdo they think and believe about me?Disappointment and attritionThe representatives of the local population andlocal-authority employees expressed that they feltthat the reception-centre residents in a way hadfailed the trust they had been given by the local

population. The inhabitants had had a good relationshipwith the reception centre and its residents.Then suddenly a new group came that did not liveup to the expectations the local community hadfor the reception-centre residents. The new groupknew that in all probability they would have toleave Norway soon, so they were less involved thanthe Bosnians had been. For their part, the localpopulation was aware of this, and thus hesitatedmore than before to have contact with receptioncentreresidents. In the words of a representativeof the local community: “It feels a bit meaninglessto become acquainted with people who most likelywill be leaving the country”. Thus uncertainty as towhether the asylum seekers will be allowed to stayor not is a dominant issue both for the local populationand those directly involved. The local populationappears to hesitate to invest time and energyin people who may soon be moving elsewhere, orwho may not be granted residence and thereforemust return to their country of origin. If children oradults from the reception centre are not permittedto stay, friendships will be broken. This has provedto be particularly difficult for children, who mayexperience reactions of grief after friends from thereception centre have been forced to leave Norway.For the reception-centre residents, their thinkingis similar. “Why find friends, learn the Norwegianlanguage, participate in activities and get involvedin the community if I am not allowed to stay?”In one of the municipalities general wear and tearon the local community was mentioned as a reasonwhy people are more passive now than previously.During the initial years after the reception centrehad been established everything was new andexciting. In time this coincided with the “nationalcommunity effort” the authorities had initiated onthe arrival of the many Bosnians. 21 At the time,in 1993-1994, people got involved and spent agreat deal of time and effort on reception-centreresidents. But over time, having a reception centrebecame more like yesterday’s news. The informantsfrom the local population stated that peopleno longer cared to get involved. They said that thereception centre is now considered to be more of abusiness enterprise with no particular connectionto the local community. One informant stated that:“In 1993 there were ‘mentor’ programmes. Now thelustre has worn off. People look at them as part ofthe local community, but there is much less contact”.Another said: “People used so much energyon the initial phase. They collected clothes andstuff like that. Then you get tired after a few years”.This explanation also ties directly to the disappointmentsome felt when the Bosnians moved outof the reception centre, and it turned out that someof the reception-centre residents were criminals.One informant stated that: “The Bosnians were aspecial group. There was a lot of media coverageof the conflict. Those who came were families, theywere like us, they were educated. A great differencecompared to the groups that came later”.In one municipality the local population believedthat they would have a reception centre for onlya limited period of time. Here the sense of disappointment,attrition and frustration was even morepronounced than in the other two municipalities.There had been a conflict centred on the receptioncentre since it was opened. The local populationhas reacted to its location and size. Neighbourshave told of robbery and knifing and how armedpolicemen have entered the reception centre. Thiswas found to be frightening, and has eroded thelocal population’s perception of the reception centreeven more. One informant added that: “Conflictsbetween the reception-centre residents andethnic Norwegians just spreads negative attitudesand views “. Settled immigrants in the municipalityalso expressed that the atmosphere in relationto the reception centre had grown more negative.One stated: “There is a tendency to generalise. Ifone person at the reception centre does somethingnegative, this applies to everyone at the receptioncentre. If something happens the episode is blownout of all proportion and is seen as way too negative”.In addition to the already existing negative attitudeto the reception centre it was decided to keep thereception centre in operation, even though theoriginal plan had called for five years of operations.The decision to continue the operation of thereception centre was made without informing thelocal community. The local population expressedvery negative views on this, and it led to massiveprotests and a great deal of negative presentationof the reception centre in the media.Racism and discrimination 22Our impression, based on the interviews, is thatracism is not particularly prevalent in the municipalitiesthat have been the subject of this study.25 ) From the end of the 1990s andonwards, Norway had a strongincrease in the number of asylumseekers. The proportion of asylumseekers whose applications wererejected also increased. Withrespect to the withdrawing ofinstruction in the Norwegian languagefor asylum seekers withouta residence permit, taking effectfrom 1 January 2003, the reasongiven was that 70-80 per cent ofthose who apply for asylum inNorway are not granted residencein Norway. The authorities foundit extremely expensive to offerinstruction in the Norwegianlanguage to everyone when asmany as 70-80 per cent would beleaving Norway. Resources wouldbe reserved for those who actuallywere allowed to stay.29

