Italian Report

Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection Italian Report 2009-2010
EUROPEAN PROJECT EVASP
Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection
Italian Report 2009-2010

This report, produced under the auspices of the transnational EVASP project and co-financed with
ERF funds, was created by a team within the IOM Psychosocial and Cultural Integration Unit.
Researchers – Novita Amadei and Orso Muneghina

Report drafted by – Novita Amadei
Project Coordinator – Orso Muneghina
Technical Supervisors – Natale Losi, Guglielmo Schininà and Rossella Celmi
Translation from Italian to English: Salim Catrina
In particular, we’d like to thank the Italian Ministry of Interior, the prefectures and the organizations
running the asylum seekers’ reception centres of Bari Palese, Borgo Mezzanone (Foggia), Gradisca
d’Isonzo (Gorizia), Restinco (Brindisi), Syracuse and Salinagrande (Trapani) and on Via Alimena in
Rome for their accessibility and valuable collaboration, as well as all centre personnel and asylum
seekers who, with their first person accounts, made our work possible.
3
This document was produced with the financial contribution of the European Commission and the Italian Ministry of
Interior.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European
Commission, the Italian Ministry of Interior or IOM.

The sole responsibility for this publication therefore lies with the authors, and the European Commission, the Italian
Ministry of Interior and IOM are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the paper do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its
authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an
intergovernmental body, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to:
assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration;
advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration;
uphold the human dignity and well‐being of migrants.

Publisher:
International Organization for Migration, MRF Rome ‐ Psychosocial and Cultural Integration Unit
Via Palestro 1, 00185
Rome, Italy

Tel.: +39 06 87420967

Email: psytraining@iom.int

Internet: http://www.iom.int

© [2010] International Organization for Migration (IOM)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

Images in this report: Copyright © IOM 2002
4
Executive Summary
This report contains the results of the research and working group conducted within the framework of
the European project EVASP, Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection, co-financed by the
European Commission under the auspices of the ERF programme. It was realized with the
contribution and participation of the Italian Ministry of Interior and implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM), the project leader.
The project lasted 18 months (15 December 2008 -15 June 2010), and was conducted simultaneously
in Italy, England, Greece and the Netherlands. Its aim was to produce a clearer definition of
“vulnerability” and in particular of “vulnerable asylum seeker,” to allow for more accurate needs
identification and provide the most appropriate assistance responses.
The study involved a sample of beneficiaries and caseworkers at Italian asylum seeker and refugees
receptions centres (CARA) and employed qualitative research tools such as individual semi-
structured interviews, focus groups, active observation and roundtable discussion.
The concept of vulnerability is examined here in its structural factors - specifically at the legislative,
temporal/spatial level and functional levels - and from the dual perspective of the beneficiaries
(specifically vulnerable asylum seekers) and reception centre personnel.
In identifying the needs of the two sample groups, the study offers a dynamic reflection on
vulnerability that sheds light on specific critical issues common to asylum seekers and caseworkers
that have implications on several levels : (psychological-autobiographical, socio-cultural, and
structural).
In addition to presenting the factors that compose the definition of vulnerability, this paper also
explores existent and potential measures to address the problem, considering the solutions an
integral part of any systemic and multifactor definition.
5
CONTENTS
I. Introduction, p. 7
Project EVASP, Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection, p. 8
Research tools, p. 9
II. Vulnerable Systems, p. 12

Some Preliminary Considerations, p. 13
Legislative level, p. 15
Spatial/Temporal Level, p. 24
Functional level, p. 31
III. Vulnerable Persons? p. 49

Personnel and beneficiaries, p. 50
Adaptations and reactions, p. 53
IV. A dynamic look at vulnerability, p. 56

Opinions around the table, p. 57
Vulnerable people or factors of vulnerability? p. 59
V. Conclusions, p. 62
Proof of Vulnerability, p. 63
Migration and Vulnerability, p. 64
In Conclusion, p. 67
VI. Glossary, p. 69
VII. Bibliography, p. 70
Appendix 1. Semi-structured questions for beneficiaries, p.74

Appendix 2. Questions for the beneficiary focus group, p. 77
Appendix 3. Semi-structured questions for caseworkers, p. 79
Appendix 4. Questions for the caseworker focus group, p. 82
6
I. INTRODUCTION
7
Project EVASP, Enhancing Vulnerable

Asylum Seekers Protection
EVASP is a transnational project co-financed by the European Commission under the auspices of the
(European Refugee Fund) ERF programme, and was carried out with the contribution and
participation of the Italian Ministry of Interior. Implemented by the International Organization for
Migration (IOM), which acted as project leader, EVASP aimed to analyze European policies and
measures related to the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers and the reception and support
processes available to them through first reception centres. This project focused in particular on the
responses and treatment provided for the psychological needs of vulnerable asylum seekers, in an
attempt to reinforce, at the same time, the capacities and skills of professionals working in the sector.
EVASP is a action research project that, on one hand, aims to broaden specific theoretical
knowledge on practices in related field of experience (in this case, the practice of reception centres
in assisting and supporting vulnerable asylum seekers) and on the other hand observes the
experience of social actors in the field to introduce improvements to those practices (the “action”
component of the study).
The EVASP action research project aims to define the concept of vulnerability and the needs of
vulnerable asylum seekers to then be able to offer recommendations for more appropriate
admission and treatment.
Starting from a systemic and multidisciplinary analysis of European, national and local-level
experience in reception, support and treatment of psychosocial vulnerabilities, the project in Italy
included research missions in asylum seeker reception centers (CARA) in Bari Palese, Borgo
Mezzanone (Foggia), Restinco (Brindisi), Syracuse and Salinagrande (Trapani), and on Via Alimena in
Rome. The research tools – individual, semi-structured interviews and focus groups – were tested in
the CARA at Restinco (Brindisi) and adapted along the way based on the characteristics of the
context and the interview sample.
Field research was followed by a working group roundtable meeting between representatives from
the above-mentioned reception centres. The working group offered a valuable opportunity to
interface and network with colleagues from several centres and diverse professional profiles whose
goal it was to find a common set of challenges and possibilities in an occupation that is similar
8
although practiced in different territorial and regional contexts.
The results of the project are part of a debate on identification, reception and admission policies for
vulnerable asylum seekers and contribute to the critical analysis of the intervention practices of
administrations, services, and territorial caseworkers. Therefore, EVASP can serve as a support tool for
local projects and a means for the widespread diffusion of best practices. Moreover, the initiative
inspires new interpretations and reflections on the vulnerability of exile to promote comprehensive
treatment for new arrivals and a critical reassessment of reception centres.
Through a partnership with the University of Essex – Centre for Trauma, Asylum and Refugees
(England), the Medical Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims (Greece) and Defence for
Children/Ecpat International (Netherlands), four parallel EVASP projects were conducted in Italy,
Greece, Netherlands and England. Partners collaborated to create a common protocol and data
collection methodology, allowing the various participating countries to share and compare data,
which is contained in the transnational final report.
Exchange between the various European partners and their respective national representatives was
facilitated by periodic meetings, the publication of four e-newsletters, the creation of a specific web
site and an on-line resource centre1.
Research Tools
The study focused on factors of psychosocial vulnerability in asylum seekers and in particular on the
coping mechanisms put in use by this population which can either be favoured or hindered by
reception facilities. Consequently, the investigation involved sample groups of beneficiaries and
CARA personnel, to compile and compare different perspectives on the same phenomenon in a
unitary and systemic framework.
To reveal the subjective perception of vulnerability, the study used qualitative methods such as semi-
structured interviews, focus groups and participant observation in reception centres. Observation
allowed researchers to highlight the influence of reception centres on interactions between
beneficiaries and caseworkers, as well as between CARA centres and the outside world. This
comparison allowed for a qualitative estimation of the importance of the facility’s legislative,
functional and spatial-temporal dimensions in reinforcing or reducing psychosocial difficulties in
1 For more information on all project publications, consult the web site: http://www.evasp.eu
9
beneficiaries or caseworkers.
The access of IOM researchers to the CARA centres was possible thanks to the authorization of the
Italian Ministry of Interior and through communication with the competent prefectures on whose
territory the centres were located. Visits were scheduled directly with the organizations contracted to
manage the CARA.
Participant observation activities at the centers – which lasted two consecutive days for each facility
– allowed researchers to create a description of each CARA including the specificities of the local
context in which it was located. This illustration provided a backdrop for the observations of
beneficiaries, staff and directors from the contracted organizations.
Individual, semi-structured interviews and focus groups – each lasting roughly an hour and a half –
were conducted at the CARA centres (usually in the administrative offices or in common areas).
Focus groups with staff included between 5 to 10 participants and involved a variety of professional
figures (reception workers, cleaning and maintenance workers, social workers, psychologists,
administrators, etc.). With regard to beneficiaries, a diverse sample was assembled from various
moments in the asylum seeking process (asylum seeker, refugees, holders of humanitarian or
subsidiary protection status, those whose applications had been denied, and those involved in the
appeals process). The group included vulnerable as well as ordinary asylum seekers, as indicated by
centre personnel. Furthermore, the sample was comprised of beneficiaries from different countries of
origin, although they were almost exclusively African (Horn of Africa – in particular Somalia, Eritrea
and Sudan – and West Africa – especially Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon and Ivory Coast). Individuals from
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan were interviewed to a lesser extent.
At times, researchers also relied on cultural mediators, interpreters, translators or other beneficiaries
who facilitated communication during the interview. The majority of interviews, however, were
conducted directly by the researchers either in English or French.
Direct and indirect questions in individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups concentrated
on two main areas:
- the reception center (in the subjective view of the interviewee – beneficiary or caseworker): its
spatial-temporal dimensions, interpersonal and group dynamics and its relationship with the outside
world;
- the concept of vulnerability (directly or indirectly with questions related to the perception of self,
10
safety and health)2.
A round table meeting was held between the field research phase and the subsequent training
phase3. Representatives from the reception centers in Bari Palese, Borgo Mezzanone (Foggia),
Gradisca d’Isonzo (Gorizia), Restinco (Brindisi), Salinagrande (Trapani), and Via Alimena in Rome
participated in the day-long event. Participants – an average of three from each CARA centre –
were, for the most part, from the psychological, social and educational sectors, and to a lesser
extent from the legislative, cultural-linguistic mediation and administrative sectors. Including IOM
representatives, the overall number of participants was 26.
Through individual narrative and analytical activities in small groups and together as a whole
(included in appendix 5) the working group invited participants to reflect on three issues:
- the meanings of vulnerability in asylum seekers;
- support and treatment for asylum seekers;
- educational needs of caseworkers.
The material that emerged from the working group is contained in Chapter IV, which provides a first
definition of the concept of vulnerability. This chapter follows the two analytical sections of the
report. The second chapter, “Vulnerable Systems,” considers the structural factors of vulnerability that
are inherent to the CARA centres, through analysis of the legislative, spatial-temporal level and
functional levels (in the interests of clarity, these levels are presented separately though they are
actually systematically linked to each other). Chapter III, “Vulnerable People,” is a close examination
of the factors of vulnerability which hamper interaction between beneficiaries and caseworkers.
The analyses presented in chapters II ad III, lead to a final reflection on the concept of vulnerability
and an analysis of its phenomenological, socio-cultural and structural dimensions from the triple
perspective of the vulnerable person, the institution and society.
The observations cited in quotation marks in the report were transcribed from researcher’s notes. In
the interest of confidentiality and privacy, none of the names or any other indentifying data
regarding interviewees are provided.
2 The questions used in both research tools are located in the appendices: the semi-structured interviews and the focus groups
with asylum seekers are found in appendices 1 and 2; questions from the semi-structured interviews and focus groups with
caseworkers are found in appendices 3 and 4.
3 The round table or working group is a tool designed to promote a group decisional process to yield a consensus decision
(the expression of an agreement between the majority and minority of participants). Discussion on the theme should produce
one or more proposals, preferably through consensus. Each round table, in fact, is centered on a problem defined prior to the
beginning of the meeting, and of which participants have been informed ahead of time. The round table consists of two main
moments: the first in which the facilitator presents the argument and defines the problem and the second in which the debate
takes place, more or less guided by ad hoc activities.
11
II. VULNERABLE SYSTEMS

12
Some preliminary considerations
In observing migratory flows, one notes a progressive detachment in the correspondence between
birth and nationality, between territory and social, religious and political identification, between the
State and human rights. Birth no longer immediately relates to a nation, just like human rights do not
necessarily coincide with those of the citizens of a state. Asylum seekers are on one hand citizens of
the world, and on the other are non-citizens; they are Hannah Arendt’s superfluous people4, whose
very presence disrupts the continuity between man and citizen.
The asylum seeker, in fact, is no longer a citizen of the country from which he or she has fled - which is
often also the country of origin - and is not yet a citizen of the country of asylum, which is not always
the country in which the migratory journey concludes. Moreover, other transit countries are involved
between departure and arrival, in which migrants may spend long periods of time without rights of
citizenship or residence (forced migration can lead to protracted migratory journeys, organized as
the migrant goes along, with whatever means are available).
In the so-called “society of individuals” – the foundation of contemporary philosophy and social
science,5 asylum seekers are the opposite, the masses, for whom specific, identifiable spaces are
reserved and established ad hoc for every step of the administrative-legal process, to provide for
scenarios of treatment, refusal or acceptance. These structures are usually closed spaces, equipped
more or less appropriately or summarily. Created for fixed periods of time, usually to address
situations of emergency, they take on an indefinite character. The CARA centres investigated in this
study mirror these same characteristics, and as spaces they are radically discordant from the cities
near which they are located. Former juvenal detention facilities or military zones, some CARA centres
were created as emergency centres which then lasted for years, still offering accommodation in
containers or in tents with precarious hygienic conditions.
Although the law now provides for free entrance and exit from CARAs – called “centres by the staff
and “camps” by the immigrants – many beneficiaries prefer to remain inside the facility. In fact, the
city represents the ultimate place of employment, money and exchange, a place of legal and real
citizenship, of birth and language and from which the asylum seekers are excluded as they await a
decision on their application. “I have no money of my own to spend,” says one Sudanese
beneficiary, “I can’t go into town because I’d have to just stay there and watch people spend
money in the bars and shops. I’d rather go to the beach and watch the sea.”
4 Arendt H., The origins of totalitarianism, Edizioni di Comunità, Milan 1967.

5 The social philosophy of the 1800s baptized individualism as the egotistical ideology of the bourgeoisie. In the 1900s the
opposite perception prevailed, an analytical attitude that was more cognicent of the nexus between individualism and the
processes of modernization. The individualist behavior that characterized modern society sparked contradictory reactions, of
agreement and rejection, while the choice of remaining true to oneself and defending the value of each individual assumed
an ethical importance. Rehabilitation of the individual in social sciences and moral and contemporary political philosophy
specifies a distinction between the various figures of individualism (possessive, expressive, libertarian, neo-liberal, etc.), which in
addition to the defence of fundamental individual rights threatened by institutional powers and universal idealities, also
registers an awareness of the existing link between the formation of a distinct and original personality and the relationship to
the universe of historic and natural relationships. These problem areas span the social sciences and political and moral
philosophies of our time and involve social caseworkers as well, who are less and less able to rely on clear and shared
structures when addressing social and citizenship rights.
13
The city’s public and open spaces further highlight the disparities between residents and foreigners,
while the reception centre hides the asylum seeker and his or her illegitimate condition, in the
absence of citizenship. Even when they do frequent the public space of the city, asylum seekers
remain at the margins, performing irregular, undeclared work, or begging, prostituting themselves, to
getting drunk.
The principle that unites and describes the various types of camp6 is confinement and exclusion. The
camps respond to the objective of elimination in the etymological sense of the term, from Latin, “to
put out the door,” “to make leave.” Even where the facility is one that allows free entrance and exit,
the camp is a place of isolation, of removal, of disappearance from the social body on the part of
those individuals considered undesired or suspicious, if not dangerous from a political, economic or
social point of view. Obtaining refugee status or a residence permit are the long term conditions that
allow for exit from these places and an initial requisition of rights and individual autonomy.
The particular condition of the camps and their residents, who find themselves on the inside and on
the outside at the same time, within the territory of the state but temporarily outside of its ordinary
system, is described by Giorgio Agamben as the “state of exception.” 7 The power that camp
represents exerts an unconditioned dominion over the facility and its residents8, the existence of
which, stripped of every political statute and juridical right, is reduced to a body subject to political
strategies. The uncertainty of asylum procedures, lack of information and unpredictability of asylum
application times and commission response times, potential appeals, the uncertain prospects upon
exit from the centre, make the person even more fragile and dependent on the administrative
procedures and services (of which, moreover, the immigrant is often unaware or is unable to
autonomously take advantage of). This condition of impotence, frustration and sitting in judgment,
leads asylum seekers to describe themselves as “non-men,” “animals,” “beasts:” “We have no rights.
We are not human.”
In the scale of this study, the immediate effects of the sovereignty of the camp’s governing policies,
referred to by Arendt and Agamben, are broken down in a descriptive micro-social analysis of the
structures of the CARA centres. The CARAs are therefore considered, using Goffman’s theories, “total
or totalitarian institutions,” 9 that is, places in which groups of people excluded from society for a
considerable period of time who find themselves sharing a common situation, spending part of their
6 Historically “the camp” includes a variety of realities, like for example detention centres, identification centres, transfer
centres, work camps, concentration camps and extermination camps. The heterogeneity of the concept refers to the
function of the camp in the global economy of the political system that created it. Joël Kotek and Pierre Rigoulot (Century of
Concentration Camps, Mondadori, Milan 2001) identify six main functions, distinct but combinable: 1. In the interests of
prevention isolate individuals or groups considered suspicious or dangerous from civil society; 2. Punish can correct individuals
without ideas that do not conform with those of the state, using specific methods; 3. terrorize the civic populations, in order to
promote social control; 4. exploit unpaid work of individuals performing heavy labor; 5. reform society (as tools of ethnic or
social cleansing, camps indicate a totalitarian system and aim to train an elite destined for command); 6. eliminate, slowly or
quickly individuals judged harmful from a social or ethnic point of view.
7 Agamben G., Homo sacer, Einaudi, Turin 1995.
8 Access for third-parties to the CARA is dependent on authorization granted by the Ministry of Interior.
9 Goffman’s book, Asylums. Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates, comes before Foucault’s essay
on the “disciplinary institution” and appears for the first time in 1961.
14
lives in a closed or formally administrated regime. 10 In the institutions that present this structure, a
single bureaucratic authority manages significant groups of individuals address and manipulating
their needs, through bureaucratic administration.
The concept of “total institution” proposed by Goffman, in part comparable to Foucault’s

“disciplinary institution,” 11 describes a combination of structures analogous in their disciplinary and
normalizing functions, or power strategies to organize social relations so that the reactions of various
social groups become homogenous and predictable. The fundamental characteristics of this
context can be summarized, according to Goffman, in four aspects:
1) distance and isolation of the institution from the outside world;

