Claims to a nation, dressing the part and other boundary making strategies by skilled migrants in response to ethnic categorization

This article is about self-defined social identities, other people's perceptions of us and the potentially conflictual relationship between these two. Building on a Barthian focus on group boundaries, the article takes the interplay between external categorizations and internal group definitions as its point of departure to examine how individuals negotiate the boundaries of their social identities. Based on a case study of skilled migrants with racialized ethnicities in Finland, I look at how they express their self-defined identity as well-to-do, skilled professionals in the face of contradicting categorizations of them as unskilled , lower-class migrant subjects. I identify two types of complementary approaches employed by the skilled migrants in boundary making strategies to their identity negotiations: those de-emphasizing ethnicity (or its importance), and those emphasizing class status. These approaches are two sides of the same coin; coming from different perspectives, they both aim at a more positively viewed identity, and for individuals to be seen as well-to-do, educated, working professionals, rather than as ethnic migrant subjects. As such, the article also highlights the interconnection of class and ethnicity for the social identities of skilled migrants in Finland.This article is about self-defined social identities, other people’s perceptions of us and the potentially conflictual relationship between these two. Building on a Barthian focus on group boundaries, the article takes the interplay between external categorizations and internal group definitions as its point of departure to examine how individuals negotiate the boundaries of their social identities. Based on a case study of skilled migrants with racialized ethnicities in Finland, I look at how they express their self-defined identity as well-to-do, skilled professionals in the face of contradicting categorizations of them as un-skilled, lower-class migrant subjects. I identify two types of complementary approaches employed by the skilled migrants in boundary making strategies to their identity negotiations: those de-emphasizing ethnicity (or its importance), and those emphasizing class status. These approaches are two sides of the same coin; coming from different perspectives, they both aim at a more positively viewed identity, and for individuals to be seen as well-to-do, educated, working professionals, rather than as ethnic migrant subjects. As such, the article also highlights the interconnection of class and ethnicity for the social identities of skilled migrants in Finland.Peer reviewe

Do early interventions prevent PTSD? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of early interventions after sexual assault

Objective: To review the safety and efficacy of early interventions after sexual assault in reducing or preventing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Method: Systematic searches were performed on studies (1980–2018) that examined the efficacy of interventions for PTSD within 3 months after sexual assault. Results: The review identified 7 studies (n = 350) with high risk of bias that investigated 5 interventions. Only two studies reported on safety. Contact with the authors of six studies provided no indications for the occurrence of adverse events. Two studies reported the efficacy using PTSD diagnosis as dependent variable but found no difference between groups. All studies reported on efficacy using PTSD severity as dependent variable. For the meta-analysis, 4 studies (n = 293) were included yielding significantly greater reductions of PTSD severity than standard care at 2 to 12 months follow-up (g = −0.23, 95% CI [−0.46, 0.00]), but not at 1 to 6 weeks post-intervention (g = −0.28, 95% CI [−0.57, 0.02]). The heterogeneity of the interventions precluded further analyses. Discussion: Findings suggest that early interventions can lead to durable effects on PTSD severity after sexual assault. However, due to limited availability of data, it is impossible to draw definite conclusions about safety and efficacy of early interventions, and their potential to prevent PTSD

Veiled Muslim women's views on law banning the wearing of the niqab (face veil) in public

In August 2018, Denmark became the latest European country to ban the wearing of the niqab (face veil) in public. Indeed, several European countries such as France, Belgium and Austria have already imposed a national ban on the wearing of the niqab in public on the grounds that it is a 'threat' to gender equality, integration and national security. While the wearing of the niqab has elicited a good deal of media, political and public debates, little attention has been paid to the opinions of Muslim women who wear it. Drawing on individual and focus group interviews with Muslim women who wear the niqab in the United Kingdom (UK), this article places at the centre of the debate the voices of those women who do wear it and, under the lens of Critical Race Feminism, explores their views on legislation banning the wearing of the niqab in public