26 ) These self-reinforcing circlesare also described in other sources.In the book “Asylmottaket – entotal institusjon?” (The ReceptionCentre – a Total Institution), theUniversity of Oslo, Institute forCriminology 1996,÷÷Ragnhild Sollund quotes BeritBerg: “They (the asylum seekers)miss contact with the localpopulation, and they lack a senseof belonging in a community. Atmost reception centres there areno “natural places to meet” whereasylum seekers, other foreignnationals in the local communityand Norwegians can be togetherbased on common interests. MostNorwegians have several arenasfor social contact (work, school,family). Recently arrived refugeesdo not have such contact points.This has consequences, both forsocial adaptation and learning thelanguage”. Ragnhild Sollund hascarried these arguments further andstates that: “Since asylum seekersoften have little opportunity tohave contact with the populationoutside the reception centre, theyare generally forced to spend alltheir time at the reception centre,where their primary needs aresatisfied. This isolation reinforcesthe impression that the receptioncentre is a total institution andthat the situation for refugees maybe compared to the situation forprisoners and others forced to livein total institutions”.30Where it has been suggested as a problem, it hasbeen connected to the adults’ attitudes, which inturn were explained by negative incidents andactions in connection with the reception centreand its residents. Our informants spoke of a kindof infection or spreading of racist attitudes fromadults to children when trying to explain the negativedevelopment. Some of the residents and someteachers confirmed that children from the receptioncentre are discriminated against by their classmatesto some extent. According to informants in one ofthe municipalities, negative attitudes to thereception centre and the asylum seekers alsoamong teachers have influenced the Norwegianpupils in school in a way that has had unfortunateconsequences for the children from the receptioncentre. Our material does not give us the basis tomake any precise claims as to the scope of this, butit does testify to the existence of some episodesand incidents. This was confirmed by the reception-centreresidents who spoke of incidents wherechildren from the reception centre had been subjectedto exclusion and bullying at school. There weremany examples where children from the receptioncentre were not invited to birthday parties whenthe rest of their class had been invited. This wasperceived as discrimination. 23 One father stated:“None of the children in the class wanted mydaughter to be in the group that would cooperateon a project. Not even the group that was smallerthan the others made room for my daughter.Rather than be invited in one of the groups, shewas actively excluded by all”. Some also spoke ofteasing because of poor Norwegian language skills,and clothes that had been hidden while they weretaking a shower after physical education classes.According to our informants from the receptioncentreresidents, this was felt to be very hurtful,and was seen as an expression that Norwegianchildren do not like children from the receptioncentre because they differ in things like languageand skin colour.Two of the municipalities in our sample reportedsome instances of discrimination of children fromthe reception centre in connection with recreationalactivities. Children from the reception centre have,for example, had difficulty being admitted to thelocal football club. One reception-centre residentstated: “I sent my son to the football club, but hewas not allowed to join. I think this was because ofhis hair colour”. Our informants from the reception-centreresidents told us that it feels particularlydifficult when children are subjected to hurtfuland insulting actions and attitudes. Many of theexamples therefore deal with children. However,the adults were not spared. They also experienceddiscrimination in various contexts and arenas. Oneresident told us: “When I was walking in the parkwith my children a day-care centre was also on anouting, and had stopped to eat. The day-care centrebroke off their meal and took off when I approachedwith my children. I don’t think they like usbecause of our skin colour. It made me unhappy”.In other situations and in other arenas there arealso examples where the reception-centre residentsfelt that they were victims of racism. One reception-centreresident said: “Some hate asylum seekersbecause they have an idea that refugees are not asgood people as themselves”. Another stated: “Mybrother was beaten up by a gang of 10-15 Norwegianyouths. He was called names”.In the municipalities that have been the subject ofthis study there have been no cases of long-termand lasting conflicts motivated by racism. As mentionedabove, the attitudes of the local populationto the reception centre were rather characterised bya degree of indifference. In the words of one informantfor the local population: “People don’t likethe reception centre and the asylum seekers. Butthere’s nothing much to be done about it. There’snot that much open racism”. In the municipalitieswhere the attitudes of the local population to thereception centre and its residents have developedin a negative direction, our informants fromamong the local-authority employees and the localpopulation spoke of racism as something that isboiling under the surface. This was confirmed bythe reception-centre residents in several of themunicipalities. One reception-centre resident toldus: “People draw away from us when, for example,we go to the beach, because we’re asylum seekers”.These are phenomena we recognise from previousUDI reports and from other literature on thistopic. 24 Even if none of the groups of informantsfeel this is a serious problem in any of the municipalities,the UDI believes there is good reason totake this seriously. An important factor for integrationis absence of racism and discrimination.