2) limited contact between “detainees” and “overseers”;
3) bureaucratic function of the institution;
4) self-sufficiency of the institution that can address every need or request
Because subject cannot be reduced to places, the CARAs are observed here from the inside and in
the interpersonal dynamics between groups – the beneficiaries and personnel – in order to identify
the ideology and social function of the institution as well as the subjective contribution of each. The
very significance of the institution derives from the ability of subjects to think, observe and violate the
social system given, founding themselves, therefore, on a personal or social act. The total institution,
in fact, only partially cancels the identity and relational capacity of its residents who demonstrate
ingenious adaptation and resilience capacity, whereby they creative resources despite, or perhaps
because of, the limitations and adversities of the context.
The limitations and potential of the CARA are observed through the eyes of asylum seekers and
caseworkers to reconstruct a systemic framework of their interactions, the meaning that is attributed
to the institution and the methods implemented to face vulnerability and encourage each other’s
potential. In order to propose an accurate description of the centers, the structure of the CARA
centres will be describe in the following paragraphs according to three main levels: the normative,
functional and spatial-temporal, which, in the interest of clarity, although strongly interconnected
within the reality of the centre are examined here separately.
a. Legislative level
Italy began dealing with the issue of forced migration in the 1990s. Asylum seeker and refugee
reception was based on the activities of NGOs and associations, each acting independently to
provide room, board and clothing. With the war in the former Yugoslavia, a structure began to form
at the local level to coordinate the reception of refugees, among the third sector, individual families
and local agencies. It was after these experiences that the first, albeit fragmented, asylum legislation
Goffman E., Asylums. Le istituzioni totali: i meccanismi dell’esclusione e della violenza, Einaudi, Turin 2001, p.29.
10
11Della vasta produzione di Foucoult, il presente lavoro, farà riferimento in particolare all’opera Surveiller et Punir. Naissance
de la prison, pubblicato da Gallimard nel 1975.
15
was inserted into immigration law.
Before 1990, the rights of refugees were guaranteed exclusively to those who came from European
countries, specifically from Eastern Europe. With Law 39 of 1990 (known as the Martelli law),
geographic restrictions were abolished and the right to asylum was recognized for people of non-
European citizenship. In 1995 the Government passed the so-called “Puglia Law” which provided for
the opening of First Reception Centers (called CPAs) for foreign citizens arriving by sea on the
Apulian coastline. In 1998 the Turco-Napolitano law (N.40/1998) introduced Temporary Detention
Centers (CPT) for all foreign citizens “subject to exclusion and/or denial procedures where forcible
accompaniment to the borders is not immediately possible” (art. 12).
The Bossi-Fini Law of 2002 increased the severity of the Turco-Napolitano Law and reinforced it by
assigning province prefects the power of administrative expulsion. Upon the identification of an
irregular immigrant, the measure requires expulsion orders to be carried out immediately with
transport to the border by law enforcement. The 2002 law also substitutes a single international
protection evaluation commission with seven territorial commissions (increased to ten with legislative
decree 25/2008) and the institution of Identification Centers (CID) in which asylum seekers are held to
verify their identity, nationality or the validity of their asylum application.
The CIDs became CARA centres – Asylum Seeker Reception Centres– with legislative decree
25/2008. However, the facilities that house the CARA centres bear close resemblance with those of
the CIDs. In fact, the organizations contracted to run the CARAs, many of whom also ran the
Identification Centres, note great similarities between the two structures. Furthermore, in some cases,
CARAs serve unofficially as CIEs (Identification and Expulsion Centres – see below) and CDAs
(Reception Centres – see below).
According to article 20 of legislative decree 25/2008, asylum seekers cannot be held for the sole
purpose of examining their international protection applications, but only when they have
committed crimes or are in the midst of expulsion procedures (cases of detainment, article 21).
Accommodation in a reception center (cases of reception, article 20) is offered to asylum seekers
when: (a) the nationality or identity of the foreign citizen must be verified and the individual does not
possess travel or identification documents, or if false or falsified documents were presented upon
arrival in Italian territory; (b) the individual presented an application after being stopped for having
evaded or having attempted to evade border controls; (c) the individual filed the application after
having been arrested in conditions of irregular immigration status.
According to the legislation, upon admission to a CARA centre the migrant must be issued
16
information in his or her language (usually either English, French, Spanish or Arabic) on a series of
subjects including the law on detainment, migrant’s rights and obligations, asylum application
procedures, the timeline and means for including supplementary information in the application,
healthcare and reception services available within the center, voluntary assisted return procedures
as well as and contacts from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the
main international protection organizations (article 10).
Exclusively for the purposes of identification, the migrant is detained in the CARA for a period not
exceeding 20 days, up to 35 in some cases. Upon expiry of this reception period a temporary
residence permit is issued that is valid for three months and can be renewed up to the final decision
of the Commission regarding the international protection application. During the stay in the center,
and until the person obtains a regular residence permit, he or she is not legally allowed to work.
The CARA centres allow residents to leave the premises during the daytime hours. Furloughs for
longer periods of time are granted exclusively by the prefect based on verifiable and significant
personal health or family-related issues or for reasons pertaining to the international protection
application. The unjustified absence of an asylum seeker from the centre is grounds for termination of
reception and the territorial commission makes a decision on these cases based on the
documentation in their possession without summoning the interested party to the hearing.
Residents in CARA and CIE centres are allowed access to representatives from UNHCR and other
refugee and asylum seeker protection agencies with experience in the sector, through authorization
from the Ministry of Interior and after prior notification of the prefecture.
In addition to the CARAs, the Italian reception system for refugees and asylum seekers includes the
following other types of centres:
- Reception Centres (commonly referred to as CDAs, CPAs - First Reception Centres, or CSPAs -
First Assistance and Reception Centres) “are structures destined to guarantee a first assistance to
irregular foreign citizens found on the national territory.” The Ministry of Interior specifies that
reception in the centre is “strictly limited to the time needed to establish the identity and legitimacy
of the individual’s presence on the territory or to provide for expulsion.” Originally established by the
Puglia Law, CDAs serve as transit centres to host immigrants for a few days as they await transfer to
CARAs should they file an asylum application.
- Identification and Expulsion Centres (CIE), as indicated by the Ministry of Interior, are “the
former Temporary Detention Centres (CPT), the facilities created for detainment of irregular non-EU
17
foreign citizens who are awaiting expulsion, once it has been ordered by a judge.” These centers
“seek to avoid the scattering of irregular immigrants across the territory and to allow for law
enforcement to carry out expulsion orders issued for the irregular migrant.” In these centers, the
maximum term of stay for foreigners is “a total of 60 days” (an initial 30 days plus another 30 upon
request of the provincial police authority and upon issuance of an extension by the magistrate).
- Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees (SPRAR)12 centres. The beneficiaries
granted permission to stay on the national territory are hosted in an integrated network of centres
located throughout the country designed to provide secondary reception in support of integration.
As a multi-level, national and local system of governance, SPRARs (instituted under Law 189/200,
article 32) are a system of assistance, protection and integration projects promoted by local entities
through the creation of territorial networks (including non-governmental organizations in the sector,
as well as agencies and organisms with experience and skills in the social and production sectors).
National coordination of these projects is managed by the central service of the SPRAR which
provides information dissemination, promotion, consultancy, monitoring and technical support
services to local agencies and provides initial and continuing training for project staff. To maintain a
strong connection between periphery and centre and guarantee high standards of quality, the
central service manages the system database and works to make best practices from individual
contexts become part of a common and shared patrimony. The central service also coordinates the
admission and entrance of beneficiaries into territorial projects based on the available spaces, which
are established annually by decree of the Ministry of Interior. To this end, the office conducts real
time monitoring of availability in individual centres to swiftly insert beneficiaries into the facilities.
The international protection application is filed with border police or the competent provincial police
authority (form C/3). It is then reviewed and the applicant has a hearing before the international
protection recognition commission. In the case of a positive decision, i.e. recognition of refugee
status and eligibility for humanitarian or subsidiary protection, the beneficiary is issued a residence
permit and can enter the network of SPRAR secondary reception facilities.
Asylum seekers whose applications have been denied can appeal the commission’s decision within
30 days for guests in reception centers and 15 days for guests of detention centers. Access to pro
bono legal services for the appeal is decided by the Tribunal, which refuses the request when the
grounds for appeal are deemed unfounded. The immigrant receives a 3-month residence permit
during the appeal procedure.
12 The participation of local agencies in the SPRAR network is voluntary. In 2008 The Protection System counted 114 projects in
92 municipalities, 7 provinces and 19 regions, reaching a reception capacity of 2,541 places.
18
In the case of a denied appeal, the asylum seeker can file an official complaint with the appeals
court within 10 days of the decision. So-called “denied migrants” in the second and third phases of
judgment can remain in the centres until they receive a decision on the final appeal.
Denial procedures reveal several legislative contradictions, which create particular tensions among
Nigerian and West African asylum seekers whose applications are denied more frequently than those
of citizens from other countries. In the Bari Palese CARA, beneficiaries have raised the issue several
times, organizing peaceful protests and demonstrations. Below is a description of one peaceful
protest, held on June 4, 2009.
On June 4, 2009 a group of beneficiaries from Nigeria and West Africa (Mali, Ivory Coast, Cameroon,
Guinea Conakry, Burkina Faso, etc), staged a protest at the Bari Palese CARA in response to the
denial of their international protection applications by the commission in Bari. As a group of migrants
held a sit-in at the CARA entrance, other migrants marched along the perimeter of the facility,
supervised by military personnel. Centre management organized a meeting that afternoon with
representatives from the prefecture and the police immigration office.
The meeting was held in a prefabricated structure where the various nationalities were represented
by a spokesperson. The Nigerian group, the most numerous, was represented by 28-year-old S., a
lawyer who fled to Italy fearing for his own life after the murder of his father by political adversaries.
The following excerpt from the meeting provides an idea of the issues raised.
N1 – Nigerian representative: No man, no mentally stable man would leave his family and cross the
Sahara, if he knew the desert. No man of sound mind would cross the Mediterranean on a Zodiac.
Some of us spent four days on the sea [others interrupt saying how many days their trip lasted, ten,
five, seven…]. When the Italians came to our aid, we thought we were finally safe. The police had
saved us, we were sure of it. Why are you now giving us 15 days to leave? Why, if this is your law,
didn’t you leave us at sea? We are victims of your law. As opposed to the Somalis, Ethiopians and
the Eritreans, our cases are not even investigated. No son would leave his mother’s arms; no one
would traverse the desert and sea. We’ve seen people die and we’ll die too: here in Italy with no
security, no protection.
Prefecture: If your case follows the principles of the Geneva Convention, you can obtain status;
otherwise, you have to go through the Italian Embassy in Nigeria to apply for a regular travel
document.
19
N2 – Nigerian participant at the meeting: But in other commissions there have been cases of
Nigerians who obtained status. Here we’ve had nothing but denials.
Prefecture: We don’t know about those individual cases and the credibility of every story. We can
only bring up the issue and clarify it with the commission.
N1: There is a contradiction at the legal level. First of all, 15 days are not sufficient to present an
appeal, and lawyers have to be paid. If we, by law, can’t work, how can we pay a lawyer to take
our case? The city is full of my brothers who go out begging to pay their lawyers. I never went
begging in Nigeria and I won’t do it here.
N2: The lawyer for the appeal procedure costs €300-400. How can we pay that if we can’t even
work? The lawyer should be free, like they told us in Lampedusa.
Prefecture: For our part, we’ll assess whether the work of the Bari commission was correct and
followed the law, but we can’t go against the decisions of the commission because they are also
those of the Italian State. The only thing you can do to resolve this problem of the lawyers is to seek
out associations or non-governmental organizations that have a staff of lawyers who don’t require
payment until after the appeals process.
M – Representative of Mali: We escaped from difficult conditions and when we fled, we did not
gather proof of the threats against us, the reasons for our escape. When we arrived at the
commission, it was composed only of Italians and held in Italian and the interpreters didn’t even
translate correctly. The commission’s decision is even written in Italian. Then there’s the problem that
in case of a negative response, there isn’t enough time for the appeal, nor do we have the means to
pay the lawyer…
IC – Representative of the Ivory Coast: What can you do concretely to reduce the number of
denials?
N1: It would have been better if they’d left us in the water, rather than give us room, board, medical
attention and then slam the door in our faces. We trust the police, the camp director… We’re asking
you to speak on our behalf about these problems in the appropriate places.
Prefecture: We will take your requests to a higher level, but all we can do is apply the law. We have
no power to change the law.
20
N2: What are we supposed to bring the communities that are waiting for us on the outside?
Prefect: We can’t change the law. But in these 15 days you can always try to contact associations
for help in filing your appeals.
N2: Only this specific group has a problem with this law, we from Nigeria, our brothers from Mali,
Burkina, Ivory Coast…
Prefecture: Everyone is equal under the law; it’s the cases and stories that are different.
N2: Things aren’t equal for everyone!
Translator: You can’t say that! From the moment you set foot in here [CARA in Bari Palese] there’s
been no difference between anyone.
N2: Yes there is a difference, between whites and blacks.
N1: If I hadn’t had problems, I wouldn’t have left my country. Provide lawyers that will accept our
cases free of charge.
When the prefecture observed that the conversation was becoming repetitive, the meeting was
adjourned.
The case of these denials provides an example of how Italian legislation does not effectively or
coherently regulate the phenomena of immigration and asylum causing a counter-productive
fallout for the host society as well as for the immigrants13. Staff from several CARA centres pointed out
that the law changes frequently and that there is little correspondence between the legislation and
what actually occurs. Even caseworkers have noticed that asylum applications presented by
Nigerians or individuals of West African nationality are rejected 99% of the time and that there is a
disparity between the judgments of one territorial commission and another.
“What information are we supposed to provide, the real or the institutional version?”; “We prefer to
tell them how things actually are, not how they should be or what is foreseen by law”; “They’ve
learned the procedures well, but how can I explain to them that the reality is different? How can I
13 The ARCI, one of the associations that provide information and legal assistance to the CARA in Bari Palese, informally reports
that there are lawyers who come to CARA to meet with immigrant clients promising to follow their appeal for a fee of
between €300 to 600, despite the fact that they have prior knowledge that the outcome will be negative.
21
explain that what they see written in the handbook14 isn’t true? Here they discover that the reality is
different, that the timeline is longer, and that we can’t find them a house. And they get angry with
us, but what can we do?”
This last observation raises two more key discrepancies between the legislation and its application or
lack thereof regarding length of stay in the CARA centres and the transition to the SPRAR centre. The
length of stay in the reception centers is much longer, up to ten times longer in the impacted periods
of immigrant arrival, than foreseen in the legislation. Presentation of the asylum application alone
requires at least a month; the commission’s decision takes around two to three months and any
appeals can lengthen those times to 6 or 9 months, depending on the number of applications and
the commission’s response time.
“Initially, many guests thought that the entire asylum process would take around 30 days, in fact the
pamphlet they are given by the police mentions that the maximum time allowed for review of the
asylum request is 21 days. This figure is quite far from the reality, as the guests of the centres
experience first hand. It actually takes between 3 to 4 months and the times are always getting
longer; in fact the personal kit given to guests on their arrival is not sufficient for the duration of their
stay as foreseen in the CARA regulations.
The uncertainty of procedures and commission response times are factors of vulnerability both for
beneficiaries – whose futures depend on the result of the application – and for centre personnel who
are unable to explain the discrepancy between the law and the actual situation. This ambiguity
causes feelings of frustration and impotence which have important effects on the interactions
between beneficiaries and caseworkers, clouding perceptions and influencing the way each entity
plays out his or her respective role.
If the commission’s decision is positive and the beneficiary is granted permission to remain on the
national territory, accommodation is provided in SPRAR centres. This transition, however, entails
lengthy waiting periods as the SPRAR is unable to guarantee the turnover of beneficiaries in the
timing set forth under the law. Furthermore, entrance applications exceed the reception capacity of
14 On March 12, 2009 the Ministry of Interior published an informational pamphlet to its website (www.interno.it) for international
protection seekers. The document was drafted by the national commission for the right to asylum, the central service of the
Protection System for Refugees and Asylum Seekers, the UNHCR and the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration with
the supervision of the Ministry of Interior Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration. The text was drafted in Italian but
translations were made available in 9 other languages: English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Tigrinya, Amharic, Somali, Farsi and
Kurdish.
22
the reception system and beneficiaries remain in the CARAs until a space opens in the secondary
reception centre.
Summary Table
The table included below is a summary of the critical points in the legislative dimensions discussed in
the preceding paragraphs. Here, information is presented from the dual perspective of beneficiaries
and caseworkers. In the third column are recommendations and hypothetical solutions to the
problems listed, half of which were made by interviewees, while the other half emerged during the
working group activities that followed the research phase (which are detailed later in this report).
Some of the recommendations are based on existing best practices which have been implemented
in some of the CARA visited by the IOM team and which we believe should be mainstreamed and
adopted also in different settings.
The content of the tables is not exhaustive and is meant to serve as a preliminary and simplified
outline of the complex CARA institutions; it is thus open to further additions and modifications.
LEGISLATIVE LEVEL
BENEFICIARIES PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Lack of clear information on Italian Difficulty explaining Italian legislation, - Change information dissemination
legislation, in particular with regard to which becomes confusing through the methods (information should be offered
procedure methods and times for numerous bureaucratic steps and by a specific professional figure, be
international protection applications. because it is subject to continuous uniform between various speakers, not
changes. be provided exclusively upon entrance
in the CARA, be appropriate to each
audience, be correctly translated into
the languages spoken by beneficiaries,
be provided in the presence of a
linguistic-cultural mediator)
- Procure hard copies of information to
accompany verbal presentations and
create a regularly-updated, public,
multi-language bulletin board; produce
a video available in several languages;
establish a regulated internet point for
public use; assure the constant
presence of legal associations within
the centre to run legal assistance help-
desks or information sessions for
individuals or language groups.
- Makes lists available with the names of
selected public and private
associations and NGOs present outside
the centre that can guarantee
adequate and continuous legal
support.
Discrepancy between official Difficulties justifying the discrepancies - Propose changes to the law
information (provided by the CARA) between the law and actual situation.
and informal information (received
from beneficiaries who’ve been in the
centre longer or from former asylum
seekers or from centre personnel.)
23
Long waiting times for the commission’s Difficulties justifying long waiting times Increase the number of sessions or
decision. for the commission decision. commissions on the territory
Long waiting times for insertion into Difficulty justifying long waiting times for - Improve the SPRAR network
SPRAR secondary reception centres insertion into SPRAR secondary - Monitor duration of stay of guests to
reception centres assure regular turn over.
Limited time to present appeals in the Difficulty responding to the Propose changes to the law
case of rejection of the asylum legislative problem of the limited times
application in which to present an appeal
Lack of access in many cases to an pro Difficulty responding to the scarcity of - Propose changes to the law
bono attorney services and the need pro bono assistance - Provide lists of reliable pro bono
to pay a lawyer while legally unable to lawyers;
work (resorting to panhandling,
begging, irregular work) - Open the center to lawyers’
associations and NGOs that provide
legal information
b. Spatial-Temporal Level
The Giovanni Paolo II CARA centre in Syracuse is located in an ex-juvenile correctional facility, which
was converted into an immigrant reception center in 2008. The Salinagrande centre was originally
intended to accommodate single mothers with dependent children, though it was never used for
that purpose. It was first transformed into a CPTA and then to a CARA centre15. Borgo Mezzanone
and Bari Palese – which each have a capacity of 1100-1300 beds in situations of emergency – are
located in military zones, the former in the ex-military airport of Ortanova, and the latter on an Air
force base.
The reception centres that participated in this study are surrounded by high gates or boundary walls,
remnants of their past uses. Members of the armed forces guard the entrances, verify the comings
and goings of residents, and patrol the facility (making their rounds in armored vehicles as in the
case of Borgo Mezzanone and Bari Palese). Many have offices within the CARA centres. Entrance
and exit to and from the structures is particularly strict in larger centres where law enforcement is
present both day and night16.
Staff attire varies from place to place from street clothes to a t-shirt with the name of the
organization contracted to manage the facility, or even a professional uniform, as in the case of
Italian Red Cross workers – the contracted organization at the Borgo Mezzanone CARA. Staff uses
walkie-talkies to communicate across the vast facilities. Healthcare personnel, and in some cases
reception workers, as well as maintenance and cleaning staff, wear white coats. The beneficiaries
15 Another four emergency CARAs – with a combined capacity of roughly 1000 beds – were opened in the Trapani area
following the extraordinarily high number of boat arrivals in May 2008.
16 From the accounts collected in the CARA centres of Borgo Mezzanone and Bari Palese, the military is perceived by the
beneficiaries as a body able to handle the tensions that arise within the center, as opposed to the caseworkers who are seed
in a role of support rather than surveillance.
24
wear clothing provided to them by the centre upon their entry. Clothing is one of the first evident
factors of distinction between the large group of beneficiaries and the smaller group of staff.
From a logistical point of view, in each centre there is a clear division of the spaces used by
beneficiaries and personnel. The administrative offices, immigration offices, prefecture, police,
territorial commission and infirmary are all found near the entrance17. The position of the offices is
functional to the stages of admission to the structure. First comes initial registration when a file is
created to contain all the new arrival’s data. This step is followed by a generic medical screening,
the distribution of legal information relating to the asylum application and stay at the centre, the
distribution of a personal kit18 and bed assignment.
Admission to the centre includes a set sequence of steps which begins with the substitution of the
beneficiary’s name for the file number assigned to the individual upon first entry processing. Even if
the number is not used in informal relations between the beneficiary and centre personnel, it is used
in written communications and formal situations to identify and record the person in bureaucratic
situations (from administrative to healthcare matters).
In each CARA centre, the largest amount of space is used for dormitories. Salinagrande and
Syracuse have walled structures with rooms that hold several beds (from six to twelve) which look
onto corridors equipped with common bathrooms. There is a separate wing for women and families.
In the Bari Palese center the sleeping area is composed of living modules with three rooms (each
with two beds) which face onto a common living space. The bathroom facilities are divided by
gender and are located parallel to the sleeping quarters near the recreational areas (sports fields,
playground for children, gardens…). In Borgo Mezzanone, sleeping quarters are mostly located in
pre-fabricated units and tents. The 91 tents are located at the borders of the centre, opposite the
entrance, in an area called the “runway” as it sits on the runway of the old Ortanova military airport.
This area is accessible by a dirt path through an uncultivated field, which becomes muddy in
inclement weather. Each tent and container is lined with roughly a dozen cots and mattresses that
are placed directly on the ground19. There are no separate facilities for families or single women with
17 Not all the offices listed are present in every CARA.
18 The personal kit contains clothing and shoes, personal hygiene products, a telephone card and two packs of cigarettes.
Often centre residents complain that the kit is not replenished as often as needed and that cigarettes and phone cards are
not distributed regularly. In fact, the regulation provides for the distribution of a €15 phone card and a €5 coupon every two
days which can be used in the centre (for postage stamps, telephone cards, snacks, beverages, cigarettes, magazines…).
The actual economic contribution is substituted with two packs of cigarettes which are bought and sold among the
immigrants.
19 Beneficiaries state that the pre-fabricated structures and tents are extremely hot in summer and cold in winter and that the
heating and air-conditioning systems, although present, are not functional. The personnel responded that beneficiaries
25
children and several interviewees reported that in this mixed-gender scenario, cases of harassment
and violence against women are not uncommon.
In the centres, in general, the beds of beneficiaries are subdivided, as much as possible, by
nationality and language to promote communication and limit tensions between people from
conflicting ethnic groups. Where the administration has not adopted the practice of grouping guests
according to nationality and language, residents still tend to gravitate towards people of their same
nationality. Even during the day, various groups form for linguistic and geographic area of origin, and
each group usually identifies its own meeting place within the centre. (For example, Salinagrande
caseworkers reported that “the Nigerians always sit on the benches near the entrance, West Africans
near the cistern and the Sri Lankans are usually on the steps.”) In several CARA centres, researchers
noticed that each nationality had spontaneously identified a representative – chosen on the basis of
education and linguistic ability – who acted as spokesperson for the concerns of the group in public
situations or with the administration.
Except for a few exceptions, the dormitories are generally equipped with beds and personal lockers.
Beneficiaries bring televisions, radios, stereos, electric stoves, cell phones, fans and multiple sockets,
which they’ve exchanged, purchased or stolen from outside the centre. Some have also built
electric kettles or stove tops with recycled material. For security reasons, any equipment that does
not conform to safety laws is confiscated when searches are conducted, and either thrown our or
put away to be returned upon the beneficiary’s exit from the centre (beneficiaries deny that items
are ever returned).
Centre residents prefer to congregate in informal spaces - internal courtyards or the open spaces
around the dormitories. In Bari Palese, for example, a central area with a multi-function tensile
structure (used for meal distribution, recreational-creative workshops and as a television room) also
serves as a place of meeting and exchange. Gazebos with benches and public telephones extend
out around it in concentric circles, followed by the dormitories, bathroom facilities, barber, places of
worship (the church and mosque) and recreational areas (soccer fields, volleyball court, toy room
and children’s playground). The centres also have loudspeakers, used for public announcements or
to call beneficiaries to report to the various services. The radio is broadcast from this equipment
during the day.
Soccer fields, volleyball or basketball courts are present in every CARA, although beneficiaries and
repeatedly damage the facilities and equipment and that administration is unable to continually replace or repair the
damaged items.
26
linguistic-cultural mediators report that key equipment is often missing such as basketball nets,
volleyball nets or soccer balls. The Salinagrande CARA is equipped with a recreation room which
also serves as a classroom for Italian language courses and as a place of worship. In addition to the
toy room, a nursery was opened in 2007 for mothers and newborns during the first year of life. No
centre has green areas at its interior, with the exception of a few gazebos or flower beds and the
experimental gardens that the Bari Palese CARA is trying to implement.
Centre administration determines the schedule for daily activities, which is communicated to guests
upon their entrance to the centre. Three main meals are served each day and can be consumed in
the cafeteria or freely within the centre or in dormitories. Residents often lamented the long lines for
meal distribution, particularly in the facilities that accommodate larger numbers of people. One
asylum seeker in the Borgo Mezzanone centre stated: The distribution is done outside and it can be
cold or raining and you can wait for up to an hour.” In all the centres examined, beneficiaries
complained of a repetitive diet, based exclusively on traditional items in the Italian diet that they are
not used to and which can provoke gastritis, swelling and intestinal problems: “The food is always
pasta. Our body is not used to this kind of food. And this food is always the same, always! We are all
African and there is never African food, nor the possibility to prepare it”; “I’m not used to eating this
food and my stomach swells and hurts.”
Generally, meals are prepared and delivered by an external catering service which creates the
menu in respect of the dietary restrictions of various religious groups (halal meat, exclusive of pork for
Muslims, or without veal for Indians and vegetarians) and for the specific dietary needs of newborns
and children, pregnant women and those who follow a special diet for medical reasons (diabetic,
low protein, low sodium, liquid and gluten-free)20. In response to resident requests, the Bari Palese
CARA reduced the instances of pasta on the menu in favor of chicken and rice-based dishes and
introduced the “island of flavors,” a table with salt, spices and other condiments that beneficiaries
can use to flavor their dishes. The centre also creates a menu for each season (autumn, winter and
spring-summer), and during Ramadan, hours of meal distribution are adjusted for Muslim
beneficiaries.
The CARAs are connected to the cities with private buses organized by the contracted organization,
or with public transportation if, as in the case of Syracuse, they are located in suburban areas. (In Bari
Palese, the city school bus provides service to children in the reception centre.) In the case of private
20 The regulation provides for three meals a day: breakfast (a hot drink, four Danish toasts, a pad of butter, and two packets of
jam or honey or as an alternative a package of cookies); lunch and dinner (composed of a first and second course, seasonal
fruit, two rolls, and a litre of water per person). Meals must be served complete with paper napkins, utensils and plastic
disposable cups and glasses. The distribution of meals is the responsibility of the contracted organization; the service can be
provided by the organization itself, or sub-contracted to a catering service.
27
transportation, bus departure times between the CARA and the city are posted on the centre
bulletin board and their frequency is established by the administration. The CARAs in Bari Palese and
Borgo Mezzanone, built in military areas, are especially detached from the city; one is located
between a military and civilian airport, the other in the Foggia countryside without road signage. The
Salinagrande centre, near the salt reserve between Trapani and Paceco, is situated a quarter of an
hour by bus from the urban centre, while the Syracuse CARA, the most central, sits in a residential
neighborhood just outside the urban area and is served by city buses. The CARA does not provide
tickets for public transportation.
Beneficiaries travel to the city where they beg or work illegally (especially in the construction and
restaurant sector, but also in the countryside for seasonal work) to earn money for their appeals
processes, to send money home or to pay for minimal personal expenses (telephone cards, cell
phones, clothing, cigarettes, general food items…). A significant number of Nigerian women turn to
prostitution to raise money for themselves or for the families left in their country.
In town, beneficiaries visit money transfer agencies and internet points to contact their family and
friends or to read updated news on the situation in the country of origin. They also meet with former
asylum seekers to ask for information and advice about the international protection application
process or, more generally, about life in Italy. For beneficiaries, the city is a place to make small
purchases21; with its bars and supermarkets it’s a place where they can go to drink.
“Have you been to town?” –one CARA reception worker in Borgo Mezzanone asked the interviewer
– “This city is too small to absorb a reception centre like this one. They all pour into the main street:
some trying to sell something, some begging. In recent years, the town has experienced incredible
degradation. With the exception of a few, they wander around and don’t know what to do. They
look for work. Some find it, but illegally. Others go begging or you find them in a local bar getting
drunk. In the morning the ground is always littered with beer bottles. People often come to
complain.”
Usually beneficiaries visit the cities in small groups, although the great majority prefers to remain in
the CARA centre. “In the beginning, my wife and I used to go out. We’d walk around the city; we’d
visit the centre, the sea. Not anymore. We stay here. Everything is too expensive and we can’t buy
anything. Since we’ve been here, I haven’t worked and it keeps me awake at night. I have to take
care of my wife; I’m all she has here. I talk about it often with other Somalis, but we know that our
brothers in town sleep on the streets. They have no home, no work. It’s tough. This worries me. What
21 Women, in particular, buy cosmetics, hair products and clothing.
28
will we do?”
The Salinagrande CARA recently created the position of city mediator, a professional figure who acts
as a bridge between the reception centre and the city and monitors the behavior of guests outside
the facility. Linguistic-cultural mediators from the reception center take turns making rounds in town
by scooter, or going to the places most commonly frequented by beneficiaries to observe their
behavior and contrast any potential incidences of alcoholism. “Actually” – one caseworker
explained – “if the mediator appears in a bar where guests usually drink, they just move on to the
next one and it’s back to square one.”
Interaction between the reception centre and the local territory is organized through Memorandums
of Understanding and formal and informal accords with hospital centres, State Health Authority
centres, law firms, universities, schools that teach Italian to foreigners, social cooperatives, sports
associations, NGOs, scout groups, etc. Activities that promote exchange between the CARA and
the city are the prerogative of the organization that manages the centre, city administration and
third sector organizations. Among the various activities through which the city and CARA interact are
meetings in schools of various levels (from elementary to high school level), participation of the
beneficiaries on local amateur sports teams, and attendance at festivals as well as sporting, musical,
cultural and religious events. Some local associations have a regular presence in the centres, mostly
providing legal information (as well as anti-trafficking, anti- labour exploitation information). However
these associations also organize moments of recreation, including dance, music, painting, plastic arts
workshops, creative workshops for children, etc.
When relating to the local population, asylum seekers face diffidence or even indifference in their
regard. “There is no integration with the Italians. No one comes to visit us.” Several beneficiaries
complained about the racism of Italians. “When we walk by they plug their noses and clutch their
purses.” The Syracuse CARA is located near the city in a residential area that accepted the centre’s
opening with great difficulty. One social worker recalled, “There were local resident demonstrations,
petitions and anonymous flyers against the opening of this centre. With the scouts from the church
parish, we organized collective meetings to explain what the centre was and how it functioned and
since then things have improved; people even come by to take a look.”
The director of one of the CARA centers commented, “The territory is unprepared to live in the daily
presence of these one thousand people on public transportation, on the streets, in public cafeterias,
near their lawyers’ offices, or in health centres. The ASL local health authority has made continued
efforts to address this issue, but there is still much work to be done in a number of other contexts.”
29
The CARAs are not connected between themselves; they do not communicate regularly nor do they
hold periodic meetings. Contact between reception centres is limited to single cases of family
reunification carried out between individual facilities. Although the centres are very different from
one another – in terms of capacity, structure, organizational method, resources and relationship with
the territory – there are many common problems and the experiences of one facility might prove
useful if shared with the others. Staff from various centres commented that periodic meetings would
be useful on specific themes (legal, healthcare, social). As one centre director put it: I’d like to know
how the others do it. They must have our same problems, right? I would like for there to be meetings
once in awhile, every two months, for example, on various aspects of our work. The problem is that
we often compete with each other for contracts and are afraid to expose our weaknesses. This does
not facilitate collabouration, when what would be really helpful are opportunities to meet.
Summary Table
The table included below is a summary of the critical points in the spatial-temporal dimensions
discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Here, information is presented from the dual perspective of
beneficiaries and caseworkers. In the third column are recommendations and hypothetical solutions
to the problems listed, half of which were made by interviewees, while the other half emerged
during the working group activities that followed the research phase (which are detailed later in this
report). Some of the recommendations are based on existing best practices which have been
implemented in some of the CARA visited by the IOM team and which we believe should be
mainstreamed and adopted also in different settings.
SPATIAL-TEMPORAL LEVEL
BENEFICIARIES PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Isolated position of CARA with respect Isolated position of CARA with respect - Improve the visibility of the CARA and
to the city to the city facilitate recognition from the exterior.
- Provide incentives for the presence of
local entities within the CARA
- Provide incentives for the participation
of beneficiaries in public and private
events in city life, on sports teams, and
in cultural or religious associations
(according to the inclinations of
beneficiaries)
- Organize public meetings between
the CARA and city institutions (in
particular the schools)
Lack of clarity in the professional roles Poorly-defined professional roles in - Inform beneficiaries of the role of the
of the various staff members and several sectors; problems with
30
confusion over whom to consult about individuals who do not act effectively various profiles within the facility
what. in their own areas of activity, but - Internally clarify the roles and
delegate difficult issues to other sectors. responsibilities of all staff
- Create opportunities for
communication and listening between
beneficiaries and caseworkers.
Lack of networking between CARA - Create a network of CARA centres to

