Indicators in this domain assess the extent to which migrants have the same status as citizens in terms of access to basic social services such as health, education, and social security. It also describes the rights of migrants to family reunification, to work, and to residency and citizenship. The ratification of the main international conventions is also included within this domain.
Indicators in this category look at the extent to which migrants have access to certain social services such as health, education and social security. They also examine measures to ensure integration and access to work.
Indicators in this domain assess countries’ institutional, legal, and regulatory frameworks related to migration policies. Domain 2 also reviews the existence of national migration strategies that are in-line with development, as well as institutional transparency and coherence in relation to migration management. This domain also investigates the extent to which governments collect and use migration data.
Indicators in this category assess the institutional frameworks of cities for migration. This area also examines the existence of migration strategies consistent with development objectives, as well as institutional transparency and coherence in migration management.
This domain focuses on countries’ efforts to cooperate on migration-related issues with other states and with relevant non-governmental actors, including civil society organizations and the private sector. Cooperation can lead to improvements in governance by aligning and raising standards, increasing dialogue and providing structures to overcome challenges.
Indicators in this category focus on cities’ efforts to cooperate on migration issues with the national government as well as other cities and relevant non-governmental actors, including civil society organizations and the private sector.
This domain includes indicators on countries’ policies for managing the socioeconomic well-being of migrants, through aspects such as the recognition of migrants’ educational and professional qualifications, provisions regulating student migration and the existence of bilateral labour agreements between countries. Indicators equally focus on policies and strategies related to diaspora engagement and migrant remittances.
Indicators in this category assess cities’ initiatives in terms of international student mobility, access to the labour market and decent working conditions for migrant workers. Aspects related to diaspora engagement and migrant remittances are also included in this domain.
This domain studies the type and level of preparedness of countries when they are faced with mobility dimensions of crises, linked to either disasters, the environment and/or conflict. The questions are used to identify the processes in place for nationals and non-nationals both during and after disasters, including whether humanitarian assistance is equally available to migrants as it is to citizens.
Indicators in this category examine the type and level of readiness of cities to deal with aspects of mobility crises. The questions focus on the processes in place for citizens and non-citizens both during and after disasters, especially if humanitarian assistance is available for migrants and citizens.
This domain analyses countries’ approach to migration management in terms of border control and enforcement policies, admission criteria for migrants, preparedness and resilience in the case of significant and unexpected migration flows, as well as the fight against trafficking in human beings and smuggling of migrants. It also assesses efforts and incentives to help integrate returning citizens.
Indicators in this category look at the cities’ approaches to migrant safety as well as return and reintegration policies and the fight against trafficking in persons.
This local Profile describes examples of well-developed areas of the City of Kenema (Sierra Leone) migration governance structures and areas with potential for further development, as evaluated through the six domains of the Migration Governance Indicators (MGI). These address migrants’ rights, a “whole-of-government” approach, partnerships, socioeconomic well-being of migrants, the mobility dimensions of crises, and safe and orderly migration.
Click the icons on the wheel to explore the key findings.
The Migration Governance Indicators (MGI) initiative is a policy-benchmarking programme led by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and implemented with research and analysis from the Economist Intelligence Unit. Funding is provided by IOM Member States.
Migration Governance: examples of well-developed areas
- All migrants can access social services, including healthcare, in Kenema city as nationals.
- Organizations campaigning against human trafficking collaborate with the Kenema City Council (KCC) to conduct awareness-raising initiatives.
Areas with potential for further development
- KCC does not have specific measures to ensure that migrants can access primary and secondary public education.
- KCC does not have any specific programmes in place to ensure migrants’ access to social housing.
Migration Governance: examples of well-developed areas
- The national Immigration Service Directorate liaises on migration issues with the Kenema City Council (KCC) through meetings and workshops.
Areas with potential for further development
- There is no dedicated coordination mechanism for migration issues at the local level.
- The city of Kenema does not have a single desk or migrants’ office to streamline orientation services for immigrants.
- KCC does not collect or publish data related to migration.
Migration Governance: examples of well-developed areas
- The Kenema City Council (KCC) collaborates with civil society organizations through monthly inter-agency meetings where issues related to migration and human trafficking are discussed.
- KCC regularly cooperates on migration issues with IOM and other United Nations agencies.
Areas with potential for further development
- KCC does not formally or regularly engage with academia, migrants’ associations or members of the diaspora and expatriate communities in agenda setting or implementation of migration-related policies.
- Kenema’s city-to-city exchange partnership programmes do not focus on migration-related issues.
Areas with potential for further development
- The Kenema City Council (KCC) does not monitor local labour market demand for immigrants or the effects of emigration on the local labour supply.
- KCC does not implement programmes to promote and facilitate the inclusion of migrant workers in the workforce.
- There are no programmes put in place by KCC to reduce or monitor the costs of sending and receiving remittances.
Migration Governance: examples of well-developed areas
- The communication systems deployed during emergencies consider the specific vulnerabilities of migrants.
Areas with potential for further development
- There is no local strategy in place for emergency management that accounts for human mobility and the specific needs of migrants and displaced persons.
- The Kenema City Council does not have coordination agreements or referral systems in place with key actors to assist migrants during local emergencies.
- The Kenema District Economic Recovery Plan 2007–2011 did not contain specific measures for preventing and addressing the displacement impacts of disasters.
Migration Governance: examples of well-developed areas
- All national police personnel, including those posted in Kenema city, receive training on migrant-related issues at the Sierra Leone Police Training School.
Areas with potential for further development:
- There are no specific local mechanisms in place to ensure that migrants have access to justice and public safety.
- There is no local programme that focuses on facilitating migrants’ reintegration in Kenema city.
- The Kenema City Council has not taken steps to facilitate the arrival of refugee populations under its jurisdiction.