If reception-centre residents experience that theyare subjected to racism and discrimination by thelocal population, this will impede participationby creating uncertainty and insecurity among thereception-centre residents. This may in turn createdivisions between the local-community and thereception-centre residents, which opens for moremisunderstanding, mutual scepticism and conflicts.Threats and harassmentAccording to representatives of the receptioncentreresidents in several of the municipalities,the residents were regularly harassed by abusivelanguage, for example being called “nigger” orother clearly derogatory terms. Our material alsohas examples of incidents where the receptioncentreresidents felt threatened. One receptioncentreresident told us: “When I went to the localcentre to shop, a person first followed me inside theshop. When I left and walked towards the receptioncentre, this person continued to follow me, steppedvery close, threatened me and said “What areyou doing in this country? Go home”. This personreacted to this incident with withdrawal. He said:“After this I stayed much more at the receptioncentre. Now I take roundabout roads to avoidmeeting people in the street and making eyecontact”.In one of the municipalities some young peoplecame to the reception centre in the middle of thenight. They had been rowdy and knocked on thewindow of a family at the reception centre andshouted abuse. Our informant cried when she toldus about this incident. She had been very afraid.Shortly after this local youths had parked their carswith their car headlights shining on and blinking atthe reception centre. “This is how they wanted tobother us and demonstrate that they didn’t want tohave a reception centre in their local community”,it was claimed.Unresolved case, passivity and waitingRacism, discrimination and other negative attitudesand actions that have been described above, andwhich are experienced to some extent in all themunicipalities we visited, make it difficult to havegood relations between the local population andthe reception-centre residents. A majority of theinformants among the reception-centre residentsthat had been subjected to such attitudes or actionsexperienced them as hurtful and injurious. Afterepisodes with verbal or physical harassment someof the informants stated that they had becomegenerally nervous. Some of the reception-centreresidents we spoke to have reacted with withdrawaland isolation. For these the result may be a morepassive life than the case might have been if thelocal population had been more positive, acceptingand including.However, this passivity has a number of causeswhich have been expressed by a number of ourinformants from among the reception-centre residents,the local community, the reception centreand the local authority when trying to explain whythe relations between the reception centre and thelocal community were unsatisfactory for someof the parties. Of these causes, most importanceis attached to the fact that the reception-centreresidents who do not receive a positive decisionno longer receive instruction in the Norwegianlanguage and that without Norwegian languageskills it has now become even more difficult to findwork than it was before. 25 Representatives of thefour groups of informants attached importance tothe fact that language is the key to communication,which in turn is a prerequisite for the receptioncentreresidents and the local population becomingacquainted and having good general relations. Thereception-centre employees made it clear that theaim of having reception-centre residents who areactive in the local community and self-reliant, asformulated in the operating regulations, is difficultto satisfy after the Norwegian language instructionhas been withdrawn. The fact that reception-centreresidents lost their right to a free bus pass whenthey were no longer attending Norwegian languagecourses has also made it more difficult to attendother activities. The UDI’s experience is that someof the frustration associated with the withdrawal ofthe right to instruction in the Norwegian languagestems from this.Some reception-centre residents believed that onceinstruction in Norwegian was taken away conflictsbetween the reception-centre residents andthe local population could more easily arise. It ismuch easier for misunderstandings to arise whenthere is no common language, several claimed.Without work and/or language instruction residents27 ) Includes persons whose applicationhas been rejected on thebasis of the Dublin Convention.That means that they either haveapplied for asylum in anothercountry which has signed the DublinConvention or that they haveentered Norway on a visa grantedby one of the countries that are partof the Schengen Cooperation. Anapplication for asylum will in thesecases not be processed in Norway,but instead be processed by one ofthe other Dublin countries.31

also found that there was very little to do, theywere bored and had too much time to think andworry about their situation. This came in additionto the burdens stemming from waiting for theircase to be decided. The reception-centre residentsspoke of an everyday life dominated by too muchtime and too much waiting. Their thoughts weregenerally focused on their own case, the status oftheir application and the uncertainty relating tothis. Having something meaningful to do wouldkeep their minds off of the memories of painfulexperiences, grief and loss of family and friends intheir country of origin. The residents talked aboutvicious self-reinforcing circles that can be verydifficult to break out of as long as they were unableto speak Norwegian, unable attend Norwegianlanguage courses and did not have work. If you arenot waking up in the morning and going to work ora Norwegian course, it could be difficult to get outof bed, plan the day and actually follow this planevery