centres for sharing problems and best foster information exchange
practices - Schedule periodic thematic meetings
between CARAs
- Favour shared planning activities and
joint treatment of beneficiaries
between CARA and SPRAR centres.
Repetitiveness of days and insufficient - Implement recreational and
activities. educational as well as professional
qualification and requalification
activities.
- Establish internships or identify
employment opportunities
- Insert beneficiaries in public and
private events in city life, on sports
teams, and in cultural or religious
associations (according to the
inclinations of beneficiaries)
- Involve beneficiaries in publically
useful social activities in partnership with
local organizations.
- Provide places of worship
beneficiaries and as well as between
beneficiaries and caseworkers.
- Create balance sheets to map out
beneficiaries’ skills.
c. Functional level
CARA centres are organized by the provincial prefectures which contract management duties to
organizations, associations and cooperatives that provide services for a period of three years. With
the exception of Bari Palese, where the Auxilium cooperative took over management of the CARA
after the departure of the Italian Red Cross in April 2008, there is a high level of continuity in the
direction of the centers. (For example, the Italian Red Cross has been present at Borgo Mezzanone
since 1997).
Some organizations coordinate several emergency structures, as well as first and second reception
centers on the same territory. The Salinagrande CARA is run by the “Insieme” cooperative which
manages CIE, CPA and CARA centres in Brindisi, Gradisca d’Isonzo and Cagliari, in addition to more
than 60 places in the SPRAR projects in Trapani, Castelvetrano, Marsala and Mazara. Insieme is part
of the Connecting People consortium of cooperatives, which also manages the Acireale and
Catania centres. Another member of the consortium is the Alma Mater Association which manages
the CARA centre in Cassibile, a small CPA in Cassabile, two satellite CARA centres in Syracuse, and a
31
SPRAR project in Syracuse. Alma Mater is also a partner in the consortium which manages two SPRAR
centres in Caltanissetta.
The services that each type of immigrant reception centre (CDA, CIE and CARA) is required to
provide are contained within the statute and can be divided into the following five specific areas:
administrative management services, general assistance services, healthcare, cleaning and hygiene
services and supply procurement for guests. Article 22 of the statute establishes that the prefecture
must monitor the methods and quality of service provision, in order to improve conditions22.
The content of services and the characteristics of supplies that CARA centres are required to furnish
are detailed in the integrative technical specifications of the CARA centre statute. Particular detail is
provided on general services (i.e. cultural linguistic mediation, providing information on the Italian
and European immigration and asylum legislation, the rights and obligations of the foreigner,
voluntary assisted return programs, reception centre regulations; sociopsychological support;
organization of free time; instruction of Italian language), health care assistance and cleaning and
sanitation services. This study focused on the first two areas23, which are described below as they
appear in the legislation and according to the observations and data collected.
General Assistance
• Linguistic-Cultural Mediation. The statue states that linguistic-cultural mediation must
guarantee coverage of the main languages spoken by centre residents. Mediators must be
22 Every two months, the managing organization must provide the prefecture with a report of services rendered. Management
is monitored according to the following standards (article 23): a) Completeness of reception and first assistance, with
particular reference to the registration and first accommodation of guests and adequate knowledge of guests’ specific needs
from the moment they check in to the centre in order to identify situations that require special attention; b) Regularity and
appropriateness of the services provided. Organizations must respect contractual obligations to staff each shift with the
appropriate number of personnel who have the necessary professional credentials to provide all required services; c)
availability of general personal assistance services with particular reference to the quality of linguist-cultural mediation
sociopsychological services, as well as the promulgation of rules of behavior within the facility and information about the
organization of the centre; d) level of sanitary conditions and emergency resources with particular reference to the provision
of services for the time stipulated in the contract, as well as concrete organization to meet immediate first aid needs and to
transfer health emergencies to the appropriate local health facilities; e) Accessibility and availability of services, as stipulated
in the contract, with regard to human and material resources, so that they are constant and appropriate to the needs of the
centre, avoiding any difficulties that stem from an inappropriate concentration of service hours; f) Cleaning services, with
reference to the frequency contractually stipulated for the service; g) qualitative and quantitative congruence between the
specific techniques applied in the services rendered.”
23 Half of the technical specifications in the statue for services and supplies provided to CARA centres are dedicated to
cleaning and sanitation services. The document specifies the activities, methods, and minimum frequency for cleaning the
different areas, as well as for disinfestation, pest control, special waste collection and disposal and green area maintenance.
This aspect, however, is beyond the scope of this study, although from observation of the centres, it was clear that cleaning
and sanitation are not neglected, also to prevent infectious disease epidemics. The only exception was found in the Borgo
Mezzanone CARA in which beneficiaries’ sleeping quarters and toilet facilities for were in conditions of dubious hygiene.
According to the observations of residents, the bathroom facilities are not separate for men and women and are only
cleaned twice a month. Each beneficiary has the right to only one roll of toilet paper per month, electricity is often lacking,
the fans in the prefabricated units and in the facilities do not work and in the tent-dormitories they are completely absent,
which makes them practically inaccessible in high temperatures. In general, the cleaning services are contracted out to
external entities or handled within the managing agency by the maintenance department.
32
present to assist caseworkers in each of the centre’s service areas to guarantee availability of
service to all beneficiaries. Furthermore, the law states that mediation must be assured in all
cases of specialized services for vulnerable categories and foresees female mediators for
female residents.
The mediation service is an example of the disparity between the measures foreseen in the law and
what occurs in the field. The figure of the linguistic-cultural mediator is frequently substituted or
confused with that of an interpreter or translator. Consequently, the mediator is often required to
provide a linguistic translation that does not include input on the cultural matters that necessarily
factor into any intercultural exchange. Cultural negotiation – or combined attention to linguistic and
cultural meaning – not only favors comprehension between speakers but also improves relations and
reciprocal awareness.
The following are the observations of two mediators who reflect on their professional role within the
centre: “Here, usually, the other personnel see us exclusively as a linguistic resource. But our role is
much more complex. I think that a mediator is a person who manages and helps resolves conflicts
between guests and management. They trust us because we’re foreign too; we listen to them and
try to help them.” “Often we mediators are called upon to resolve small conflicts, things that could
be easily resolved with a little intelligence. For example, one frequent problem is with the centre’s
maintenance and cleaning staff. Unable to speak English, when they go in to clean the rooms, they
express themselves with gestures. They go like this, “Go away, move it, move it!” Beneficiaries think
they are being kicked out. This creates problems that could be easily resolved. All they’d have to do
is learn a few words of English or Arabic to interact. It’s very simple.”
The centres have an inadequate number of linguistic-cultural mediators with respect to the actual
need and quite often mediators are not employed full time because they are working for several
reception centers at once (CDA, CIE, SPRAR centres), as well as for the territorial commissions and
the tribunals. Furthermore, linguistic coverage within the CARA is guaranteed only for some
languages and does not span the entire gamut of languages spoken by the population. In fact,
several beneficiaries complained about imprecise translations or misunderstandings that made it
difficult for them to take advantage of the centre’s services (medical services in particular), or which
created problems during hearings: “The interpretation service isn’t accurate, here in the centre or
before the commission. I have a friend who was refused because the translator didn’t speak his
Arabic dialect;” “There isn’t a translator for every language and not everyone speaks English. There
are not enough translators, and they often speak different languages from ours or translate wrong;”
“The medical service never believes you have the problems you have. The translator doesn’t explain
correctly or almost always communicates with gestures.”
33
Often beneficiaries arrange the translation of questions or requests amongst themselves, relying on
companions who speak English. However, in general, the reception centre staff has only a passing
knowledge of the language. Some staff members take it upon themselves to enroll in English
language courses, because linguistic and communicative difficulties are considered among the
main obstacles to daily work and interaction – formal and informal – with beneficiaries.
Psychologists, in particular, find the psychologist-mediator-patient triangle limiting in the therapeutic