Adult Social Work and High Risk Domestic Violence Cases

Summary This article focuses on adult social work’s response in England to high-risk domestic violence cases and the role of adult social workers in Multi-Agency Risk and Assessment Conferences. (MARACs). The research was undertaken between 2013-2014 and focused on one city in England and involved the research team attending MARACs, Interviews with 20 adult social workers, 24 MARAC attendees, 14 adult service users at time T1 (including follow up interviews after six months, T2), focus groups with IDVAs and Women’s Aid and an interview with a Women’s Aid service user. Findings The findings suggest that although adult social workers accept the need to be involved in domestic violence cases they are uncertain of what their role is and are confused with the need to operate a parallel domestic violence and adult safeguarding approach, which is further, complicated by issues of mental capacity. MARACS are identified as overburdened, under-represented meetings staffed by committed managers. However, they are in danger of becoming managerial processes neglecting the service users they are meant to protect. Applications The article argues for a re-engagement of adult social workers with domestic violence that has increasingly become over identified with child protection. It also raises the issue whether MARACS remain fit for purpose and whether they still represent the best possible response to multi-agency coordination and practice in domestic violence

A qualitative study into the perceived barriers of accessing healthcare among a vulnerable population involved with a community centre in Romania

(1) Interview guide for family members, and (2) Interview guide for staff members. (DOCX 103 kb

Handbook on European Data Protection Law

Our societies are becoming ever more digitised. The pace of technological developments and how personal data are being processed affects each of us every day and in all sorts of ways in the light of these changes. Legal frameworks of the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe that safeguard the protection of privacy and personal data have recently been reviewed. Europe is at the forefront of data protection worldwide. The EU’s data protection standards are based on Council of Europe Convention 108, EU instruments – including the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Directive for Police and Criminal Justice Authorities – as well as on the respective case law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The data protection reforms carried out by the EU and the Council of Europe are extensive and at times complex, with wide-ranging benefits and impact on individuals and businesses. This handbook aims to raise awareness and improve knowledge of data protection rules, especially among non-specialist legal practitioners who have to deal with data protection issues in their work. The handbook has been prepared by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), with the Council of Europe (together with the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights) and the European Data Protection Supervisor. It updates a 2014 edition and is part of a series of legal handbooks co-produced by FRA and the Council of Europe. We express our thanks to the data protection authorities of Belgium, Estonia, France, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Monaco, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for their helpful feedback on the draft version of the handbook. In addition, we express our appreciation to the European Commission’s Data Protection Unit and its International Data Flows and Protection Unit. We thank the Court of Justice of the European Union for the documentary support provided during the preparatory works of this handbook.European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europ

Ensuring the right to education for Roma children : an Anglo-Swedish perspective

Access to public education systems has tended to be below normative levels where Roma children are concerned. Various long-standing social, cultural, and institutional factors lie behind the lower levels of engagement and achievement of Roma children in education, relative to many others, which is reflective of the general lack of integration of their families in mainstream society. The risks to Roma children’s educational interests are well recognized internationally, particularly at the European level. They have prompted a range of policy initiatives and legal instruments to protect rights and promote equality and inclusion, on top of the framework of international human rights and minority protections. Nevertheless, states’ autonomy in tailoring educational arrangements to their budgets and national policy agendas has contributed to considerable international variation in specific provision for Roma children. As this article discusses, even between two socially liberal countries, the UK and Sweden, with their well-advanced welfare states and public systems of social support, there is a divergence in protection, one which underlines the need for a more consistent and positive approach to upholding the education rights and interests of children in this most marginalized and often discriminated against minority group

Mental health care for irregular migrants in Europe: Barriers and how they are overcome