day. Thus many sleep long into the morning,and find it difficult to go to bed before the middleof the night. Our informants from the receptioncentreresidents told us that it is easy to turn dayand night around, and that they do not manageto keep in step with the normal rest and activityrhythms of the surrounding society. It was pointedout that this can occasionally hurt the children,when parents are unable to get them to school orthe day-care centre in time. 26This is a problem we recognise from other socialareas. The same trend can be observed for peopleon long-term sick leave and in the unemploymentqueue. The longer they are away from working life,the more difficult it is to return to regular work.The personal and societal consequences are grave.As we suggested earlier, the Government is nowallocating more resources to reduce case processingtimes and the waiting period in receptioncentres. Applicants with assumed groundless applicationsand persons who come under the DublinConvention are not placed in regular receptioncentres. 27 They must either be returned to theircountry of origin or to the country of initial application.The authorities expect that these and othermeasures will reduce the number of persons livingin the regular reception centres. This may help toreduce some of the problems associated with life ina reception centre and having an unresolved case.32

Summary:Challenges and opportunitiesChapter 4Common to the municipalities that have been thesubject of this study is that they are relatively smalland a part of the local population and local-authorityemployees did not want the reception centre tobe established. There have been various types ofconflict involving reception-centre residents in allthe municipalities.The fact that the municipalities in the study hadexperienced conflicts connected to the receptioncentre during some periods was an importantcriterion for selecting these municipalities. Withthis report our intention was to find out more aboutwhat these conflicts had consisted of and the extentto which racism and discrimination were involved.We also wanted to use the study to develop moreknowledge about the causes behind the conflicts,and what the local authority and the receptioncentre had done to prevent or resolve conflicts.Below we shall sum up the findings from the study,and on this basis point to challenges and possiblemeasures for the future efforts to prevent conflicts.Conflict and conflict managemen 28In some of the municipalities the conflicts relatingto the reception centre started already beforethe reception centre had been established, due tothe process around the establishment. In severalmunicipalities both the local population and thelocal-authority employees responded that they feltthey had had received far too little information thata reception centre was going to be established intheir municipality, and that this had contributed touncertainty and opposition to the reception centre.In the municipalities that are included in this studythe conflicts between the reception centre and thelocal community were rarely long-lasting or oflarge scope. They were also rarely violent, eventhough violence also had occurred. The conflictsgenerally stemmed from pilfering and petty crimescommitted by reception-centre residents. This hadbeen a problem for all the reception centres inconnection with the steep rise in the arrival ofasylum seekers from former Soviet and EasternEuropean states from the end of the 1990s. Ourinformants from the reception-centre residents,the local population and the reception-centreemployees in the six municipalities neverthelessstated that internal conflicts at the reception centreswere at least as serious a problem, perhaps an evenlarger problem. Neighbours and other representativesof the local population reacted negatively tothe reception-centre residents because of conflictsand unrest at the reception centre. Thus internalconflicts appear to generate negative attitudes toasylum seekers among the local population.• The frameworks around the establishmentof reception centres, such as competitionsfor tenders to operate a centre, put somerestrictions on the time in which it ispractically feasible to provide informationto the local population in connectionwith establishment of a reception centre.The UDI will nevertheless endeavour toimprove the information flow to the localcommunities where a reception centre isto be established.• Many local authorities believe that theconflicts will eventually calm down. Apparentlythis is true with some modifications.The study shows that the local authoritiesand reception centres that had dealt withthe conflicts most actively also were the onesthat came most successfully out of theconflicts.• The UDI recommends that networks shouldbe established between active parties, forexample the business community, NGOs,the police and various agencies in themunicipalities, to prevent and deal withconflicts, if they arise.Racism and discriminationThe reception-centre residents were focused onepisodes and incidents in the local neighbourhoodsthat they saw as expressions of racism. There wereparticularly many stories from the day-to-day affairsof reception-centre children in school and inconnection with their participation in recreationactivities that were seen as racist or discriminatory.• To prevent children from the receptioncentres from being subjected to racism anddiscrimination in school, the UDI believes28 ) The UDI will be drawing up anoverview of conflict managementtools offered by various involvedparties in Norway. This overviewwill be available to the local authorities,reception centres and othersin the spring of 2005.29 ) Two educational packages havebeen developed, and these maybe useful as a step in this work.