setting as it prevents direct exchange and makes it impossible for the therapist to monitor the
patient’s declarations. The process also imposes very lengthy communication times. (In this case too,
the mediator is used as a simple translator and not as a resource through whom to interpret the
cultural, linguistic and paralinguistic factors in play). Mediators, on the whole, complain of an
excessive workload, because their presence is required regularly in a variety of services and for a
multitude of reasons. Their work also has strong emotional implications as mediators are faced daily
with the requests and problems of beneficiaries who often have dramatic life stories. Beneficiaries
view mediators as a bridge with the host society and often seek them out for information or
clarifications. Rarely are they considered completely assimilated with the Italians. A common
language and migration experience also makes mediators likely confidants with whom to share life
stories and confessions. Moreover, some mediators were once beneficiaries in the national reception
facilities themselves. These professionals should be offered specific psychological support, something
for which many expressed a desire. Such services should be extended to all personnel that
experiences stress, burnout syndrome24 or psychosomatic symptoms.
Some observations: “Italy is one of the G8 countries; it is one of the richest. We came here because
the Italy that we expected was much different. We expected a Christian Italy, that spoke English, like
we do [Nigerians], but here no one talks to us, no one knows English. When we walk around, people
hold their noses. Is it because of the colour of our skin? Are we perhaps the wrong colour?” “One
day, I took the bus, all the way to the end of the line. I met a girl. She was cute, I asked her, ‘Hi, how
are you?’ She replied that she didn’t speak English, just Italian. I don’t speak Italian yet. We had no
way of saying anything else to each other and after awhile, she got bored and left. It was a shame.
It was embarrassing;” “People don’t want us here. I want to go to Ireland or America. There’s a black
man there, a son of Kenya, who walks down the corridors of power. This means that blacks and
whites can live together in America. Here, no.”
24 Burn out is a syndrome caused by stress which strikes people who exercise assistance professions when they are unable to
assume and respond to excessive requests and workload.
34
• Information on Italian and European immigration and asylum law, the rights and obligations
of the foreigners, voluntary assisted return programmes, reception centre regulations.
Information also includes a territorial orientation (local and national public services, Italian
language courses, schools, professional training, employment market, etc). Information is also
provided on the possibilities for insertion into the local territory, and the organization and
objectives of the Asylum Seeker and Refugee Protection System.
As mentioned above, the legal information offered to beneficiaries is confused and insufficient also
because of incoherent legislation that is subject to continuous changes. The administration does not
possess, except in rare cases, updated paper and video material to accompany the information
given orally. (Only the centre regulations are distributed in paper form25.) Moreover, the disparity
between what the law says and what occurs in daily practice in the national reception system leads
reception caseworkers to distance themselves from the official information, preferring to offer
beneficiaries a description of the actual state of things from the very beginning: “We prefer to be
sincere and tell it like it is rather than create unreal expectations,” affirms the vice director of one of
the centres. However, while this “sincerity” avoids the creation of false expectations among asylum
seekers, it also causes feelings of anxiety, disillusionment and failure and, at the same time, generates
frustration among personnel, who are unable to fall back on legislative instruments – nor justify their
ineffectiveness – when faced with the problems raised by beneficiaries.”
Legal information is distributed upon the beneficiary’s arrival at the centre, and this task is assigned
to different professional figures in every centre (from the social worker to the lawyer). This is a very
delicate time, as immigrants are usually escorted to the CARA by police bus; upon their departure,
as we’ve been told, they do not know where they’ll be transferred nor do they know the
characteristics of the reception center in which they’ll be hosted. Admission to the structure is the last
in a series steps, including registration with the police, a medical visit, and bed assignment, which the
beneficiary must complete without knowing their sequence, significance, or end result. In this
moment of anxiety and uncertainty the beneficiary is rarely able to process the massive quantity of
information provided (from the Geneva Convention to the services offered in the CARA centre, to
procedures for requesting asylum at the SPRAR). Too much information is given at once, some of
which is overly specific or technical.
Furthermore, information is communicated verbally for groups of people and those who do not have
25 Nonetheless, despite researchers’ requests, none of the CARA centres visited provided a paper copy of the material
distributed to beneficiaries upon entrance, including centre regulations.
35
access to a cultural mediator for their language, are forced to ask for help from their fellow
beneficiaries. This implies that, contrary to what is written in the European and national legislation, not
all parties receive information straight from the source in a language that they understand.
In general, information most commonly travels informally between beneficiaries through word-of-
mouth. In particular, asylum seekers turn to residents who have been at the centre longer or former
residents who they meet in town or who visit the centre once in a while. One asylum seeker
summarized: “Information is a problem. Here there is no information or orientation and people don’t
know what to do. We need information on the commission, on Italy, on life outside the camp (where
to live, where to look for work…). Instead there is no official information, only word-of-mouth.”
The lack of written and video material makes comprehension and retention of information even
more difficult for new arrivals. Support material published in several languages would allow the
immigrant to review the information given verbally upon entrance after the fact and whenever
needed, instead of being forced to refer to centre personnel for further clarification or explanations.
Individual and group interviews revealed that, with rare exceptions, beneficiaries do not seem have
a coherent vision of the CARA, its services and the responsibilities of its personnel. With the exception
of medical-nursing and administrative personnel, the duties and roles of the other professional figures
is not clear (in particular that of the psychologist, social worker and reception workers, maintenance
and cleaning). Beneficiaries don’t know who to turn to for clear information and tend to question
more than one staff member to verify the information received from other sources.
CARA centre regulations contain little information regarding the logistics of services (including the
times and methods of access). Information is also scarce about the institutions and agencies present
locally and nationally, despite the fact that this knowledge is considered essential to the most
effective and complete insertion into the Italian reception system. As one Nigerian whose
application was denied stated, “Information is power,” and lack of information makes a person
dependent on others, incapable of autonomously defining his or her objectives and subsequently of
planning his or her actions.
Simple steps to help centres more-effectively disseminate all necessary information could include
creating a public bulletin board that is updated regularly, producing an informative video available
in several languages (shown repeatedly, and not only upon the beneficiary’s arrival), as well as
establishing a regulated internet point. The constant presence of legal associations within the centres
would allow greater access to information through legal help-desks, thematic meetings or
individualized information sessions. Finally, it would also be helpful to post lists of selected public and
36
private associations and organizations that are present outside the centre and which guarantee
adequate and continuous legal support.
Legal assistance should also include another aspect listed under the “informational services”
heading in the statue, namely help in completing the asylum application (national and European
legislation also refer to this service, but with different names). This assistance includes filling out
paperwork, helping the applicant to reconstruct his or her personal memory and obtaining the
necessary corroborating documentation. Beneficiaries should receive preparation for the hearing
before the territorial commission and more generally “the possibility to consult a lawyer or other legal
consultant and the right to be informed of his or her legal standing in decisive moments of the
proceedings (Directive 2005/85/CE of Council, 13).
Information also includes the possibility of asking specific, individual questions and receiving answers
to them. Similarly, listening is also an important part of providing information, as one beneficiary
stated: “Everyone should be heard upon arrival,” or at least everyone should have the possibility to
clarify his or her individual situation, since, even if asylum seekers are a population with similar legal
characteristics, the stories and destiny of each is individual.
Moreover, the asylum seekers interviewed found that information should touch a broader sphere
beyond the exclusively legal area, including facts about Italy as a whole, its geographical position,
culture, traditions, transport, currency, etc. Beneficiaries also mentioned that later, they would also
like to learn the same things about Europe. Considering that there are immigrants who arrive in
reception centres without even knowing that they are in Italy or knowing where Sicily is with respect
to the rest of the country, this broader spectrum of information is a basic prerequisite to release from
the centre.
With regard labour market orientation, staff members in smaller centres try to help by turning to their
networks of personal contacts. The CARA centres, in fact, delegate this aspect to the network of
SPRARs despite the fact that stays in the CARA can be very long and the need for employment,
even irregular, is common to everyone. One cultural mediator suggested the creation of a specific
professional figure to address this issue: “With regard to labour orientation, what is missing in the
centre is a professional figure that can support foreign beneficiaries in the world of employment,
inform them of their rights and obligations, explain hiring procedures and the documents required
from employment offices, indicate job search channels, provide guidance in writing curriculum vitae
and inserting personal information into the database. This function is in part covered by mediators
but might be better entrusted to a competent professional in the sector.” Only in Bari Palese centre
does a citizen’s association come once a week to provide information on the employment services
37
present on the territory, as well as raise awareness about irregular employment and labour
exploitation in the countryside.
Finally, many beneficiaries ask for information on their countries of origin: “In the camp we eat and
sleep but we need information on our future and on our country;” “We want information on our
countries because we are cut off from everything, we have no contact with our country or Italy;”
“The information we need should be here – we shouldn’t have to look for it somewhere else.” To
respond to this request, cultural mediators in the Bari Palese CARA took it upon themselves to
distribute printed copies of the front pages of the main newspapers from beneficiaries’ countries of
origin.
As reiterated in numerous accounts, information is perceived as a source of security and autonomy,

whether it concerns Italy or the country of origin: “Knowing that my family is still alive gives me
security. Knowing that the situation in my country is peaceful gives me security. I’m not safe if my
family and country are not safe, if I can’t bring my family and children here, or if I can’t support
them. Security does not depend on others;” “Security is not the absence of threat; security is work,
prospects, dignity. Uncertainty of information, of the commission’s decision about my future is not
security.”
• Sociopsychological support. The sociopsychological support service, as foreseen in the CARA

management statute, is intended first and foremost for people belonging to vulnerable
categories, such as “victims of torture, victims of violence and abuse, single adults with minor
children, minor children inserted into families (which means including adequate recreational
activities), the elderly, the physically disabled, unaccompanied minors, people with mental
illness, single adults and/or separated families26. Pregnant women, not included in the
document, are also commonly considered vulnerable.
The identification of some of these categories is based on biographical factors (as with minors and
the elderly) or based on the composition of the family nucleus (single-parent families with dependent
children, families with minor children, unaccompanied minors); recognition is also more clear-cut for
people with physical disabilities and certain forms of mental illness. In other cases, recognition of
vulnerability is less automatic. People who have suffered torture or violence, for example, don’t
always declare it, even when asked about it directly. They don’t talk about it freely and don’t
26 Technical specifications in the statute for supply and services provision in asylum seeker reception centers are included in
attachment 1 C.
38
necessarily bear evident signs of it on their body. As a result, sector professionals – in particular
psychologists, educators and social workers – frequently express the need for adequate training to
enable them to effectively evaluate and treat this population.
Recognition of vulnerable cases rarely occurs during the first medical visit at the centre; that visit is
usually just a general screening. The initial medical interview is followed by a measurement of
temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate (in more delicate cases the exam also includes blood
tests, x-rays and transfer to the hospital). Identification of vulnerable people occurs through the
combined observations of staff during the beneficiary’s stay at the centre. Reception workers,
cultural-linguistic mediators and social workers signal any potential cases of vulnerability to the
psychologist or medical-nursing personnel based on their own personal judgment. Vulnerability is
therefore not identified according to international legal parameters nor by standard criteria applied
in every facility; moreover, CARA centre staff do not share a common concept of vulnerability and
vulnerable people, nor are there set protocols for their identification and treatment. The “diagnosis”
of torture, trauma, psychological and psychiatric disorder (etc.) is left up to the subjective judgment
of the centre personnel.
“Just look” – one reception worker stated – “and you’ll see it yourself. It’s the one over there in the
corner who doesn’t talk to anyone, or the one who torments you constantly with the same story. So
you try to talk to them and alert the social worker or psychologist. Just look and you’ll see it. With
experience, you can tell immediately;” “Minors, the elderly... basically those provided for by law.
Those are vulnerable people, right?” “Vulnerable is someone who can’t do everything for him or
herself, like a pregnant woman or the infirmed;” “We are all vulnerable because everyone has a
story in his or her past that creates vulnerability;” “Here, everyone is vulnerable. Leaving your country,
the smells, your language, this is already vulnerability. I’ve been through it too,” says one cultural
mediator from Morocco.
Upon the early detection of vulnerable people, the CARA statute requires the centre to offer specific
treatment and rehabilitation in coordination with specialized facilities present on the territory. To this
end, some centers have signed memorandums of understanding with the ASL local health authority
as well as with local hospitals, clinics and mental health centres. However, some CARA centres have
not yet signed this sort of agreement. (“There is no agreement between the ASL, the prefecture and
us and a torture examination costs €1,000. There are no local specialists who can medically verify
sexual assault.”)
While the reception centre refers all medical and psychiatric concerns to specialized institutions, the
CARA autonomously organizes sociopsychological support and treatment for beneficiaries through
39
the staff psychologist. In addition, rehabilitation is coordinated with recreational activities (described
in greater detail below). The centre psychologist is a hybrid figure with several functions. In addition
to clinical activities, this person assists social workers, educational staff and healthcare personnel,
and also occasionally helps organize recreational activities. Beneficiaries do not always understand
this role and rarely seek out the psychologist on their own, also because they can rarely relate that
figure to an analogous one in their country of origin.
Interviewer: “How do you explain the goal of therapy to the beneficiary?”