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II), 2016

The second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) was conducted in 2016 by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) as a follow-up to the first survey on minorities´ and immigrants´ experiences of discrimination and criminal victimisation conducted by the Agency in 2008. The EU-MIDIS II survey collected information from 25,515 respondents from different ethnic minority and migrant backgrounds, including Roma, in all EU Member States (2016: EU-28 including the UK). The EU-MIDIS II sample is representative of the selected populations that were interviewed. The sample includes persons belonging to ethnic or national minorities, Roma and Russians, persons born outside the EU (first generation respondents) and persons with at least one parent born outside the EU (second generation respondents). All respondents were 16 years or older and had lived in a private household for at least 12 months before the interview. People living in institutional settings - for example, hospitals or prisons - were not interviewed. The selection of groups to be surveyed in each country was based on several criteria, including the size of the target population, the feasibility of surveying the target population in terms of cost and accessibility, the risk of certain groups experiencing ´racial´, ´ethnic´ or ´religious´ discrimination and victimisation, their vulnerability to the risk of social exclusion and, finally, comparability with previous FRA surveys. The target groups of the EU-MIDIS II survey are immigrants and descendants of immigrants from North Africa; immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Turkey; immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa; immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Asia and South Asia; new immigrants; Roma; members of the Russian minority. In Slovenia and Poland, people who immigrated to the EU in the last 10 years were included, regardless of country of origin. The fieldwork was conducted between September 2015 and September 2016 by Ipsos MORI under the supervision of FRA staff who monitored compliance with strict quality control procedures. The questionnaire includes questions on perceived discrimination in various areas, such as employment, education, housing, health and in the use of public or private services. It also covers police checks, criminal victimisation (including hate crime), and awareness of rights and of institutions that provide victim support. In addition, respondents were asked about issues of social participation and integration, including trust in public institutions and the degree of attachment to the country in which they live.1. Household information and child grid: number of persons living in the household; age; sex; employment situation; form of employment (full-time, part-time); year of migration; number of citizenships; respondent has the citizenship of the survey country; other country citizenship(s); year in which country citizenship was obtained; highest level of completed education; years spent in education; current attendance of school or vocational training; type of school or training currently attended; main reason for not continuing school; relationship to respondent 1 (household member only); household member has a roma background/ a russian background; work of household member in the last four weeks; child grid: regular attendance of childcare; current school attendance; attendance of special school; main reasons for choosing this school; amount of Roma classmates; did the child do any work in the last 4 weeks; kind of work; hours the child works per week; paid work; housing and living standard: number of rooms in accommodation; housing tenure (own or rent); facilities in accommodation (e.g. tap water, a kitchen, indoor toilet, etc.); household can afford to keep its home adequately warm; problems with accommodation (e.g. it is too dark, leaking roof or damp walls, etc.). 2. Rights awareness, perceptions and attitudes: attitudes: level of attachment to the neighborhood, to the village, town or city, to the country; to the survey country, and to the European Union; self-identification ( European, survey country national, Roma/Russian,/country national of country of birth, country national of country of birth of mother and father; Perceptions of discrimination: extend of discrimination on different grounds in the country based on skin colour, ethnic origin or immigrant background, religion or religious beliefs; awareness of support organisations to people who have been discriminated against; awareness of equality bodies in the country; Right awareness: awareness of anti-discrimination law in the country; awareness of anti-discrimination campaigns in the past 12 months in the country; awareness of the Dost! Campaign – ‘Go beyond stereotypes, meet the Roma’; frequency of worry about experiencing harassment when out in public; avoidance of certain places for fear of being treated badly. 