“Velkommen hit?” (WelcomeHere?) focuses on lower secondaryschool and deals with prejudices,being a refugee and solidarity. “Påsamme lag” (On the Same Team)deals with refugees, immigrantsand inclusion in the Norwegiansociety. The latter generally dealswith refugees from Burma. Theeducational packages may beordered from “Utlendingsdirektoratetsdistribusjon, Postboks 8108Dep., N-0032 Oslo”.E-mail: bestilling@udi.no.30 ) Schools have the sameresponsibility for handling communicationbetween the school andparents/guardians for pupils andyoung people in reception centres,whether they have arrived withtheir parents or as unaccompaniedminor asylum seekers. A guardianmust be appointed for unaccompaniedminors. Schools also have theresponsibility for communicatingwith the guardian. The Ministryof Education and Research, theMinistry of Local Government andRegional Development and theDirectorate of Education arecooperating on issuing a circulardefining the school’s responsibilitieswith respect to children inreception centres. Cf. Report tothe Storting (Parliament) no. 49(2003-2004) “Mangfold gjennominkludering og deltakelse”(Diversity through Inclusion andParticipation).33

31 ) Members of the guidanceservice have worked on issuesrelated to these topics: xenophobicactions such as exclusion, bullying,harassment, pestering andviolence. Extreme nationalist/racist communities. Groupconflicts, Violent youth gangs.Awareness-raising activities inschool. Interdisciplinary and interagencyactivities. The interdisciplinaryguidance service is operatedby the UDI. Contact one of theUDI’s six regional offices whenguidance is required.32 ) The Hordaland model. Withcourses for inter-cultural competence– http://www.hordaland-f.kommune.no/Dokumenter/Tverr-Kult.htm. “Kulturell Dialog”offers private and public enterprisesguidance in intercultural communication– http://www.kudi.net/Further and continuing educationin multicultural understanding isoffered at many colleges anduniversities in Norway, includingOslo University College:http://www.hio.no/content/view/full/9152bl.a. Høgskolen i Oslo:http://www.hio.no/content/view/full/915234it is important that the school should workwith the attitudes of children and adults onthis issue. 29 The UDI believes it is importantthat the school should cooperate withthe parents of all the pupils. For example,information about geography and nationalbackgrounds may be a tool when workingon tolerance. Schools should thereforeobtain and disseminate information aboutthe refugees’ backgrounds.• The UDI believes that with their consciousand active attitude to having pupilswith another ethnic background thanNorwegian amongst their pupils, schoolshave the best qualities for handling thiswork. When a school receives a child from areception centre there should be a closedialogue between the school and the reception-centre employees.• Better communication and information arenecessary to strengthen the cooperationwith parents with another backgroundthan Norwegian. Information should bemade accessible in a language and a formthe parents can understand, and the schoolstaff should have competence in crossculturalcommunication. It is also importantto use an interpreter if necessary. 30 Theschools should contact parents directly to agreater extent, as all experience indicatesthat information circulars are inadequatefor many.• In cases involving racially motivatedviolence and harassment, the UDI can becontacted to obtain assistance from “Tverrfagligveiledningstjeneste” (the interdisciplinaryguidance service). This is anetwork of persons with various professionalbackgrounds. All have long experience fromworking with conflicts where racism orxenophobia is among the causes. The UDIestablished this service in 1996 to give publicagencies access to guidance from professionalexperts when conflicts arise. 31Communication barriers in theencounter between the receptioncentreresidents and civil servants/reception-centre employeesStudies indicate that there is too little use of publicservices among reception-centre residents, andthat the encounter between the reception-centreresidents and civil servants may be difficult due tolanguage and communication problems.• The UDI believes that it is important thatcivil servants and the reception-centre staffshould have more expertise in multiculturalunderstanding. This is necessary to alleviatethe culturally conditioned misunderstandingsthat often arise in theencounter between employees and userswith another background than Norwegian,and thus ensure that the provision ofservices does not become discriminatory.Such competence-raising is currentlyoffered through courses, guidance andfurther and continuing education. 32• The UDI considers it important that thepublic authorities raise awareness of theresponsibility to use interpreters wherecommunication is inadequate due tolanguage barriers. When a representativeof the Norwegian authorities, agencies orinstitutions does not have a commonlanguage with a party or participant in thecase being processed, s/he must use aninterpreter. The UDI has prepared a guidebookin the use of interpreters in statereception centres for those working at thereception centre. The guidebook can alsobe used by other users of interpretingservices. 33The need for activities and a structuredeveryday existenceOur informants attached great importance to howpassivity and waiting are experienced as verydifficult for each asylum seeker. The study alsoshows that there is a clear trend that the morepassive reception-centre residents are, the morenegative attitudes the local population have to thereception centre and its residents. Passivity and