Psychologist: “I use metaphors. They often express themselves figuratively. I explain that they are like
a pot full of water on the stove. Everything they’ve been through is the fire, which can be strong or
weak. The larger the fire, the more vapor comes out of the pot; the smaller the fire, the less comes
out. But the vapor has to come out; it’s important, otherwise the pot will explode. I am there to help
let that vapor out.”
CARA psychologists frequently refer to the DSM IV not only to diagnose vulnerable cases, but also to
respond to the natural sociopsychological needs of vulnerable people. To account for cultural
differences that may influence the therapist-patient relationship, psychologists also seek out other
diagnosis and treatment tools, balancing various etiologies and radically different treatment
strategies.
Following the first visit and collection of anamnestic data, the therapist begins a diagnostic
investigation applying the tools of his or her chosen school of thought (whether cognitive-behavioral,
functionalist, structuralist, psychodynamic, and so on…). Sometimes cultural diversity leads the
psychologist to translate and adapt these tools to references from the culture of origin and to seek
out new languages or new tools (such as the Bible and Mass for Catholic patients). During the
sessions, the psychologist’s work is facilitated by the linguistic-cultural mediator.
As stated in the Bari Palese CARA first semester report, “ [social-psychological-pedagogical] activities
apply strategies and resources to help individuals live with a problem and/or situation in the best way
possible (…) Therefore, the desired result is to support and help the patient learn to coexist with
difficulties. For example, psychologists always use active listening to respond to frequent practical
requests; this approach fosters dialogue and group discussion of the situation.”
The clinical portrait that emerges from the sessions is rounded out by daily observation of the patient
in the center and judgments that other caseworkers share with the psychologist. Team work and
coordination between the various service sectors allows for the definition of a personalized
treatment strategy and a well-rounded plan to address the patient’s needs. However, like the other
40
services offered, the psychological service is dictated by the caseworker’s level of empathy, initiative
and generosity. Success does not seem due to previous training on vulnerable people or the
possession of the appropriate professional tools for the context, nor is it due to an external supervision
that monitors and orients the activities. One caseworker stated, “Where we are unable to be of
service professionally, we try to be there as people.”
Many caseworkers express the need for training courses to professionalize their activities as well as
the identification of ad hoc tools to use with the CARA population. Psychologists and social workers,
in particular, have mentioned the need for courses and informational materials on trauma, torture
and trafficking, as well as the possibility to consult with specialists on these issues or assure their
regular presence within the facility.
Prostitution, for example, which almost exclusively involves women of Nigerian origin, is a
phenomenon present and well-known both inside and outside the centres. Caseworkers state that
each centre should have an anti-trafficking information desk and a sociopsychological support desk
available to women upon their entrance to the centre. Networking between CARA centres and with
the local law enforcement mobile units could help limit and prevent the phenomenon.
Social workers, medical and psychological healthcare professionals are required to collect and
conserve information regarding vulnerable cases to provide as supporting documentation before
the territorial commission. The vulnerable asylum seeker’s file includes reports from the psychologist,
the social workers, medical reports and anything else that might be useful to communicate the
applicant’s condition of vulnerability at the hearing.
However, not all commissions consider this material during the application evaluation phase, as one
psychologist explained: “The representative from UNHCR told me that we file too much paperwork
[psychological reports]. In one year we filed 15. All denied, and do you know why? Because I risk
losing my objectivity in here. That is what they commission told me. I’ve been a psychologist for 20
years! It is professionally offensive.”
Collecting information regarding the beneficiary’s vulnerability also serves to identify the SPRAR
centre that best matches his or her needs and provide preliminary guidance to the colleagues who
will assist that person in the secondary reception phase. However, CARA caseworkers lamented
protracted waiting times and a lack of available spaces for vulnerable cases in the network of SPRAR
centres. (Centers make a selection among the vulnerable beneficiaries, of those who best fit the
SPRAR requirements.)
41
• Organization of free time. “There are no activities and waiting time is dead time,” said one
beneficiary. Similar comments were found in numerous other accounts, which describe the
time in the institution as an empty period where one first awaits the commission’s decision
and then insertion in to the SPRAR project. Beneficiaries struggle with a lack of influence and
information on decisions taken about their own destinies as well as the impossibility to make
their own choices day to day. Consequently, beneficiaries are stuck in a situation of passivity.
The energy that the individuals had summoned up to this point to mobilize an escape, a
transcontinental journey and the capacity for continuous adaptation becomes stalled in the
centre. Profound disappointment in their current situation causes applicants to obsess over
the asylum application decision, trapping them in a condition of passivity and dependence.
A lack of activities to help reduce the tension and the stress of waiting leads beneficiaries to “sleep
all day,” as noted with disapproval by CARA personnel and as the guests confirmed themselves. “If
only we had a ball to play with – says a group of Sudanese beneficiaries – at least we’d have a little
distraction. Because all we do is think about what will happen to us, and when we talk, we talk
about nothing but this: the decision of the commission, work, housing, how to support our families…”
The statute includes services dedicated to the practical and logistical organization of free time,
including recreational activities such as sports and cultural activities. The CARA centres examined
were equipped with one or two sports fields (soccer, basketball or volleyball) or open spaces that
could be used for those activities, as well as common recreational spaces, toy rooms for children.
The names of these spaces and the activities offered varied greatly from centre to centre. The Borgo
Mezzanone centre, for example, offers no sports or recreational activities, and beneficiaries play in
open spaces and fields with rag balls; others however (and here is how the Bari Palese centre
distinguishes itself) propose a variety of activities like sports tournaments, workshops for women
(cooking, sewing or embroidery), music, dance and horticulture workshops as well as crafts
workshops linked with Italian religious holidays (Christmas and Easter), Italian or multi-language
libraries, specific activities for children and musical events. These initiatives can be organized directly
by centre personnel or by external associations. Activities are also offered outside the CARA and
planned in collabouration with external entities, mostly from third sector organizations.
To render their stay (which can vary from three to nine months), more useful and less of a “waste of
time,” many guests request the possibility to perform non-remunerated work activities (“Even cutting
the neighbors’ lawns would be fine) or frequent training courses or professional qualification and re-
qualification courses. (Some interviewees specifically request English language courses, computers,
or professional training for successful labour insertion).
42
Aware that employment – which allows the beneficiary to provide for family needs – is one of the
main goals of a successful migratory process, the Bari Palese Cara is promoting the creation of a
type B social cooperative that performs gardening and ecological maintenance activities. The
majority of members would be non-EU citizens with regular residence permits for political asylum
trained for these activities.
The statute lists religious activities under the heading of “free time.” Consequently, some centres
have established specific places for Muslim and Christian-Catholic worship or have made
multifunctional centres available for use as places of worship. In the Salinagrande CARA, for
example, the television room and Italian language literacy room is also the place used by the
African Catholic community as a church. Signs made by guests reading “Church of Christ, Our Lord is
Good,” “My God is Able,” hang on the walls. In centres where there are no appropriate spaces to
conduct religious activities, beneficiaries autonomously identify places that are suitable for prayer. In
Bari Palese, for example, while waiting for two containers to be made available - one for a mosque
and one for the church - one of the Nigerian community representatives says Mass under a gazebo
every evening at 6 pm.
• Italian language instruction. Beneficiary accounts differ from those of centre personnel with
regard to language instruction. The centres claim to guarantee Italian language instruction
for a number of hours proportional to the number of guests present, in adequate spaces.
Classes can be offered by the centre itself or be sub-contracted to organizations and
associations that provide instruction on-site or in another location. In some cases, Italian
language instruction is provided by linguistic-cultural mediators and organized for classes of
students that speak the mediator’s language. Despite the caseworkers’ claims, many guests
stated that they do not receive any language training or only receive it sporadically.
As seen previously with regard to linguistic-cultural mediation, language is fragile terrain in the
relationship between caseworkers and beneficiaries, a point of encounter and exchange but also a
source of incomprehension and conflict. It is therefore necessary to improve the Italian language
instruction offered to guests, because as even several beneficiaries stated, “In Italy, you can’t do
anything if you don’t speak Italian.” At the same time, personnel should be encouraged to learn a
foreign language (for example, English, French, or Arabic).
The desire to rapidly learn Italian is greatest among those applicants who wish to stay in Italy in the
medium or short term because, as more than one of them observed, “There is no integration without
communication, without language.” Some applicants, especially from Somalia, express interest in
43
perfecting their English, an international language of exchange, useful if they move to English-
speaking countries.
Both beneficiaries and caseworkers recognize that Italian language instruction is the first step
towards the process of social integration and labour market insertion. Lessons should be held daily for
linguistically homogeneous groups and taught by bilingual instructors with experience teaching
Italian as a foreign language. Moreover, courses should first concentrate on the acquisition of basic
linguistic knowledge, and then on any work-specific needs.
Healthcare
Healthcare is one of the first services used by the beneficiary upon entry and registration in the
centre. The initial medical screening performed on all new arrivals includes measurement of
temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, and in some cases - where infectious disease is suspected or
for other serious medical matters - is followed by blood drawing, x-ray, or transfer to the hospital. The
exam occurs in appropriate spaces with specialized personnel, although the mediator is not always
present at the first medical visit.
The healthcare service is open 24 hours a day for patient visits and emergencies. Healthcare is more
often than not a triage service for the treatment of minor ailments and injuries, while important
medical cases are sent to the hospital and specialized centres. Medical-nursing personnel complain
about the fact that beneficiaries don’t use the service properly, coming to the clinic too often with
problems of little relevance. Moreover, beneficiaries do not respect the instructions of their
prescribed treatment, nullifying its potential effects. The following physician’s account is similar to that
of his colleagues in the infirmaries of other CARA centres: “They come to the infirmary at all hours of
the day and night because they don’t distinguish between night and day. It is as if everything were
an emergency and sometimes they even come in drunk… They don’t understand that we operate
24 hours but at night we sleep if there is no emergency. They, on the other hand, dance and talk at
night and sleep during the day. They have no schedule and then they don’t respect their
medication times.”
Conversely, beneficiary dissatisfaction with the health service essentially stems from what they
perceive as a lack of listening. They feel that medical personnel misunderstand their symptoms and
consequently prescribe inadequate treatment. This lack of comprehension of patients’ problems is
cultural as well as linguistic: “If you have a headache, you go to the infirmary and they give you a
pill. If you have a stomachache you go to the infirmary and they give you the same pill. If your foot
hurts and you go to the infirmary they give you the same pill they gave you for your stomach and
44
head. This is not treatment!”; “There is no medical assistance: the doctor doesn’t treat you, but turns
people away. No one listens to what we have to say. They send us away”; “The infirmary doesn’t
believe you have the problems you have. Often the translator isn’t available or translates incorrectly
and we communicate with gestures;” “You tell them you have a headache, and they understand
stomachache. Then if you come back the next day, they turn you away;” “The doctor always gives
you the same pill and tells you to come back the next day. He doesn’t look to see what you have.
He just gives you a pill that does nothing and sends you away. He only wants to get rid of the
problem.”
Among the innovative experiments in CARA healthcare services, one noteworthy project is
underway at the Bari Palese centre with the collaboration of UNICEF. The initiative includes infectious
disease screening for newborns and minors, vaccinations, HIV monitoring, and the introduction of the
medical history card. Courses have also begun for centre beneficiaries on breastfeeding, newborn
care and contraception.
Summary Table
The table included below is a summary of the critical points in the personal assistance dimensions
discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Here, information is presented from the dual perspective of
beneficiaries and caseworkers. In the third column are recommendations and hypothetical solutions
to the problems listed, half of which were made by interviewees, while the other half emerged
during the working group activities that followed the research phase (which are detailed later in this
report). Some of the recommendations are based on existing best practices which have been
implemented in some of the CARA visited by the IOM team and which we believe should be
mainstreamed and adopted also in different settings.
PERSONAL ASSISTANCE
SERVICES BENEFICIARIES PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Linguistic-cultural Misunderstandings Insufficient number of linguistic-cultural mediators within the
mediation between the beneficiary mediators to cover the CARAs and ensure a greater variety of
and mediator and language needs within the languages spoken.
incorrect translations CARA and to respond to - Increase Italian language courses for
the mediation needs of the beneficiaries
various services.
- Offer foreign language instruction –
English, French Arabic – to personnel
- Prepare cultural orientation material
for the main nationalities at the centre.
45
Mediators: - Distinguish the figure of the cultural-

- poorly-defined roles within linguistic mediator from that of
the team. translator or interpreter.
- excessive workload - Offer training and psychological

support to mediators.
- low-skilled work which
exclusively involves - Reduce the workload
linguistic translation - Clarify the role and duties of mediators
- emotionally and within the CARA
psychologically stressful
work
Information Lack of clear information Difficulty explaining the - Modify the methods in which
on Italian legislation, in confused and constantly- information is provided (information
particular with regard to changing Italian legislation. should be offered by a specific
methods and timeframes professional figure, be uniform, it should
of international protection not occur exclusively upon entry in the
applications CARA. It should be adapted to each
audience and should be presented in
the presence of the cultural-linguistic
mediator)
- Acquire hard copies of information,
create a regularly-updated multi-lingual
bulletin board; produce a video
available in various languages; set-up a
regulated internet point for public use;
ensure the constant presence of legal
associations in the centre to hold legal
assistance help desks or individualized
informational sessions.
- Provide a list of selected public and
private associations and NGOs present
outside the center that can guarantee
adequate and continuing legal
support.
- Organize individual meetings to
respond to the questions of single
beneficiaries.
- Assure the regular presence of UNHCR
in the facility.
Lack of information on the - Create an internet point

situation in the country of - Distribute photocopies of newspapers
origin and on the in original language.
characteristics of the host
country (culture, traditions, - Organize cultural orientation sessions
geography, labour about Italy.
market…) - Assure the presence of professionals
who can provide information on the
labour market.
- Deconstruct cultural stereotypes.
Scarce knowledge of the - Provide country profiles with key

political characteristics information on main countries of origin.
and situation in - Provide space for dialogue and
beneficiaries’ countries of debate.
origin (culture, religion,
traditions, holidays, - Deconstruct cultural stereotypes
geography…) as well as
the taboos of
communication and para-
social interaction.
Lack of knowledge about Lack of autonomy of the - Information on resources present on

the facilities and services in beneficiary on the territory the territory.
the territory and repeated requests - Accompaniment of beneficiary
made to personnel through the use of services.
Sociopsychological Lack of clarity on the role Hybrid figure within the - Shared definition within the staff of the
46
Support of the psychologist staff professional profile and duties of the

psychologist.
- Public presentations for beneficiaries
of the personnel and their respective
roles.
- Post the centre’s personnel
organigram to the common bulletin
board, complete with names and
photographs.
beneficiaries and between
beneficiaries and staff.
- Work to deconstruct reciprocal
cultural stereotypes
Lack of a recognized and - Increase specialization and training

shared definition of the courses.
concept of vulnerability, - Provide regular supervision visits with
and a lack common specialists.
protocols and tools of
reference for the - Define common protocols and tools of
identification and reference.
treatment of vulnerable - Increase accords with specialized
categories (in particular for centres on the territory
traumatized individuals
and victims of torture and
trafficking)
Lack of sufficient protocols - Favor specialization and training

and tools that account for courses
cultural aspects of patient - Provide regular supervision visits with
treatment. specialists.
- Define ad hoc therapeutic settings,
common protocols and tools of
reference
- Provide cultural orientation material
(example, information sheets) of the
main nationalities present in the centre
which also make reference to verbal
and non-verbal communication.
Misunderstandings with the - Redefine the concept of vulnerability

psychologist regarding the to reflect the reality among
causes of vulnerability beneficiaries (in addition to existent
vulnerable categories, include non-
psychological factors which cause
distress in beneficiaries.)
beneficiaries and between
beneficiaries and staff
- Place trust in beneficiaries, allowing
them to have positive experiences
- Work to deconstruct cultural
stereotypes
Organization of Free Repetitiveness of days and - Implement recreational and training

Time inadequate number of activities, and professional qualification
activities and re-qualification initiatives
- Set-up internships or identify
employment opportunities
- Insert beneficiaries in sports teams,
cultural, religious or artistic groups, etc,
present in the city, based on individual
47
preferences.
- Involve beneficiaries in publicly-useful
social activities in partnerships with local
entities.
- Provide places of worship.
beneficiaries and between staff and
beneficiaries.
Italian language Insufficient language - Increase the hours allotted for

instruction instruction language study also through
memorandums of understanding on the
territory.
- Provide multilingual libraries within the
CARA centres and dictionaries for
public consultation.
Healthcare Lack of comprehension - Regularly assure the presence of a
and listening on the part of cultural mediator during consultations.
medical and nursing - Distribute brief profiles of the most
personnel; inability to frequent symptoms
understand prescriptions;
lack of trust in the - Put times and methods of medicine
professionalism of consumption in writing.
personnel. - Create spaces for communication
and listening between beneficiaries
and between beneficiaries and the
staff in order to deconstruct cultural
stereotypes.
Intolerant of continued - Inform beneficiaries of the role of

requests for assistance. various staff within in the facility
- Internally clarify the roles and duties of
all
communication and debate and work
to deconstruct cultural stereotypes
Absence of guidance in - Preparation of a common model for
the preparation of the all CARAs, to also be sent to the
applicant’s medical file. commission and SPRAR centres
48
III. VULNERABLE PERSONS ?

49
Personnel and Beneficiaries
The CARA is a reception centre for individuals who have been granted permission to remain in the
country and a detention and removal centre for those who have received expulsion orders. This dual
function can provoke a similarly dual attitude in personnel with regard to asylum seekers: on one
hand, “the functionary” operates with the formal rigor of a bureaucratic organization, strictly
adhering to the regulations and available legislative, institutional and professional tools; on the other
hand, the “philanthropist” is moved by compassion and common sense and turns to the personal,
informal sphere when unable to act with legislative and professional skills.
The relationship that develops between “functionary” personnel and beneficiaries is one of
reciprocal detachment and diffidence. Caseworkers “administrate” large groups of people in a
disciplined manner and beneficiaries tend to keep their distance, feeling suspicious and even
frightened of them. In the eyes of the “functionary,” the beneficiaries are a homogeneous group,
whose lack of linguistic knowledge and numeric significance – far superior to that of the staff –
makes them dangerous.
Dialogue is precluded from the start for a lack of common linguistic and cultural references. The
immigrants come from unknown places, have names that are hard to pronounce, have different
traditions and customs. Their pasts are “damaged” and far from the collective imagination. In the
reception centre, moreover, they demand rights and insistently present requests that staff is unable
to address in the time and methods determined by law. Personnel becomes frustrated by their lack
of power to act and individual staff members defend themselves by handing problems off from one
to the other, or delegating them to social workers with diverse, wide-ranging profiles. The impossibility
to manage beneficiaries’ needs efficiently is usually attributed to legislative and structural
deficiencies, a justification that gradually leads to a helpless and resigned attitude: “This is the law
and we can’t change it;” “I didn’t write the law, I can’t do anything about it;” “Everyone is equal
under the law; we can’t change it just for you.”
The objective of the “functionary” and the requirements of the CARA are defined based on the
number and characteristics of the guests and the very existence and of this figure is justified by the
beneficiaries’ presence. Nonetheless, the lack of adequate legislative, budgetary and professional
tools prevents staff from effectively carrying out their role, making them weak and ambiguous in the
eyes of beneficiaries, a position from which they defend themselves by maintaining their distance.
50
The institution is required to protect the rights of beneficiaries and has precise obligations in their
regard. When staff sees the asylum seeker as a person – and not only the reason and “object” of
their work – they interact with applicants in a more emotional and philanthropic way. The
beneficiary, in this case, is not a threat or problem to keep at a distance, as much as a needy victim
to be assisted. This individual’s life experience is little more than a history of pain (and not viewed as
an example of resilience, courage and creative entrepreneurship) and the beneficiary becomes the
object of compassion and empathy. The “philanthropic” caseworker’s relational approach towards
the beneficiary is emotional and does not lead to a real awareness of the applicant as a whole.
In the assistance relationship, the philanthropic caseworker assumes responsibility for the
beneficiaries’ requests, even going beyond his or her own professional role, when necessary, and
turning to personal and informal means when legal and institutional tools do not suffice to
adequately address the situation. The proposed solutions however, although generous, are
extemporaneous, ad hoc and of a mostly welfarist nature. They are mostly actions used in single
cases that do not lead to practical, repeatable and sharable methods that are applicable the
entire beneficiary population (such as, for example, the offer of illegal work).
The “philanthropic” caseworker’s inventiveness often clashes with the official organizational methods
of the institution. Helping the beneficiary in a preferential manner inevitably creates discrimination
within the group and is not compatible with institutional regulations which address large numbers of
users and emergencies. The “philanthropic” caseworker finds him or herself in an uncertain position,
of formally belonging to the institution but not completely adhering to it, especially when actions,
hidden or with the consent of colleagues and superiors, extend beyond centre regulations.
Certain contextual aspects of the CARA centres – legislative, spatial-temporal and functional –
weaken the role of personnel and even become elements of vulnerability for beneficiaries and
personnel alike. In interviews, caseworkers openly declare the vulnerability they feel due to an
excessive workload and requests that they are unable to satisfy. “Functional” and especially
“philanthropic” caseworkers are at constant risk for burnout27.
The following contextual and institutional elements threaten the professional role and skills of staff,
negatively influencing their relationships with beneficiaries:
- The excessive number of immigrants with respect to the accommodation capacity of the facility
and with respect to staff size, as well as the frequency of emergency situations which make it
27 For a brief definition of burn out see footnote 31
51
difficult to respond to needs and provide quality services;

- Scarce economic resources to guarantee and improve services and make the best use of
personnel;
- Different languages and cultures which, in the absence of linguistic-cultural mediators or other
means of assistance, become factors of incommunicability;
- Protracted stays at the centre which the personnel cannot justify or reduce from a legislative
standpoint and uncertain prospects upon exit;
- The discrepancy between law and reality, the lack of clear legislation, uncertainty of response
times and commission decisions;
- Lack of professional tools with which to respond to special needs (trafficking victims, torture
victims, psychiatric disorders…);
- Lack of continuing training opportunities especially on handling difficult situations (trafficking
victims, torture victims, psychiatric disturbances…);
- Lack of psychological assistance and support.
When faced with either “philanthropic” or the “functionary” caseworkers, the beneficiary is in a
position of weakness and dependence which threatens his or her integrity and autonomy. In both
cases, in fact, the asymmetry of the relationship tends to mortify the individual’s identity, especially in
the following conditions:
- Dependence, or the inability to autonomously handle basic daily activities;