3. Employment: Unemployment: year when last in work; last job or occupation; currently registered as unemployed; currently looking for work; main reasons for not looking for work; ever looked for work in the country in the past 5 years; experiences of discriminatory job adverts in the country in the past 5 years; experiences of discrimination when looking for work in the past 5 years; date of last experience of discrimination because of ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background when looking for work; number of experiences of discrimination when looking for work in the past 12 months; main reasons for last experience of discrimination; person or institution to whom the incident was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint; reasons for non-reporting; at work: current job or occupation; kind of employment contract in main job; having employees; number of employees; correspondence between current job and level of education; average number of working hours per week in the main job; experiences of discrimination at work in the past 5 years; specific experiences of discrimination at work because of ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background (e.g. given tasks below qualifications, not allowed to join a trade union, etc.); date of last experience of discrimination at work; number of experiences of discrimination at work in the past 12 months; main reasons for last experience of discrimination at work; person or institution to whom the incident was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint; reasons for non-reporting. 4. Discrimination: Health: subjective assessment of own health condition; longstanding illness or health problems; limitation in daily activities because of a health problem in the past 6 months; national basic health insurance currently covers the health care expenses; additional health insurance coverage; need of medical examination or treatment in the past 12 months; unmet need for medical examination or treatment in the past 12 months; main reason why the respondent did not have a medical examination or treatment; use of healthcare services in the past 5 years; experiences of discrimination when using healthcare services in the past 5 years; date of last experience of discrimination when using healthcare services because of ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background; number of experiences of discrimination when using healthcare services in the past 12 months; main reasons for last experience of discrimination when using healthcare services; last time the respondent felt discriminated against because of ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background; person or institution to whom the incident was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint; reasons for non-reporting; Housing: trying to rent or buy an apartment or a house in the country in the past 5 years; experiences of discrimination when trying to buy an apartment or a house; specific experiences of discrimination because of ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background (e.g. prevented from renting); number of experiences of discrimination in the past 5 years; main reasons for last experience of discrimination; person or institution to whom the incident was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint; reasons for non-reporting; Education: highest level of education completed in the country; highest level of education completed in another country; country in which level was completed; current attendance of school or vocational training; type of school/ training; completed years of schooling in total in any country; parent or guardian of child(ren) within national compulsory school age range; contacts with persons from school attended by child(ren) in the past 5 years; experiences of discrimination when in contact with school authorities in the country; specific experiences of discrimination because of ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background; date of last experience; number of experiences; main reasons for last experience of discrimination; person or institution to whom the incident was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint; reasons for non-reporting; children’s experiences of discrimination in school because of their ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background; Other services: use of different services in the country in the past 5 years; experiences of discrimination when using different services in the past 5 years and in the past 12 months; reporting of incidents in these situations; person or institution to whom discrimination in education was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint for discrimination in education; reasons for non-reporting discrimination in education; person or institution to whom discrimination in night club, bar, restaurant or hotel was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint for discrimination in night club, bar, restaurant or hotel; reasons for non-reporting discrimination in night club, bar, restaurant or hotel; person or institution to whom discrimination at administrative offices or public services war reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint for discrimination at administrative offices or public services; reasons for non-reporting; person or institution to whom discrimination in public transport was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint for discrimination in public transport; reasons for non-reporting; person or institution to whom discrimination in a shop was reported; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint for discrimination in a shop; reasons for non-reporting; awareness of experiences of discrimination among friends and family in the past 12 