the absence of a structured daily life contribute tointernal conflicts at the reception centre, and alsobetween the reception-centre residents and thelocal population. With nothing to do, the residentslook inward on their anxieties about their ownsituation. For their part, the local population areannoyed that the reception-centre residents are“twiddling their thumbs”, in addition to a highlevel of noise coming from residents in the receptioncentre who having nothing to do. Accordingto representatives of both the local population andthe reception-centre residents, such problems havebeen exacerbated since the right to instruction inthe Norwegian language was withdrawn in 2003for those who do not receive a positive decision. 34The study also shows that there are large differencesbetween the reception centres with respect tohow they facilitate activities. It may be useful toconsider more closely what causes the differencesbetween the reception centres, particularly becausethe differences appear to be so large. The receptioncentres that were willing and able to show theresidents into societal life and various activitiesappeared to have more success at creating goodrelations between residents and the local population.The residents in these reception centres also appearedto be less frustrated than those in the receptioncentres where they were generally left to their owndevices.• A research project has been initiated to findout what aspects of reception centrescontribute to a good psycho-social environment.35The project will describe examplesof good practices in reception centres withspecial focus on preventing psychologicalproblems and conditions that improve theability of the reception-centre residents tomaster their situation. The project willproduce a report with recommendationsto be used in the UDI’s continuing cooperationwith the reception centres andrelevant authorities.• Within the new framework plan forinformation in state reception centres,the UDI in 2005 will be introducingphase-oriented and differentiated informationto asylum seekers.36 This mayhelp to orient the reception-centre residentsto their situation and alleviate some of thestress and strain many go through whenthey do not understand the processing oftheir application for asylum and theuncertainty connected to the status oftheir case.Activities seen as particularlymeaningfulWork and instruction in the Norwegian languagewere pointed to by the representatives of all thegroups of informants as being the most important,not only for individual asylum seekers but also forthe relationship to the local population, and as acondition for communication and positive relations.Apparently both activity and inactivity areself-reinforcing, so that those who had employmentwere also active in other areas, while those withoutemployment were caught in self-reinforcing circlesof passivity and isolation. Bearing this in mind, therepresentatives of the reception-centre residents,local-authority employees and the local populationstated that more obligatory activities are neededfor the residents. This agrees with the recommendationsfrom an inter-ministerial working group,which in its report from December 2003 statedthat consideration should be given to having theoperating regulations amended to increase the levelof obligatory activities for residents. 37• The UDI is working on a revision anddevelopment of the information programmefor reception centres in 2005. More obligatoryactivities are planned for the residentsthan is currently the case.To compensate for the withdrawal of the right toinstruction in the Norwegian language, the representativesof all four informant groups pointedto work as the best alternative activity. This alsocoincides with the recommendations in the abovementionedreport.38 The opportunity to work wasclaimed by many to be even more important afterthe right to instruction in the Norwegian languagewas withdrawn for those persons without a positivedecision. It was also pointed out that the caseprocessing procedure for being granted a temporarywork permit is both complicated and takestoo long, and that this is a significant barrier togetting employment.33 ) The guide for using interpretersin reception centres canbe downloaded from the UDI’swebsite or obtained from the UDI’sdistribution.34 ) The UDI has found that someof the frustration after the cancellationof the right to Norwegianlanguage courses stems from thefact that many reception centreresidents also lost the right tofree bus transport to and from theinstruction, a benefit the residentscould also use on transport to otheractivities.35 ) The project is carried out bySINTEF on assignment from theUDI and was completed in 2004.36 ) Experiences show that thatasylum seekers need varioustypes of information at varioustimes/stages of their stay as asylumseekers in Norway, and that theneed for information, the type ofinformation needed and the way itis presented vary from one groupto the next depending on ethnicbackground, age and gender etc.This is why the authorities, such asthe Ministry of Local Governmentand Regional Development and theUDI, now provide phase-orientedand differentiated information.37 )The report “Psykisk helsefor asylsøkere og flyktninger iasylmottak” (Mental Health ofAsylum Seekers and Refugees inReception Centres), the Ministryof Local Government and RegionalDevelopment, 5 December 2003.38 ) Op.cit39 ) The 48-hour procedure andEurodac are dealt with in theintroductory chapter.35