- Lack of information and influence on decisions taken about one’s future; inability to actively
determine one’s own destiny through autonomous choice, or to influence the perception of
centre personnel towards beneficiaries and in general the inability to find correspondence
between his or her desires and objectives and those of the institution;
- The undetermined length of stay at the centre as applicants await the commission decision and
the release of necessary documents;
- Exclusion from the outside world: in physical and geographic terms, the world located outside
the center: in temporal terms, the person he or she was before;
- Forced association with a variety of genders, generations, ethnicities, languages and religions…):
the centre is one place under a single authority where differences between beneficiaries are as
level as possible and where everyone is ideally subject to the same treatment;
- The perception of the uselessness of the time spent in the institution and the lack of activities that
characterize that time;
- Inability to work;
- Inability to distance themselves from this humiliating situation.
52
These elements are important factors of vulnerability for beneficiaries as they directly affect their
capacity to respond positively to the context. What emerged clearly from the interviews is that what
creates a distress is not the past from which asylum seekers have escaped or their journey to Italy, as
much as a lack of prospects and the undefined length of stay and release from the CARA as well as
waiting times for documents, a lack of work, housing, economic resources, the uncertainty of family
reunification and fragmented contact with their country. From this point of view, it is not the asylum
seekers who are vulnerable but the facility that makes them such.
Adaptations and Reactions

Inside the reception centre, one observes a variety of beneficiary reactions to the institution. In 2001-
2002, a multidisciplinary group of Dutch researchers, proposed four stereotypical figures of
adaptation and/or reaction to the centre. Called “coping styles,” they are described through four
symbolic images which synthesize the variety of strategies adopted by refugees28. These models are
not intended to faithfully represent reality, but to help the observer imagine, if only partially, the
asylum’s seekers reactions to the context around him.
- the Drifter: does not believe in his or her ability to influence the outcome of events. There is a
dominant feeling of loss, of painful and traumatic separation, which leads to suicidal urges; a sense
of alienation and estrangement prevent social contact. This lack of trust and passivity attracts
attention and offers of help from others;
- the Fighter: active and enterprising, he or she feels in control of the situation. Individuals of this
profile invent new situations to improve their lives and remain focused on the external world, seeking
out contacts and resources. Reaching established objectives is the only goal and a strong cause for
fragility and frustration should they not be achieved;
- the Hibernator: doesn’t nurture expectations for the future and remains stuck in the past,
focused on what he or she was before leaving the country or before tragic events. Social contact
with the external world is limited and involves mostly family members or people from the country of
origin;
- the Explorer: manifests flexibility in his or her interpretation of situations and in the reordering of
expectations, constantly calibrating them to the surrounding context and people he or she
encounters.
28 Kramer S., Bala J., “Managing Uncertainity: Coping Styles of Refugees in Western Countries” in Intervention Vol. 2, n. 1.
53
It is rare for an applicant to be defined by only one of these adaptation patterns. Asylum seekers
can be a combination of patterns or can alternate patterns according to the context and the
moment. Asylum seekers are not unwavering and migration is a dynamic process.
An applicant who appears in a reception centre as “a fighter” at one point in the migratory process,
can slip into a condition of “drifting” following a particular series of events, or can be one or the
other at the same time in relation to different aspects of his experience. It is therefore impossible to
determine how many “fighters” or “drifters” are present inside the reception centers or which
individual aspects and external circumstances lead to one or the other. It is however possible to
establish, in general terms, that the explorer figure is rare and that the majority of people oscillate
between the “fighter” and “hibernator” roles.
Far from being an exhaustive portrait of the multitude of reactions of asylum seekers, these behavior
patterns can serve as a tool for sector professionals as a representation of the complexity of life and
one’s ability to cope with problems. The four coping styles can be read as different levels of asylum
seekers’ adaptation and integration into the surrounding context, but each caseworker, in his or her
professional practice, can certainly identify other patterns or add to the definition of each.
Coping mechanisms are an indication of the psychological health and vitality of the asylum seeker.
They can be activated in the event of significant loss (home, family and that combination of habits
and associations that guarantee security and continuity), socio-economic privation (changes or
ruptures in the social and economic order, which led to exile), problems with insertion into the host
society (housing conditions, precarious work conditions, linguistic difficulties, cultural and
generational problems, prejudice, discrimination, isolation).
Based on what we saw above, the structural factors of vulnerability in a CARA centre affect
beneficiaries as well as caseworkers. The four patterns mentioned above, can be partially adapted
and used to describe caseworkers in their relationship with the institution and their responses to
asylum seekers’ needs.
In fact, coping strategies are active and transformative adaptation mechanisms that affect the
refugee and/or caseworker’s bargaining power in the centre. Facing a difficult situation requires one
to call on forms of individual and collective resilience, which can bring growth even at the
institutional level.
When faced with the same critical situation, people often react very differently. Some may collapse,
while others show positive development. In the latter case, attention moves to the set of responses
54
and resources that the person is able to activate individually as well as socially; that is, what
becomes interesting are the resilience mechanisms that prevent a traumatic or deviant
development29 or which even strengthen these individuals, distinguishing them from those who
manifest negative results (development spurred by adversity).
The structural limits of the context can stimulate the impulse to rebel against environmental pressure
and inspire a dynamic of restoration, whereby the individual recognizes the problem, defines and
creatively carries out the reparation process. “Literature on this subject uses different terms for this
type of response, for example post-traumatic growth, growth activated by adversity,
growth/development linked to stress, perceived benefit, full health, growth in adversity, etc.
Essentially, Adversity-Activated Development – AAD deals with processes that transform adversity
into processes of growth. People who have been exposed to a seriously traumatizing experience, in
addition to experiencing negative repercussions, can often begin processes of reassessment and
renewal in fundamental aspects of their lives.30.
Focusing on a person’s resources means linking the concept of vulnerability to the idea of
transformation and substituting the victim-narrative of the refugee and the frustration of the
caseworker with a new story that gives shape to all life experiences and reflects their dynamism and
developing identity.
29 Resilience is a combination of protection factors and defense mechanisms that the individual activates when he or she
faces a traumatic situation.
30 Losi, N., and Papadopoulos, R., “Post-conflict Constellations of Violence and the Psychosocial Approach of the International
Organization for Migration (IOM)” in Book of Best Practices. Trauma and the Role of Mental Health in Post-Conflict Recovery,
International Congress of Ministers of Health for Mental Health and Post-Conflict Recovery, Rome, 2004.
55
IV. A DYNAMIC LOOK AT VULNERABILITY

56
Opinions around the table

The working group was held after the field research phase, and saw the participation of
representatives from six different CARA centres31 who discussed the many different meanings of
vulnerability (what vulnerability is and what causes it, who is a vulnerable asylum seeker). Many
critical areas emerged – also found during the study – linked to the numerous expressions of this
phenomenon in the centre. Some critical issues include difficulties translating the law into practice
and by consequence the communication of ambiguous, partial or false information to beneficiaries;
procedural redundancy caused by increased bureaucratic processes, which inevitably lengthens
times between one step and another; the absence or insufficiency of communication and
collaboration with territorial services and with the SPRAR centres; the lack of structures, resources and
specialized personnel (like, for example linguistic-cultural mediators and ethno-psychiatrists); the
scarcity of training opportunities for caseworkers in centres (basic and specialized personnel) and in
general for those working in the reception field (starting with law enforcement)32.
Lack of a clear definition for vulnerability specifically impacts the ability of caseworkers to signal
asylum seekers to the SPRAR and makes presentation of the asylum application to the commission
even more complicated; no indications are given for the preparation of medical-psychological
documentation for a vulnerable asylum seeker.
During the roundtable meeting, the issue of asylum seeker vulnerability sparked discussion, first and
foremost, about the fragility of the reception system, identifying an initial, three-level response:
• Definition of a shared plan and integrated network (among first and secondary reception
centres and local services) for joint treatment of beneficiaries to make the best use of
available resources;
• Creation of a third-party agency to monitor and evaluate the performance of the various
facilities;
• Identification of opportunities for listening and communication with beneficiaries, who are not
to be considered problems, but as trusted resources who should be encouraged to reach the
greatest level of autonomy, allowing for positive experiences33.
31 Bari Palese, Borgo Mezzanone (Foggia), Gradisca d’Isonzo (Gorizia), Restinco (Brindisi), Salinagrande (Trapani), Via Alimena
in Rome.
32 Training suggestions proposed by participants in the roundtable meeting, included: psychological, intercultural and ethno-
psychiatric training; analysis and deconstruction of false cultural stereotypes; training on taboos and factors of
communication activation with other cultures; training on the geo-political situation of the main countries of origin of
beneficiaries; training on cultural mediation, distinguishing it from interpretation; discussions with people who have completed
the reception process and who have integrated into Italy (such as, for example, cultural mediators).
57
The general portrait of the beneficiary involves disorientation, solitude, mistrust and/or diffidence,
conditions that often provoke responses of passivity. However, if vulnerability is rooted in migration
and its causes (political instability, war, persecution, etc.) it is in the encounter with the Italian context
that causes vulnerability to manifest. Uncertainty of how the system functions, lack of access to
complete information, an excess of legislation, the vagueness of procedures and their timing, a lack
of future prospects, disconnection from the outside world and discrimination fed by false cultural and
professional stereotypes are only a few of the factors that provoke vulnerability in new-arrivals. The
very need to tell one’s story repeatedly (upon entrance to the various reception centres, informally
to caseworkers or other beneficiaries, in preparation for the hearing, before the commission) requires
the individual to constantly relive the traumatic event, re-traumatizing them or making the trauma
chronic.
The following definitions of vulnerability were proposed by participants of the roundtable and
incorporate and synthesize several of the points mentioned above: “Vulnerability is a state in which,
because of recent or past events a person is unable to adequately cope with the present situation;”
“Vulnerability is a temporary personal inadequacy to cope with life situations;” “Vulnerability is a lack
of filters to codify and de-codify the surrounding context;” “Vulnerability is the inability to bear
excessive legislation.”
These definitions account for the great complexity and intricacy of the concept of vulnerability and
show that “vulnerable asylum seeker” is not a simple category used to signal a person to the most-
appropriate SPRAR centre, or to insist upon before the commission to obtain a favorable response to
an international protection application.
Finally, we can confirm that:

- vulnerability is not necessarily a pathology. The causes of vulnerability can lead to pathological
results or may not develop any symptoms and even be positively absorbed by the person. In
fact, everyone reacts differently to the same stimuli;
- vulnerability is not about groups of people nor does it abide by fixed variables like age, isolation
from the family, pregnancy or disability…;
- vulnerability and overcoming it are part of a dynamic process that involves several people, the
first of whom are the individual and the relationships he or she establishes within a physical, social
and cultural context;
- vulnerability is a transitory state in the life of a person.
33 During the roundtable, someone suggested the creation of a database to catalogue the knowledge and past experiences
of beneficiaries, which would serve as a balance sheet of their skills. In addition each centre would develop memory archives
that contain the memories of beneficiaries, the institution and the professionals that work there.
58
Vulnerable People or Factors of Vulnerability

In the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers, CARA centres adopt the categories proposed in
the statute which draws, in turn, from the one provided by UNHCR34. However, when questioned
about the definition and identification of vulnerable asylum seekers, very few, including social and
medical-healthcare workers, made reference to the UNHCR list, providing only partial, vague
descriptions of the categories. In fact, as observed before, vulnerable asylum seekers are grouped
mainly based on biographical data (for example minors and the elderly), medical criteria (disabilities
or illnesses) or on personal perceptions of psychological disorder (“If someone’s a little absent, if they
never speak or tend to isolate themselves, we alert the psychologist). Association with a certain
political, religious or ethnic group or evident of signs of torture and trauma are elements that
automatically land a person in the vulnerable category. Even country of origin can be a determining
factor. Others extend the definition of vulnerability generically to all asylum seekers (“For the life that
they lived in their countries of origin, they are all vulnerable”; “As immigrants they are vulnerable
because migration means detachment”…) Only one social worker and a few linguistic-cultural
mediators included structural factors in the Italian reception system among the factors that generate
vulnerability in beneficiaries. One social worker stated: “Migrants don’t bring vulnerability with them,
it is the system they find which can make them vulnerable or antisocial because it does not
recognize them, does not answer their questions, leaves them suspended and unable to act.”
In interviews with beneficiaries, the term vulnerability was not easy to translate or explain as it does
not necessarily have a linguistic and cultural equivalent in the applicants’ countries of origin. Asylum
seeker interviewees who talked about vulnerable people – unfamiliar with the UNHCR categories –
made reference to factors in the Italian context that make them vulnerable, indicating only as a
second thought the individual characteristics of the person or his or her biographical data since,
“How can anyone be considered vulnerable, man or woman, elderly, minor or disabled who has
succeeded in escaping from war and finding the strength to leave his home and people to cross
the desert and sea?”
34 According to UNHCR, categories of vulnerable asylum seekers include:

- children and adolescents (for “children” UNHCR intends, in keeping with the definition with the Convention on the
Rights of the Child of 1989, “minors under the age of 18,” including therefore children and adolescents);
- unaccompanied minors (an unaccompanied minor is a person under the age of 18 who is separated from his or her
parents and who cannot be placed under the care of a legal guardian);
- single women (women are considered in the vulnerable category because they are more greatly exposed to risks,
such as exploitation and sexual violence, sexual discrimination and unequal access to basic services) and in particular
pregnant women;
- single-parent families;
- victims of torture;
- the disabled (physical or mental disability, chronic illness);
- the elderly.
59
A Sudanese applicant in a wheelchair explained: “I am not vulnerable because I am in a

wheelchair. I am vulnerable because I do not have a job to support my family. I am vulnerable
because I do not have a book to read, because I cannot obtain the information I need – about
procedures for example – or to control the timing or final outcome. The boredom of this place and
uncertainty regarding my life makes me vulnerable, useless, and incapable. Instead, I have a lot of
interests and I could do lots of things or at least be useful.”
This last observation shows that, from the perspective of beneficiaries, the definition of vulnerability
also lies in a psychological and autobiographical component - life experience. This consideration
integrates the socio-cultural and structural (legislative, spatial-temporal and functional) aspects of
vulnerability:
The psychological-autobiographical component. A person’s well-being is defined by characteristics

of the life context (economic, environmental, social, political-institutional aspect) as well as by
personal and family history, individual attributes and the perceptions of oneself and one’s condition.
These elements are much more relevant when they refer to the life experiences of migrant and
asylum seekers, whose autobiographical episodes, in their historic and psychological dimensions,
determine migratory choices and condition behavior, and define the way they interpret the events
around them and invest in and give meaning to their future.
Considering
individual life experience in the definition of vulnerability means considering the point of view of the
interested parties, who have a specific perspective on their well-being or lack their of, and a “mixed”
individual perspective which stems from multiple socio-cultural associations.
The psychological-autobiographical component is not the same as the socio-cultural one. As

Alessandro Dal Lago writes, there is a difference between the two aspects: “Interpreting foreigners as
‘cultures,’ our society thinks they know them and feels reassured because they are afraid of their
fluidity and mobility, not of the foreignness of their culture, especially if it kept in a minority and
fenced in.35”
The socio-cultural component. Vulnerability is socially and culturally determined and it is the society –
in that combination of norms, conduct, values and language through which one interprets and acts
on individual or collective well-being – that gives the concept of vulnerability its meaning. The same
categorization proposed by UNHCR and globally-recognized and adopted, is the fruit if a specific
place and society, since the etiology of a problem and its treatments are socially and culturally
defined.
35 Dal Lago A. in Palidda S., Mobilità umane. Introduzione alla sociologia delle migrazioni, Cortina Raffaello Editore, Milan 2008.
60
Vulnerability is not necessarily a ubiquitous concept perceived in the same way across cultures, in
particular vulnerability related to migration and exile. The socio-cultural dimension and medical-
healthcare dimension both differentiate and associate groups of human beings; a community, like
the individual, selects a group of references by which to define, manifest and recognize itself.
Cultural identity defines a person in relation to his or her society of origin, and is also flexible and
mutable; it is linked to each person’s choices, groups of reference and history. Migration complicates
this concept, adding references from the host society to the original references and multiplying the
socio-cultural variables which define the migrant’s identity and on which he or she realizes the
migratory project.
The structural component. As was amply discussed above, physical and historic-temporal elements
of the surrounding context can affect a person’s vulnerability, increasing or reducing it. The structural
component, in its legislative, spatial- temporal and functional aspects, can cause vulnerability rather
than serve as a tool to reduce and overcome it.
These components not only

influence the well-being of the asylum seeker, but also that of the caseworker who define themselves
“victims” of the system’s structure. Addressing the troublesome institutional factors to which the
migrant is subjected means, at the same time, acting on factors that also distress caseworkers, and
affecting by consequence the relationship between the two.
61
V. CONCLUSIONS
62
Proof of vulnerability
In 1992, Lynn Payne adopted the term “disease mongering”36 to describe the marketing of new
illnesses by various medical and pharmaceutical interest groups. The term was then extended to
identify the sale or promotion of illnesses, that is the attempt to convince healthy people that they
are sick and convince people with mild illnesses that they are gravely ill.37 Disease mongering,
however, is not exclusive of the healthcare industry (pharmaceutical, medical, psychological and
psychiatric) but also occurs in the political sphere.
In the case of reception centers, asylum procedures and reception structures contribute to
vulnerability in asylum seekers, who exist in a limbo of long and tortuous legislative processes, welfarist
or alarmist policies that construe them as victims or criminals. In both cases, however, asylum seekers
resemble the ill in that they are to be separated from the healthy part of society, as carriers of
contagious diseases and damaged pasts, without a home, without a family, without work.
After having qualified an individual as “ill,” scientific proof of his illness is then constructed. In the
asylum application process, the disease is often the scientific demonstration of the beneficiary’s
suffering used to garner a positive response from the territorial commission and obtain asylum status.
In the case of people with medical-psychiatric or psychological pathologies, war scars or signs of
torture, clinical examinations and medical reports become support documents for the asylum
application file. In fact, the medical report is socially and institutionally recognized as an
incontrovertible proof of vulnerability. As a result, an asylum applicant will more easily obtain the right
of residence if his or her suffering or vulnerability is recognized, than those without such certification.
Physical and psychological signs of vulnerability borne by the asylum seeker become “proof of
truth,” 38 which justify specific treatment and establishes a moral obligation, on the part of the
institutions to provide support and shelter. The political logic of the law is therefore subject to
recognition of the person as a suffering and subjugated individual deserving of compassion. As
Didier Fassin affirms, “This proof of the truth introduces a dual relationship between the individual and
the social realm. First there is a relationship of subjugation whereby the individual becomes a victim,
with various levels of internalization of this role or, on the contrary, one consciously manipulates this
state of suffering to obtain a residence permit or urgent care. It is this image of subjugation through
which political powers establish a relationship of generous benevolence. This dual character of the
36 L. Payne, Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick,, Wiley and Sons, New
York 1992.
37 This strategy allows for the marketing, through massive advertising campaigns, of new illnesses the main characteristic of
which is to respond to treatments or medications patented by various pharmaceutical companies. In the medical-
pharmaceutical context, disease mongering entails several steps (a) identify symptomatic criteria that define an illness that
requires treatment; (b) inform the public that a large part of the population is affected by this problem; (c) publish information
that this is a problem, deficiency, imbalance can affectively addressed by a hit compound; (d) present treatment as risk-free
(in particular long-term treatment); (e) in case of failure, selectively use of statistics to emphasize the benefits of treatment
regardless of failures.
38 D. Fassin, La souffrance du monde. Considération anthropologiques sur les politiques contemporaines de la compassion in
Editions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS, 2002.
63
moral and political individual, who is at once autonomous and submissive, can profoundly and
permanently affect one’s self-image and experience with the social sphere.39
What emerged from the research was that beyond the medical examinations, for the identification
of vulnerable asylum seekers and determination of the causes of vulnerability itself, maintaining a
constant relationship with the beneficiary and his or her world of needs and meaning is essential to
assuring his or her effective well-being. For caseworkers, this translates to a constant capacity for
listening and tolerance of the migrant’s etiological references, even in a complex context like that of
the CARA where different cultures and languages intersect. In a context that tends to label and
categorize people, listening to the applicant’s experiences encourages an open, systemic and
transformative approach. From victims and service users, the applicants become active and
creative individuals, collective resources of knowledge and experience especially with regard to
health and caring for themselves and others.
In investigating the concept of vulnerable asylum seekers in reception centers, this study considered
both the beneficiaries’ and caseworkers’ perspectives since the centre (in its legislative, spatial-
temporal and functional levels) greatly affects both groups and conditions their relationships.
Caseworkers and beneficiaries are both carriers of a personal and cultural perspective of
vulnerability that inevitably comes into play, constantly modifying the surrounding context both
negatively and positively, through continuous influence and dialectical exchange.
Migration and Vulnerability
Migration is woven in an intricate pattern of departures and separations, made up of the individual,
familial and historic motivations that inspired it, in the biography of the person and the waiting
periods between different steps. The journey, which can take even years, condenses the various
changes of migration, becoming a metamorphic space that causes a “contrast that is often rife with
self-pity between the original identity associated with a place and a history and the new identity that
is without such associations”.40 The refugee’s memory and psychological equilibrium, become thus
concentrated around certain moments, in the fragility of disorientation or the search for renewed
strength; these are therefore moments which deserve greater attention even before establishing
laws, determining public policy and investing material resources, before contending with cultural
interface and relations with others. The refugee’s wellbeing depends on a personal foundation of
symbolic resources, of autobiographical recompositions, and continuous definition.
Moreover, vulnerability is not a characteristic that belongs to only one dimension of human function
(ex. physical, socio-economic) but is a composite and dynamic phenomenon that defines itself in
relation to external events in a person’s life, the way those events are perceived and the type of
assistance and resources available.
39Ibidem, p.687. Translation by the author of the report.