months; Corruption: experiences of being asked or expected to pay bribe to government officials in the country in the past 5 years; type of official involved with last experiences of being asked or expected to pay bribe; Police stops: experiences of being stopped, searched or questioned by police in the country in the past 5 years and in the past 12 months; context where last experience of being stopped, searched or questioned by police happened; last experience of being stopped related to ethnic or immigrant background; police requests during the last experience of being stopped; degree of respect shown by police during the last experience of being stopped; reporting disrespectful treatment by police; experiences of physical assault by police in the country in the past 5 years and in the past 12 months; reporting last incident of physical assault by police; reasons for non-reporting. 5. Victimisation: frequency of experiences of harassment in the country in the past 5 years; frequency of specific experiences of harassment related to ethnic or immigrant background in the country in the past 5 years and in the past 12 months; last incident of harassment related to ethnic or immigrant background among those mentioned; identity of perpetrator of last incident of harassment; ethnic background of perpetrator of last incident of harassment; reporting last incident of harassment and person or institution to whom the incident was reported; reasons for non-reporting; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint by police; reporting any incident of harassment related to ethnic or immigrant background in the past 5 years and institution to whom the incident was reported. Experiences of violence: frequency of experiences of violence in the country in the past 5 years; frequency of experiences of violence related to ethnic or immigrant background in the country in the past 5 years and in the past 12 months; identity and ethnic background of perpetrator of last incident of violence; reporting last incident of violence and person or institution to whom the incident was reported; reasons for non-reporting; degree of satisfaction with handling of complaint by police; reporting any incident of violence in the past 5 years and institution to whom the incident was reported; awareness or experiences of violence among friends and family because of ethnic minority background in the past 12 months. 6. Societal participation: residence and status: reasons for coming to the country; experiences of not having a valid residence permit; applied for country citizenship in the past; outcome of country citizenship application; reasons for not applying for country citizenship; wish to apply for country citizenship in the future; close family (husband, wife, children) living outside the country; applied for family reunification in the past; outcome of family reunification application; main reason for not applying for family reunification; experiences of living in other countries for more than 3 months, mention of those other countries; possibility of moving to another country in the future; country to which might move in the future; reasons for wanting to live in another country; Participation and group relations: religion; use of traditional or religious clothes different from those typically worn in the country; extent of self-identification as Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.; only Muslim women: use of headscarf or niqāb outside the house; experiences of victimization related to wearing a headscarf or niqab in the past 12 months, again all: main language(s) spoken at home; self-assessment of proficiency in country language(s) as regards to speaking, reading and writing; attendance of a country language course; main reasons for not attending a country language course; Intergroup relations: friends who are of another ethnic minority background, who do not have a minority background, who have a different religion; amount of residents in the neighbourhood of the same ethnic or immigrant background/ Roma background/ ethnic minority background as the respondent; Comfort scales about having neighbours with different backgrounds; comfort scales about member of family marrying someone with different backgrounds; comfort scales about acceptance of using physical violence in specific situations; Trust and values: extent of agreement with value statements on gender equality; trust in institutions; Active citizenship: Extent of interest in politics; actions with political connotations taken in the past 12 months; vote in the last local and national elections in the country or country of citizenship; types of help or support received in the country from a public institution or NGO because of ethnic or immigrant background; respondents belonging to the target group of Roma: assistance of a health mediator when going to the doctor; assistance of a Roma teaching assistant at school for children in the household. 7. Socio-economic background: current marital status; age at (first) marriage; Income: types of income obtained by the household in the past 12 months; main source of income of the household; goods obtained in exchange for work in the past 12 months; remittances sent or brought to family members, relatives or friends llving in the country of birth; Poverty: ability of the household to make ends meet; possession of a bank account; ability of the household to afford certain expenses; inability to pay costs on time in the last 12 months due to financial difficulties; items possessed in the household; unmet need of different items; frequency of food deprivation in the last month. 