40) The Norwegian ImmigrationAct.Those that existed were usedrelatively rarely. Thus the mostconspicuous aspect was theabsence of contact rather thancontact. The study also showsthat the absence of contactbetween the reception-centre residentsand the local populationcan distance the two groups andincrease scepticism between theresidents on the one hand andthe local population on the other.Based on the aim of positiverelations and absence of conflictbetween the local population andthe reception-centre residents itis thus important to have someinteraction. However, it is alsoimportant to have realistic aimsrelating to how much contactis enough during the receptionphase, as considered from theasylum seekers’ and the localpopulation’s points of view.• The introduction of the 48-hour procedureand Eurodac will help to make it easier tobe granted a temporary work permit earlierthan was previously the case.39 The UDIwill also assess giving priority to cases in adifferent manner so that everyone can begranted a temporary work permit at anearlier stage.• The UDI has found that employment officesin some cases reject asylum seekers becauseof poor or absent Norwegian languageskills. The UDI considers it very importantto establish good cooperation betweenthe reception centres and Aetat (employmentservices) in spite of the limitations thelanguage problems represent. The UDI shallfollow up this issue with Aetat on thedirectorate level.Several of the reception centres included in thisstudy had close cooperation with voluntary servicecentres in their municipalities. For some asylumseekers this represented a way into voluntary work.This was perceived as positive by the asylumseekers and the local population, who also statedthat this has a lot to say for general attitudes andrespect for those living at the reception centre.However, a difficulty in this context has been thefact that a temporary work permit is also requiredto carry out voluntary work. NOU:2004:20“Ny utlendingslov” (New Norwegian ImmigrationAct) proposes that the current explicit requirementfor a work permit for work without pay berelaxed.40 If this is adopted, it will be easier forasylum seekers to work without pay, not onlythrough voluntary service centres, but also forothers, such as various local-authority agenciesor private parties. The frustration that builds upwhile waiting and having nothing to do can thusbe reduced. If asylum seekers have work, the localpopulation’s image of these individuals as contributorsrather than a burden may also be improved.How much is enough?A prevailing feature of the six municipalitiesincluded in this study was that the reception-centreresidents and the local population had very littleto do with each other. There were few naturalmeeting-places and arenas for contact anddialogue. Those that existed were used relativelyrarely. Thus the most conspicuous aspect was theabsence of contact rather than contact. The studyalso shows that the absence of contact between thereception-centre residents and the local populationcan distance the two groups and increase scepticismbetween the residents on the one hand andthe local population on the other. Based on theaim of positive relations and absence of conflictbetween the local population and the receptioncentreresidents it is thus important to have someinteraction. However, it is also important to haverealistic aims relating to how much contact isenough during the reception phase, as consideredfrom the asylum seekers’ and the local population’spoints of view.36

Literature listAbelset, Torill; Asylsøkere - en ubrukt ressursBakken, Anita; Grenseløst vennskap, 1994Berg, Berit, 1990. Asylmottak – et sted å være elleret sted å lære? Trondheim, IFIMJan-Paul Brekke, 2001. Velkommen og farvel?Midlertidig beskyttelse for flyktninger i Norge. PaxJan-Paul Brekke, 2004. Kosovo - Norge, tur ogretur. Midlertidig opphold for kosovoflyktninger.ISF report 2002:008Jan-Paul Brekke, 2004. While we are waiting.Uncertainty and empowerment among asylumseekers in Sweden. ISF report 2004:010Jan-Paul Brekke; The struggle for control. Theimpact of national control policies on the arrivalof asylum seekers to Scandinavia 1999 – 2004,ISF report 2004:013Bjørgo, Tore and Carlsson, Yngve and ThomasHaaland, 2001. Generalisert hat – polarisert fellesskap.Om konflikter mellom ungdomsmiljøer i ennorsk by. NIBR report 4-2001Carlsson, Yngve, 1995. Aksjonsplan Brummunddal– ga den resultater?: bekjempelse av fremmedfiendtlighet,vold og trakassering i lokalsamfunnet,NIBR report 1995Diakonhjemmets sosialhøgskole, Individuell fordypningsoppgave,Kandidat nr.3.47, 1996.Mens vi venter: om asylsøkere i mottakFladstad, Torunn, 1994. Hvis jeg hadde vært enfugl. Asylsøkere og flyktningebarn i statlige mottak.SEFOSAnne Halvorsen, Helge Hernes and May-LindaMagnussen, 2002. Århundrets sak på Evje.Hvordan kan etableringen av en ventetransittpåvirke lokalmiljøet, Project report 29/2002,AgderforskningHERO mottak og kompetanse AS, Håndbok forhåndtering av kriser og vanskelige situasjonerKnut Kjelstadli (ed), 2003. Norsk innvandringshistorie,Pax forlagOle-Jacob Kristensen and Kjell Spinnanger (eds.),1989. Arbeidstrening for flyktninger; erfaringer ogidéer fra Vennesla kommune. Vennesla innvandrerkontorKrogh, Hilde, 1994. To flyktningegruppers hverdagi en norsk kommune: Når vi kommer til et nytt landprøver vi å gripe håpet. ByggforskThe Ministry of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment 2002. Handlingsplan mot rasisme ogdiskriminering (2002-2006)The Ministry of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment, 2004. Stortingsmelding nr. 49(2003-2004). Mangfold gjennom inkluderingog deltakelse. Ansvar og frihetKirsten Lauritsen and Berit Berg, 1999.Mellom håp og lengsel. Å leve i asylmottak.SINTEF-rapportKirsten Lauritsen and Berit Berg, 2004. Med kursfor tverrkulturell kompetanse, Hordalandsmodellen.Hordaland fylkeskommuneLien, Inger-Lise, 2004. Ugripelig ung. Kriminalitetsforebyggingog gjengbekjempelse i innvandringsmiljøene;NIBR report 2004:14NOU 2004:20. Ny utlendingslovNorsk Folkehjelp and the UDI, 2004. Velkommenhit? En undervisningspakke for ungdomsskolen omfordommer, flukt og fellesskapRingeli, Heini, 1997. Fra mottak til integrering;noen tanker om utfordringer til de ansatte i detstatlige og kommunale mottaksapparatet for asylsøker.NOASRuud, Line M, 2000. Enslige mindreårige påasylmottakRagnhild Sollund, 1996. Asylmottaket – en totalinstitusjon? University of Oslo, Institute forCriminology37