40 Losi N., La mente è migrante, speech given on the occasion of the International meeting “The Migration Museums”
organized by IOM and UNESCO and held in Rome October 23-25, 2006.
64
Structural variables for instance, directly influence life conditions, social relations and the concrete
results of migration; psychological-autobiographical and socio-cultural variables instead, most
specifically manifest their consequences on the state of well-being of the migrant, revealing
potential risks of psychological and psychiatric problems or forms of marginalization, deviance and
delinquency. Crossing geographical and socio-cultural boundaries requires redefinition of the
identity and original value system, a process which can lead to social anxiety and a loss of one’s
frame of reference; although not all migratory processes manifest psychiatric results, migration
undoubtedly exposes one to greater vulnerability.
This rationale is the premise for the psychological-autobiographical and socio-cultural meaning of
vulnerability, which etymologically means “to (be) wound (ed), damage or ruin.” But vulnerability
occurs in the measure in which the migrant is forced to choose between two identities, two cultural
associations, and the extent to which the migrant cuts himself off from “the traditional culture of
origin, the world of the dead, of the “invisible.”41 Vulnerability is caused by aggressive forces that
struggle for a place within the biographical journey of the migrant who, in the case of a positive re-
composition, is able to manage violent memories and plural realities which are often contradictory.
Psychological-autobiographical and sociocultural vulnerability causes, first and foremost,

deculturation. In an intellectual sense, it weakens the capacity for thought (logical, spatial and
temporal forms that allow for the interpretation of actions and identity), it invades, influences and
modifies psychological structures remaining hidden and slowly acquiring psychological density
preventing the individual from metabolizing and filtering thoughts and intentions as before. This
necessarily requires a reorganization of the person’s life, including the element that caused the
vulnerability and giving it meaning. This is a sort of disaffiliation without reaffiliation42 whereby the
migrant is affected at a collective level, being separated from the original group of association. This
not only signals a change by also provokes a progressive destruction of the original social and
cultural identity, as well as the fracture of existing ties between the psychological universe and
external universes of reference.
The responses to the same factors of vulnerability are different from person to person: when the
applicant reacts appropriately, he or she does not become victim to psychopathological incidents;
however when the reaction is inappropriate, vulnerability penetrates the individual and continues to
affect him or her. The “inappropriateness” of the reaction depends on the three components listed
above, the psychological-autobiographical (individual characteristics and personal experience), the
sociocultural (the communities and cultures of origin and the perspective through which one assigns
meaning) and the structural (characteristics contingent to the physical and temporal context).
Even the reaction to what causes vulnerability is an aspect of vulnerability. Only paying attention to
difficulties, needs and pathological results, brings one to interpret the Asylum Seeker as a victim and
to employ welfarist treatment measures. Conversely, as Renos Papadopoulos asserts,43 after having
41Nathan T., Non siamo soli al mondo, Bollati-Boringhieri, Turin 2003.

42 This is ethnopsychiatry terminology.
43 R. K. Papadopoulos, “Refugees, Trauma and Adversity-Activated Development” in European Journal of Psychotherapy and
Counselling, 9 (3), Settembre 2007; Losi, N., e Papadopoulos, R., “Post-conflict Constellations of Violence and the Psychosocial
65
ascertained the migrants’ pain, it is necessary to shift concentration to the thing that has been
preserved and reinforced in that person in response to the problem (resilience) and subsequently,
the positive results generated by the factors of vulnerability themselves. (Adversity Activated
Development – AAD) .44
In the case of resilience and adversity activated development, the wellbeing of the applicant is
linked to a transformative idea that substitutes the victimizing narrative of the refugee with a story
that gives shape to the individual’s experiences, as evidence of sociocultural dynamism and an
identity in transformation. What derives from this is a holistic interpretation that does not exclude
more painful aspects, but weaves several stories (familial, social) with those of the services and
institutions providing treatment. The possibility for the refugee to work with others to construct a
consistent and genuine personal narrative that does not omit any experiences is fundamental for his
or her psychological health and determines the level of investment (and recognition of) in the
migratory project in the country of destination.
The psychological-autobiographical and sociocultural component, as opposed to the structural

element, accounts for the subjective and social experience of health and illness; it conditions the
occurrence of healthy or sick behaviors. Vulnerability and wellbeing, in fact, assume full meaning
only in relation to a given social and cultural organization and an individually-attributed meaning.
French anthropologist Marc Augé reflects that this paradox, “is constituted by the fact that illness is
at once the most individual and most public of events. At the personal level, we each experience it
directly inside ourselves and suffer its direct consequences. However this is at the same time social,
not only because a certain number of institutions address various phases in its evolution, but also
because the thought patterns that allow us to identify, name and treat it are imminently social:
thinking about one’s own illness means making reference to the experience of others.” 45
The three proposed dimensions of vulnerability – psychological-autobiographical, sociocultural and

structural – recall a triple perspective through which vulnerability can be experienced, interpreted,
and categorized: 46
- Illness or vulnerability in the perspective of the asylum seeker, as it is lived in its individual, social and
cultural expression. In this case, the etiology of “being ill” is examined from the perspective of the
asylum seeker and from a biographically and psychologically preferential standpoint → perspective
of the beneficiary - psychosocial-biographical dimension;
- Sickness or vulnerability as it is perceived in the social environment (among family, friends, peers,
etc) which surrounds the individual. This as there is a difference between being feeling ill and being ill
(being social recognized as such) → caseworker’s perspective; sociocultural dimension (but not
medical-healthcare);
Approach of the International Organization for Migration (IOM)” in Book of Best Practices. Trauma and the Role of Mental
Health in Post-Conflict Recovery, International Congress of Ministers of Health for Mental Health and Post-Conflict Recovery,
Roma, 2004.
44 Coping modes, resilience and AAD are explored in greater detail below.
45 M. Augè e C. Herzlich C. (a cura di), Il senso del male. Antropologia, storia e sociologia della malattia, Il Saggiatore, Milano
1986.
46 Ref. Arthur Kleinman.
66
- Disease or vulnerability as it is viewed at the national and international legislative level, from the
perspective of institutions and medical-healthcare personnel. Here, vulnerability is based on
concrete evidence, objective measureable facts based on physic-chemical and
psychopathological data and proposes a highly dualistic view of the relationship between body and
mind → CARA’s perspective; structural dimension (legislative, spatial-temporal, functional and
medical-healthcare).
This additional categorization, which is reminiscent of the preceding one, differentiates the general
sociocultural standpoint from the medical-healthcare perspective. The collective representations of
vulnerability on which the sociocultural dimension is based do not necessarily coincide with the
medical-healthcare realm. Vulnerability is the object of qualification on the part of social actors who
recognize its existence in the public sphere (sickness), but as opposed to the medical-healthcare
definition, it does not involve diagnosis and cure of the asylum seeker’s state of vulnerability through
the use of legal or technical-scientific knowledge (disease) which, however, is not always meaningful
for the asylum seeker. In fact, the asylum seeker expresses the need to give meaning to his or her
vulnerability, categorizing the problem in the autobiographical framework of reference, for which
there is no strictly legislative or medical solution (illness). To summarize, if the asylum seeker feels a
sensation of psychological suffering or pain (illness) he or she consults a doctor who makes a
diagnosis (disease), thus legitimizing the patient’s social role as “ill” (sickness). In the current social
system, vulnerability receives medical-scientific and social recognition before receiving individual
acknowledgement, and is considered much more real when there is medical-scientific evidence to
prove it.
In conclusion
What emerged from the study is that asylum procedures and reception structures contribute to
increasing vulnerability in asylum seekers, who exist in a limbo of long and tortuous legislative
processes, welfarist or alarmist policies that construe them as victims or criminals, carriers of
contagious diseases and damaged pasts, without a home, without a family, without work.
Beyond the medical examinations, identification of vulnerable asylum seekers and determination of
the causes of vulnerability itself, maintaining a constant relationship with the beneficiary and his or
her world of needs and meaning is essential to assuring his or her effective well-being. For
caseworkers, this translates to a constant capacity for listening and tolerance of the migrant’s
etiological references, even in a complex context like that of the CARA where different cultures and
languages intersect. In a context that tends to label and categorize people, listening to the
applicant’s experiences encourages an open, systemic and transformative approach. From victims
67
and service users, the applicants become active and creative individuals, collective resources of
knowledge and experience especially with regard to health and caring for themselves and others.
Moreover, vulnerability is not a characteristic that belongs to only one dimension of human function
(ex. physical, socio-economic) but is a composite and dynamic phenomenon that defines itself in
relation to external events in a person’s life, the way those events are perceived and the type of
assistance and resources available.
68
VI. GLOSSARY
ARCI - Italian Cultural Recreational Association
ASGI – Association for Legal Studies on Immigration
ASL – Local Public Healthcare Authority
CARA –Asylum Seeker and Refugee Reception Centre
CDA – Reception Centre
CDI – Identification Centre
CIE – Identification and Expulsion Centre
CPA – First Reception Centre
CPT – Temporary Detention Centre
CSPA – Assistance and First Reception Centre
EVASP - Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection
FER – European Refugee Fund
IOM – International Organization for Migration
ONG – Non-governmental Organization
SPRAR – Asylum Seeker and Refugee Protection System
UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund
69
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
UNHCR (editors), I Rifugiati in Italia. Legislazione, regolamenti e strumenti internazionali in vigore in

Italia, Rome 1980
UNHCR (editors), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva
1979
Amnesty International-Italia, Invisibili. Minori migranti detenuti all’arrivo, EGA Editore, Rome, 2006
AA.VV., Limes, Il mondo in casa, n°4/2007, Gruppo Editoriale l’Espresso;AA.VV., Practitioner

Commentaries on the EU Acquis on Asylum, European Commission, Vienna 2000
Andolfi M. (editor), Famiglie immigrate e psicoterapia transculturale, Franco Angeli, Milan 2004
Bascherini G., Immigrazione e diritti fondamentali. - L’esperienza italiana tra storia costituzionale e
prospettive europee, Jovene editore, Naples 2007
Bichi R., Valtolina G., Nodi e snodi. Progetti e percorsi di integrazione degli stranieri immigrati, Franco
Angeli, Milan 2005
Brekke J.P., While we are waiting, Institute for Social Research, Oslo 2004
Caritas, Dossier statistico 2003, Caritas, Rome 2003
70
Censis (editor), Rapporto annuale sul Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati Anno
2005, Edizioni Allei Servizi, Rome 2006
Censis (Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali) (editor), Primo rapporto annuale sul Sistema di protezione
per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati. Anno 2005, Edizioni Anci Servizi, Rome 2006
Censis (Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali) (editor), Rapporto annuale sul Sistema di protezione per
richiedenti asilo e rifugiati. Anno 2006, Edizioni Anci Servizi, Rome 2007
Censis (Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali) (editor), Rapporto annuale sul Sistema di protezione per
richiedenti asilo e rifugiati. Anno 2006, Edizioni Anci Servizi, Rome 2008
Censis (Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali), 58° Relazione sulla politica informativa e della sicurezza, II
semestre 2006
Censis (Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali), 41° Rapporto annuale sulla situazione sociale del Paese,
Fondazione Censis, Rome 2007
CESPI (2003), Valutazione del Programma Nazionale Asilo, Rome 2003
CESPI (2004), Valutazione del Programma Nazionale Asilo, Rome 2004
Cnel (Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia e del Lavoro), Indici di integrazione degli immigrati in Italia.
IV rapporto, Rome 2006
Cnel (Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia e del Lavoro), Osservazioni e proposte sulle politiche per
l’immigrazione, Rome 2006
Deriu M., Dizionario critico delle nuove guerre, EMI, Bologna 2005
ICS (Consorzio Italiano di Solidarietà), La protezione negata. Primo rapporto sul diritto d’asilo in Italia,
Feltrinelli, Milan, 2005
Idos Centro Studi e Ricerche, Migrant’s Integration Territorial Index, 2006
Kramer S., Bala J., “Managing Uncertainity: Coping Styles of Refugees in Western Countries” in
Intervention Vol. 2, n. 1
71
Losi N., Vite altrove. Migrazione e disagio psichico, Milan, Feltrinelli 2000
Losi, N., e Papadopoulos, R., “Post-conflict Constellations of Violence and the Psychosocial
Approach of the International Organization for Migration (IOM)” in Book of Best Practices. Trauma
and the Role of Mental Health in Post-Conflict Recovery, International Congress of Ministers of Health
for Mental Health and Post-Conflict Recovery, Rom, 2004
Marchetti C., Un mondo di rifugiati. Migrazioni forzate e campi profughi, EMI, Bologna 2006
Nathan T., Non siamo soli al mondo, Bollati-Boringhieri, Turin 2003
Niessen J., Huddleston H., Citron L., Migrant Integration Policy Index, British council and Migration,
Brussels, 2007
IOM (International Organization for Migration), Gente in movimento. L’immagine degli immigrati in
Italia fra media, società civile e mondo del lavoro, Roma 2002
IOM (International Organization for Migration), Manuale per l’orientamento degli immigrati in Italia.
Giuda per gli orientatori, Rome 2001
IOM (International Organization for Migration), Returning to Start Over. A Guide to Assisted Voluntary
Return and Reintegration in Areas of Origin, Rome 2004
IOM (International Organization for Migration), Torniamo all’asilo. Uno studio per il Programma
Nazionale Asilo, Rome 2002
Palidda S., Mobilità umane. Introduzione alla sociologia delle migrazioni, Cortina Raffaello Editore,
Milan 2008
Pastore F., “La paranoia dell’invasione e il futuro dell’Italia” in Limes, n°4/2007, Gruppo Editoriale
L’Espresso
Papadopoulos, R.K., “Therapeutic Care for Refugees. No Place Like Home”. London: Karnac, 2002.
Tavistock Clinic Series
Papadopoulos, R.K., “Refugees, Trauma and Adversity-Activated Development”. European Journal
72
of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 9 (3), September 2007, 301-312
Servizio centrale SPRAR, Relazione sull’applicazione della Direttiva Amato Mastella, marzo Roma 2008
Servizio centrale SPRAR, Guida pratica per i titolari di protezione internazionale, Roma, 2008
Servizio centrale SPRAR, Raccolta Normativa in materia di asilo, Roma, 2008
Servizio centrale SPRAR, Rapporto Annuale del Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati.
Anno 2006-2007 Anno , Roma 2007
Servizio centrale SPRAR, Rapporto Annuale del Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati
Anno 2007/2008, Roma, 2008
Servizio centrale del Sistema SPRAR, Rapporto Annuale del Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo
e rifugiati Anno 2008/2009, Roma, 2009
Sassen S., Migranti, coloni, rifugiati. Dall’emigrazione di massa alla fortezza Europa, Feltrinelli, Milano,
1999
Silverman D., Come fare ricerca qualitativa, Carocci, Roma 2003
Van Selm J., “European refugee policy: is there such a thing?” in, New Issues in Refugee Research,
Vink M., and Meijerink F., “Asylum Applications and Recognition Rates in EU Member States 1982–
2001: A Quantitative Analysis” in, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 16, n. 4, 2003 pp. 297-315
Vanistendael S., La resilience ou le realisme de l’esperance, BICE, Ginevra 1998
Zagato L. (a cura di), Verso una disciplina comune europea del diritto d'asilo, CEDAM, Padova
2006
Zincone G. (a cura di), Secondo rapporto sull’integrazione degli immigrati in Italia, Il Mulino, Bologna
2001.
For more information on all project publications, consult the web site: http://www.evasp.eu/
73
APPENDIX 1: Semi-structured Questions for Beneficiaries
>General Questions
The preliminary information will be completed by general questions that have the purpose of getting to know
better the interviewee as well as that of introducing the specific questions.
Education
Ask about education and learning in their country of origin. Some possible questions might be:
Did you study in your country of origin? If yes, what did you study? What other forms of training have you
received? How can you use these skills in Italy? If you have children, what do you wish for them? What type kind
of path would you like them to pursue?
Work
Ask about their employment in their country of origin and their work prospects in Italy. Some possible questions
might be:
What work did you do in your country of origin? What would you like to do here? Why?
Migratory project
Ask about the motives that led them to flee their country of origin, with a short chronology of the migratory
stages from their departure to the recognition of their status.
Administrative and Legal Procedures
Ask about their expectations, the administrative procedures in place, and on the state of their request. Some
possible questions might be:
When did you arrive in this centre or for how long have you been here? What do you need to legally stay in
Italy? Once you are out of the centre, what are the other stages they have indicated you? Who has informed
you of this? Do you think you have received the right assistance? Do any doubts remain? With whom did you
talk to solve them? How much did you know about the political asylum procedures, before departing? Do you
think that it is difficult to obtain the status?
>Specific Questions
Here are the topics that the EVASP research will discuss; they are structured on a triple layered questionnaire: (a)
the centre; (b) the perception of the interviewee of their own psychosocial condition; (c) on vulnerability.
I. The centre
(a) Preliminary picture- Ask about the conditions in the centre of identification. Example: Have you been in
other centres? What did you know before arriving here? How was it described to you? What did you
think of it once you saw it?
(b) The centre- Ask information on the perception of the interviewee about the centre. Example: How
would you describe this place to someone that does not know it? For how long have you being living
here? With who? How do you find yourself with the other residents (distinguish between the other users
and the staff)? Where do you meet? What do you speak about? What does this place make you think
74
of? Have you ever seen a place like this? Are there places like this in your country? What do you find
positive and negative of this place? What are the areas where you often go, which are the ones you
never go to? Why?
(c) Safety and security- Ask information on their feeling of safety. Example:
Did you feel safe in your country? Do you feel safer here? Have you ever faced violent or threatening
situations here? If so, what happened? Did it affect your sense of safety? Have you ever dealt with the
security services here? What do you think of them? Do they inspire you trust or fear? Do you take any
precautions to ensure your own safety (i.e. only go out with groups, avoid certain areas ect.)?
Final key question: “Therefore, according to what you have told me so far, if you had to evaluate the centre
from 0 (being the worst) to 10 (being the best), what would it be?”
II. Psychosocial conditions
Challenges
Ask information on the main challenges that the interviewee faces in the centre. Some possible questions
might be: What are the challenges or difficulties you are facing now?( living conditions in the centre; work;
health; language; religious life; nutrition; relationships; mobility)
Health
Ask about their health:
(a) Preliminary picture- Do you have any health problems? What problems have pushed you to ask for
help? Among the different symptoms you feel, which one worries you the most? How would you
describe it? How are these problems called in your country? To whom did you address this? Have you
received any remedies? What were you told? Have you found help? Do you agree with what has been
said/ prescribed? Certain times the same problems are described in different ways. What do you think
are the causes of your preoccupations (distinguish whether the cause is physical, social, psychological,
trauma…)? In your country had these symptoms manifested? When did they begin? Did you address
someone in your country? Who? How did they take care of you or how do think they would have taken
care of it in your country of origin? OR ELSE to whom would you turn to and with whom would you talk
to, in your country of origin? Why would you speak to them about it? What did you tell them? Do you
feel their behavior towards you has changed after you told them? Is your family aware of these
problems? Are you thinking of telling them? Do you think that it could be a problem for them (distinguish
couple life, children, and community)? Do you think that your problem will be solved soon?
(b) Resiliency- In what way has this ordeal affected you negatively? What do you think helped you
maintain your existing strengths (sensibilities, positive qualities, abilities and characteristics)? Who in your
family or from other relationships, from your community, or what cultural and religious value helped
you? What helps you face the situation now? What personal strengths have remained un-touched by
the ordeal? Which strengths have been reinforced by this experience?
(c) AAG- What strengths have you developed with this experience and in this situation? Do you feel
stronger? In what way? What other strengths did you acquire by overcoming this ordeal? What do you
think helped develop these new strengths (sensibilities, qualities, abilities, and characteristics)? Who in
your family or from other relationships, from your community, or what cultural and religious value helped
you?
Final key question: “So, according to what you have told me so far, if you had to grade the state of your
health from 0 (being the worst) to 10 (being the best), what would it be?”
III. Vulnerability
(a) Ask about the definition of the term ‘vulnerable’: Does the staff consider you a vulnerable asylum
seeker? What does this mean to you? Do you consider yourself a vulnerable person? In your opinion,
75
why have they identified you as such? Which elements of this experience have rendered you
vulnerable? In what way are you vulnerable and in what way are you invulnerable? What other people
are considered vulnerable in this centre? Do you agree with this? While requesting asylum will you
underline your vulnerability? What were you suggested? What do you think of this?
(b) Ask about the identification of the needs of asylum seekers and the way they have been addressed:
Has the personnel of the centre been efficient in identifying your needs? Did they identify them
correctly? How? What should they do to better help you?
(c) Ask about their self-image: Ask questions about self image and the assessment of their experience, in
order to test the coping strategies with direct questions (keep in mind the 4 figures- the drowned, the
hibernant, the combatant or fighter, the explorer). Example: What does the staff of the centre think
about you and the other migrants? What do you think about them? What do you think about the other
people that live with you? How would you describe yourself to a stranger? Do you thin you have
changed after leaving your country? How? How do you judge your experience so far? How do you feel
you have faced the challenges? If you could go back in time, would you change any of the choices
you have chosen so far? If so, what would change?
Final key question: “Hence, according to what you have said so far, if you would need to grade your state of
vulnerability from 0 (being the worst) to 10 (being the best). What grade would you give?”
>Concluding questions
Investigate on the expectations and hopes of the interviewee for the future. Example: What are your
expectations and hopes for the future in this country? What would you like to do? How do you imagine yourself
in 6 months or a year? Do you have in mind to stay here in the near future or would you leave to another
country? Do you think it will be possible to return to you country of origin in the future? Would you go back if
there were the right conditions?
Final key question: “So, regarding this interview, if you would have to grade it giving it a 0 (being the worst) up to
a 10 (being the best), keeping in mind the significance and clarity of the questions, the feeling of ease or
unease when answering the questions, and the purpose of the interview. What grade would you give it?”
>Personal Information
• Name and surname