8. Information about the locations by the interviewer: description of the place where the household lives; entry phone system or locked gate/ door before reaching the door of the target respondent(s); household living in an area that is ethnically segregated. 9. Interviewer questionnaire: financial or other incentive for the interview; location and situation during the interview: place of interview; respondent alone during the interview; persons present during the interview; parts of the questionnaire with presence or participation of other people; respondent’s command of country language; language of the interview; use of translated tools; type of uses translated tool; respondent’s cooperation; respondent’s understanding of questions; reasons for misunderstandings; respondent’s interest in the topics; respondent’s honesty; number of persons selected for the interview in the household; country of birth (immigrants and their descendants); country of birth (recent immigrants); country of birth of mother and father; household and child grid has been completed by the first person selected for the interview; household respondent. Additionally coded: country of interview; degree of urbanisation; type of interview (household interview, location interview); target group; number of completed interviews; sex and ethnicity of the interviewer; country; taget group; weigthing factors; age imputation status; age groups; household type, highest achieved education anywhere, self-declared main activity status; paid work in the last 4 weeks; country and target group; aggregate target groups; respondent ID; household ID; at risk of poverty after social transfers; prevalence of harassment (reasons) in 5 years before the survey; experiences of physical attack in the 5 years before the survey (out of all victims of physical attack); stopped by the police in the past 5 years; last police stop, search or questions because of ethnic or immigrant background, in the past 5 years; several variables on experiences of discrimination because of skin colour, ethnic origin, religion; reported to made a complaint about the last incident of discrimination because of skin colour, ethnic origin, religion; residence and citizenship status; imputation indicator; monthly income in income bands. Derived variables: number of completed interviews in this household; respondent (categorises the respondent into one of four categories - 1st respondent interviewed, 2nd respondent interviewed, HH member - eligible and HH member - not eligible .1st respondent 2nd respondent HH member - eligible HH member - not eligible); generation: first or second generation migrant; HH member categorised as an adult or a child.Die zweite Erhebung der Europäischen Union zum Thema Minderheiten und Diskriminierung (EU-MIDIS II) wurde 2016 von der Agentur der Europäischen Union für Grundrechte (FRA) als Folgemaßnahme zur ersten Erhebung über die Erfahrungen von Minderheiten und Zuwanderern mit Diskriminierung und krimineller Viktimisierung durchgeführt, die die Agentur 2008 durchgeführt hatte. Die EU-MIDIS-II-Erhebung sammelte Informationen von 25.515 Befragten mit unterschiedlichem ethnischen Minderheiten und Migrationshintergrund, einschließlich Roma, in allen EU-Mitgliedstaaten (2016: EU-28 einschließlich des Vereinigten Königreichs). Die EU-MIDIS II-Stichprobe ist repräsentativ für die ausgewählten Bevölkerungsgruppen, die befragt wurden. Die Stichprobe umfasst Personen, die ethnischen oder nationalen Minderheiten, Roma und Russen angehören, sowie Personen, die außerhalb der EU geboren wurden (Befragte der ersten Generation) und Personen, bei denen mindestens ein Elternteil außerhalb der EU geboren wurde (Befragte der zweiten Generation). Alle Befragten waren 16 Jahre oder älter und haben mindestens 12 Monate vor der Befragung in einem Privathaushalt gelebt. Personen, die in institutionellen Einrichtungen - zum Beispiel in Krankenhäusern oder Gefängnissen - leben, wurden nicht befragt. Die Auswahl der zu befragenden Gruppen in den einzelnen Ländern erfolgte auf der Grundlage mehrerer Kriterien, darunter die Größe der Zielpopulation, die Durchführbarkeit einer Erhebung bei der jeweiligen Zielpopulation im Hinblick auf Kosten und Erreichbarkeit, das Risiko bestimmter Gruppen, ´rassisch´, ´ethnisch´ oder ´religiös´ motivierte Diskriminierung und Viktimisierung zu erfahren, ihre Anfälligkeit für das Risiko sozialer Ausgrenzung und schließlich die Vergleichbarkeit mit früheren FRA-Erhebungen. Die Zielgruppen der EU-MIDIS-II-Erhebung sind Zuwanderer und Nachkommen von Zuwanderern aus Nordafrika; Zuwanderer und Nachkommen von Zuwanderern aus der Türkei; Zuwanderer und Nachkommen von Zuwanderern aus Afrika südlich der Sahara; Zuwanderer und Nachkommen von Zuwanderern aus Asien und Südasien; Neuzuwanderer; Roma; Mitglieder der russischen Minderheit. In Slowenien und Polen wurden Personen, die in den letzten 10 Jahren in die EU eingewandert sind, unabhängig vom Herkunftsland einbezogen. Die Feldarbeit wurde zwischen September 2015 und September 2016 von Ipsos MORI durchgeführt unter der Aufsicht von FRA-Mitarbeitern, die die Einhaltung strenger Qualitätskontrollverfahren überwachten. Der Fragebogen enthält