The Directorate of Immigration, Holdningsskapendelokalsamfunnsarbeid, En håndbok fra UDI,1999The Directorate of Immigration, 2001. Rapport omrasisme og diskriminering i Norge 1999-2000The Directorate of Immigration, 2003. Rapport omrasisme og diskriminering i Norge 2001-2002The Directorate of Immigration, 2004. Veileder forbruk av tolk i mottakThe Directorate of Immigration, 2003. Reglementfor drift av statlig mottak. Gjeldende fra01.01.2004Vedi, Camilla in cooperation with Lagos, Ruth,1994. Når kommunikasjonen bryter sammen. Omflyktningers erfaring med det kommunale mottaksapparatet,FLY-prosjektet’s report no. 2, 1994Vollan, Sissel, 2000. Reiser i tid, rom og tegn;studie av ei gruppe vietnamesiske flyktningersførstemøte tre år i Norge med bakgrunn fra flukt ogtransittopphold, Oslo, UiOWanberg, Rune, 1992. Hvem er det som har ansvaretfor meg her? : Styringsforhold og målrealiseringved statlige asylmottakThe Directorate of Immigration, 2004. Kravsspesifikasjontil driftsreglementet38

Conversation guide with reception-centreAppendix 1employees and local-authority employees 41TOPIC: EXPERIENCES FROM THEENCOUNTER WITH THE LOCALCOMMUNITY1. Which types of local activity programmes arethere?2. Based on what you know, to what degree dothe reception-centre residents use local activityprogrammes?3. Based on what you know, are there groups ofreception-centre residents that use the localcommunity more than others?4. Based on what you know, which parts of thelocal community do the reception-centreresidents use?5. What relation do the reception-centre residentshave to the local community?6. To what extent is there interaction betweenthe reception-centre residents and the localcommunity?7. How did the local community accept the establishmentof the reception centre?8. What were the reasons for being positive/negative?9. What was the outcome of the acceptance/opposition to the reception centre?10. If the local community was negative to theestablishment, did the local authority or thereception centre initiate measures to improvethe relationship?11. What was the attitude of politicians and politicalparties to the establishment of the receptioncentre?12. How has the local community’s attitude to thereception centre developed since the establishment?13. What do you think explains this development?14. What do you think takes place in the encounterwith the reception-centre residents? Positiveexperiences/negative experiences? (Specificexamples/stories)15. If there have been positive/negative incidentsinvolving persons in the local community andthe reception-centre residents, who has beenthe initiator/the active party/taken the initiative?16. In which arenas does this occur?17. Are some reception-centre residents more“subjected” to positive/negative incidentsthan others?18. If there are some that are more “subjected”to positive/negative incidents than others, whatcharacterises them?19. If some people in the local community arepositive/negative to the reception centre orthe reception-centre residents, which are thereasons for this?Possible follow-up questions if the local authority/receptioncentre does not touch on theseissues. Are any of these conflicts due to othercauses than racism/discrimination/ethnicity?(Interpersonal relations)20. Which consequences do you think this mighthave for those subjected to this?21. Which consequences have the positive/negativeincidents (and any media exposure) had in thelocal community?22. Has there been any mention in the media ofthe good relations/positive incidents/conflictsbetween the reception-centre residents and thelocal population?Editorial material/letters to the editor?23. How are the media perceived?24. How do the local authority and the receptioncentre relate to the media?25. Do you think that positive/negative incidentsinvolving the local community while living ina reception centre have consequences whenbeing settled in a municipality?26. Has the local authority or the reception centreundertaken anything individually or together toprevent conflicts?27. If there have been negative incidents, has thelocal authority or the reception centre addressedthem?28. Which measures should be launched accordingto you?29. What you do think is required to create goodrelations between minorities and the majorityin the local community?30. Have the reception-centre residents doneanything to make the local community morepositive to the reception centre/the receptioncentreresidents?31. If yes: What have they done?41 )This conversation guide is theone used during the interviewswith reception-centre employeesand local-authority employees.The reason we have chosen toappend this guide is that it isthe most comprehensive one. Itcomprises all the questions thatwere asked all the interviewedgroups, in addition to some thatwere asked only of this group.39

Appendix 2The municipalities and receptioncentres that were included in thestudy 4242 ) In each of these six municipalitieswe have conducted structuredgroup interviews with four informantgroups:1) Reception-centre residents2) Reception-centre and localauthorityemployees3) The local population4) Settled immigrantsAsylmottakMysen statlig mottak for asylsøkereBondelagets Folkehøgskole1850 MysenKommuneEidsberg kommuneOs statlig mottak for asylsøkere2550 Os i Østerdalen Os in ØsterdalenHusebyparkenStatlig mottak for asylsøkere4550 FarsundFarsund kommuneNustadboStatlig mottak for asylsøkere7530 MeråkerLødingenStatlig mottak for asylsøkereRådhusvn. 118551 LødingenÅlgård MottakssenterKongsgaten 14330 ÅlgårdMeråker kommuneLødingen kommuneGjesdal kommuneStatlig mottak for asylsøkere = State reception centre for asylum seekersMottakssenter = Reception centre40

Layout og produksjon:Mediehuset GAN September 2005 ISBN 82-427-0443-0More copies of this report can be ordered fromPostboks 8108 Dep, 0032 OsloEpost: bestilling@udi.noTelefax: 23 35 15 08UtlendingsdirektoratetPostboks 8108 Dep.0032 OsloLocation:Hausmannsgate 21OsloTlf: 23 35 15 00Fax: 23 35 15 01www.udi.no