• Sex
• Age
• Place and date of birth
• Civil status
• Number of children under your custody
• Languages learned
• Religion
76
APPENDIX 2: Questions for the Beneficiary Focus Group
Always start with introductions (possibly have name stickers so that they can write their name and wear it).
Arrange so that the following baseline information is collected from all the participants.

• Sex
• Age
• Place and date of birth
• Civil state
• Number of children under their custody
• Spoken languages
• Religion
> Specific questions
These specific questions touch on the topics that the EVASP project touches on, they will be structured in a triple
layered questionnaire: (a) the centre; (b) the perception of the interviewee of their own psychosocial condition;
(c) on vulnerability.
I. The centre
(d) Preliminary picture- Ask about the conditions in the centre of identification. Example: Have you been in
other centres? What did you know before arriving here? How was it described to you? What did you
think of it once you saw it?
(e) The centre- Ask information on the perception of the interviewee about the centre. Example: How
would you describe this place to someone that does not know it? For how long have you being living
here? With who? How do you find yourself with the other residents (distinguish between the other users
and the staff)? Where do you meet? What do you speak about? What does this place make you think
of? Have you ever seen a place like this? Are there places like this in your country? What do you find
positive and negative of this place? What are the areas where you often go, which are the ones you
never go to? Why?
(f) Safety and security- Ask information on their feeling of safety. Example:
Did you feel safe in your country? Do you feel safer here? Have you ever faced violent or threatening
situations here? If so, what happened? Did it affect your sense of safety? Have you ever dealt with the
security services here? What do you think of them? Do they inspire you trust or fear? Do you take any
precautions to ensure your own safety (i.e. only go out with groups, avoid certain areas ect.)?
Final key question: “Therefore, according to what you have told me so far, if you had to evaluate the centre
from 0 (being the worst) to 10 (being the best), what would it be?”
II. Vulnerability
(d) Ask about the definition of the term ‘vulnerable’: Does the staff consider you a vulnerable asylum
seeker? What does this mean to you? Do you consider yourself a vulnerable person? In your opinion,
why have they identified you as such? Which elements of this experience have rendered you
vulnerable? In what way are you vulnerable and in what way are you invulnerable? What other people
are considered vulnerable in this centre? Do you agree with this? While requesting asylum will you
underline your vulnerability? What were you suggested? What do you think of this?
(e) Ask about the identification of the needs of asylum seekers and the way they have been addressed:
Has the personnel of the centre been efficient in identifying your needs? Did they identify them
correctly? How? What should they do to better help you?
(f) Ask about their self-image: Ask questions about self image and the assessment of their experience, in
order to test the coping strategies with direct questions (keep in mind the 4 figures- the drowned, the
hibernant, the combatant or fighter, the explorer). Example: What does the staff of the centre think
77
about you and the other migrants? What do you think about them? What do you think about the other
people that live with you? How would you describe yourself to a stranger? Do you thin you have
changed after leaving your country? How? How do you judge your experience so far? How do you feel
you have faced the challenges? If you could go back in time, would you change any of the choices
you have chosen so far? If so, what would change?
Final key question: “Hence, according to what you have said so far, if you would need to grade your state of
vulnerability from 0 (being the worst) to 10 (being the best). What grade would you give?”
>Concluding questions
Investigate on the expectations and hopes of the interviewee for the future. Example: What are your
expectations and hopes for the future in this country? What would you like to do? How do you imagine yourself
in 6 months or a year? Do you have in mind to stay here in the near future or would you leave to another
country? Do you think it will be possible to return to you country of origin in the future? Would you go back if
there were the right conditions?
Final key question: “So, regarding this interview, if you would have to grade it giving it a 0 (being the worst) up to
a 10 (being the best), keeping in mind the significance and clarity of the questions, the feeling of ease or
unease when answering the questions, and the purpose of the interview. What grade would you give it?”
78
APPENDIX 3 : Semi-structured Questions for Caseworkers
> General questions
Education
What was is your training background? Which elements of your training helped in this context and in particular
with vulnerable asylum seekers?
Difficulties
How do find yourself at work? What are the challenges or the difficulties found in your work and in particular with
asylum seekers? What helps your work with asylum seekers? What deteriorates your working conditions with
asylum seekers? What aspects of your work could be improved and how? Do you ever have concerns about
your security while you at work? To whom do you turn when confronted with concerns at work?
Expectations
Investigate about the expectations and hopes of the respondents regarding improvements in the workplace.
Ex: Are you satisfied with your role within the Centre? What would you change? What can be improved in your
workplace? What would you do in the short term to improve working conditions here?
Self-image
How do you think you are perceived by asylum-seekers? And by your colleagues? How does this affect your
work? What do you think would improve things?
Evaluation of your experience
How would you assess your experience? How do you think that you have addressed the difficulties? How does it
feel to work in this environment? What pressures do you experience in this job? What assistance do you receive
to face these pressures? What other type of assistance would you like to receive?
Each question corresponds to a topic which then will be studied with further questions, depending on the
interviewee; each question should be asked in a sensitive and appropriate:
1. Regarding the perception of the Centre:

(i) How would you describe this Centre to a stranger?
(ii) What do you think are the positive and negative aspects?
(iii) How do you find yourself at work here?
(iv) How would you describe your work to people outside this? What are your tasks? How is your typical day's
work organized?
(v) With whom do you work?
(vi) To whom do you turn at work?
(vii) What areas of the Centre do you visit the most?
79
2. On the perception of leads to the request for asylum:

(i) In your experience, what are the difficulties of asylum seekers who have suffered traumatic experiences?
What is the main difference between an asylum seeker and an asylum seeker vulnerable?
(ii) According to your experience in this field, are there individual characteristics that persist and that are
reinforced following a traumatic experience?
(iii) According to you, what helps asylum seekers to overcome their difficulties and vulnerability?
(iv) In what way can AS be considered stronger?
3. On the definition of the term ' vulnerable ' asylum seeker:
(i) How would you define in your work the term ' vulnerable '?
(ii) Does your organization have a clear definition of the term ' vulnerable ' asylum seeker?
(iii) Do you think that the definition is clear or appropriate?
(iv) If not, how could it be changed?
(v) Recognizing that the emphasis during the asylum process is based on the presentation of evidence of
vulnerability; how do you believe that it is better to reconcile the fact that an asylum seeker is contemporarily
vulnerable in certain aspects of his/her life, as well as, not vulnerable in other aspects of his/her life?
4. With regard to the identification of needs of asylum seekers:

(i) How efficient is your organization in identifying the needs of asylum seekers?
(ii) What circumstances or conditions would improve the identification of the needs of asylum seekers?
(iii) What circumstances or conditions would worsen the identification of the needs of asylum seekers?
(iv) In your opinion, what interventions (training or other) can help to improve the identification of the needs of
asylum seekers in your organization?
5. With regard to the modalities used to address the needs identified:

(i) What do you think about the way in which your organization addresses asylum seekers’ needs?
(ii) What circumstances or conditions would improve the way in which asylum seekers’ needs are addressed?
(iii) What kind of measures (training or other) can help to improve the way in which asylum seekers’ needs are
addressed in your organization?
Final key question 1: "According to what has been said so far, if you had assign a score from 0 (worst) to 10
(best) on your condition in the Centre, what would it be?"
(best) on the vulnerability status of asylum seekers in the Centre, what would it be?"
(best) on the response provided by the Centre to vulnerable asylum seekers, what would it be?"
Final key question 4: “With respect to this interview, if you had to assign a score from 0 (worst) to 10 (best) to the
interview that we had (relevance and clarity of the questions and of the purpose of the interview, the feeling of
ease/discomfort when answering the questions…) what would it be?
> Personal Information
80

• Date and place of birth
• Job position
• Description of tasks (role and contact with asylum seekers)
• Languages that use in working with asylum seekers
- Do you work with interpreters?
81
APPENDIX 4: Questions for the Caseworker Focus group
Always begin with a presentation of all the participants (use preferably adhesive tags where participants can
write their names, including you). During the introductory presentations make sure to collect the following
preliminary information:

• Sex
• Date and place of birth
• Marital status
• Number of dependent children
• Spoken Languages
• Religion
Each question corresponds to a topic which then will be studied with further questions, depending on the
interviewee; each question should be asked in a sensitive and appropriate:
1. Regarding the perception of the Centre:

(i) How would you describe this Centre to a stranger?
(ii) What do you think are the positive and negative aspects?
(iii) How do you find yourself at work here?
(iv) How would you describe your work to people outside this? What are your tasks? How is your typical day's
work organized?
(v) With whom do you work?
(vi) To whom do you turn at work?
(vii) What areas of the Centre do you visit the most?
2. On the perception of leads to the request for asylum:

(i) In your experience, what are the difficulties of asylum seekers who have suffered traumatic experiences?
What is the main difference between an asylum seeker and an asylum seeker vulnerable?
(ii) According to your experience in this field, are there individual characteristics that persist and that are
reinforced following a traumatic experience?
(iii) According to you, what helps asylum seekers to overcome their difficulties and vulnerability?
(iv) In what way can AS be considered stronger?
3. On the definition of the term ' vulnerable ' asylum seeker:
(i) How would you define in your work the term ' vulnerable '?
(ii) Does your organization have a clear definition of the term ' vulnerable ' asylum seeker?
(iii) Do you think that the definition is clear or appropriate?
(iv) If not, how could it be changed?
(v) Recognizing that the emphasis during the asylum process is based on the presentation of evidence of
vulnerability; how do you believe that it is better to reconcile the fact that an asylum seeker is contemporarily
vulnerable in certain aspects of his/her life, as well as, not vulnerable in other aspects of his/her life?
82
4. With regard to the identification of needs of asylum seekers:

(i) How efficient is your organization in identifying the needs of asylum seekers?
(ii) What circumstances or conditions would improve the identification of the needs of asylum seekers?
(iii) What circumstances or conditions would worsen the identification of the needs of asylum seekers?
(iv) In your opinion, what interventions (training or other) can help to improve the identification of the needs of
asylum seekers in your organization?
5. With regard to the modalities used to address the needs identified:

(i) What do you think about the way in which your organization addresses asylum seekers’ needs?
(ii) What circumstances or conditions would improve the way in which asylum seekers’ needs are addressed?
(iii) What kind of measures (training or other) can help to improve the way in which asylum seekers’ needs are
addressed in your organization?
(best) on your condition in the Centre, what would it be?"
(best) on the vulnerability status of asylum seekers in the Centre, what would it be?"
(best) on the response provided by the Centre to vulnerable asylum seekers, what would it be?"
Final key question 4: “With respect to this interview, if you had to assign a score from 0 (worst) to 10 (best) to the
interview that we had (relevance and clarity of the questions and of the purpose of the interview, the feeling of
ease/discomfort when answering the questions…) what would it be?
83

Italian Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Italian Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection Italian Report 2009-2010

EUROPEAN PROJECT EVASP

Enhancing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers Protection

Italian Report 2009-2010

Researchers – Novita Amadei and Orso Muneghina

II. Vulnerable Systems, p. 12

III. Vulnerable Persons? p. 49

IV. A dynamic look at vulnerability, p. 56

Appendix 1. Semi-structured questions for beneficiaries, p.74

Project EVASP, Enhancing Vulnerable

although practiced in different territorial and regional contexts.

safety and health)2.

II. VULNERABLE SYSTEMS

Some preliminary considerations

4 Arendt H., The origins of totalitarianism, Edizioni di Comunità, Milan 1967.

The concept of “total institution” proposed by Goffman, in part comparable to Foucault’s

1) distance and isolation of the institution from the outside world;

was inserted into immigration law.

92 municipalities, 7 provinces and 19 regions, reaching a reception capacity of 2,541 places.

N2: Things aren’t equal for everyone!

N2: Yes there is a difference, between whites and blacks.

following the extraordinarily high number of boat arrivals in May 2008.

17 Not all the offices listed are present in every CARA.

21 Women, in particular, buy cosmetics, hair products and clothing.

Lack of networking between CARA - Create a network of CARA centres to

Psychologists, in particular, find the psychologist-mediator-patient triangle limiting in the therapeutic

assume and respond to excessive requests and workload.

distributed to beneficiaries upon entrance, including centre regulations.

As reiterated in numerous accounts, information is perceived as a source of security and autonomy,

• Sociopsychological support. The sociopsychological support service, as foreseen in the CARA

Interviewer: “How do you explain the goal of therapy to the beneficiary?”

Mediators: - Distinguish the figure of the cultural-

- excessive workload - Offer training and psychological

Lack of information on the - Create an internet point

Scarce knowledge of the - Provide country profiles with key

Lack of knowledge about Lack of autonomy of the - Information on resources present on

Support of the psychologist staff professional profile and duties of the

Lack of a recognized and - Increase specialization and training

Lack of sufficient protocols - Favor specialization and training

Misunderstandings with the - Redefine the concept of vulnerability

Organization of Free Repetitiveness of days and - Implement recreational and training

Italian language Insufficient language - Increase the hours allotted for

Intolerant of continued - Inform beneficiaries of the role of

III. VULNERABLE PERSONS ?

Personnel and Beneficiaries

27 For a brief definition of burn out see footnote 31

difficult to respond to needs and provide quality services;

- Dependence, or the inability to autonomously handle basic daily activities;

Adaptations and Reactions

faces a traumatic situation.

IV. A DYNAMIC LOOK AT VULNERABILITY

Opinions around the table

Finally, we can confirm that:

Vulnerable People or Factors of Vulnerability

34 According to UNHCR, categories of vulnerable asylum seekers include:

A Sudanese applicant in a wheelchair explained: “I am not vulnerable because I am in a

The psychological-autobiographical component. A person’s well-being is defined by characteristics

The psychological-autobiographical component is not the same as the socio-cultural one. As

These components not only

Editions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS, 2002.

Migration and Vulnerability

39Ibidem, p.687. Translation by the author of the report.

Psychological-autobiographical and sociocultural vulnerability causes, first and foremost,