This document summarizes a research project on integrating cities and communication strategies between local governments and migrants. The project included research partners from several European universities and was evaluated by Goldsmiths, University of London. It examined communication campaigns, intercultural activities, and face-to-face interactions in various cities that aimed to bring migrants and other community members together and combat misinformation. The document also analyzes challenges in evaluating such projects and maintaining innovation, and stresses the importance of local leadership, joined-up working within governments, and partnerships across sectors and stakeholders.

1. Integrating Cities,Tampere, 2013

2.  Research partners: Central University, Budapest
(Hungary); COMPAS, Oxford (UK, lead partner);
EFMS, Bamberg (Germany); Erasmus, Rotterdam
(Netherlands); FIERI,Turin (Italy); Complutense,
Madrid (Spain)
 Associate partners: Council of Europe; MPI
Europe
 Evaluation: Goldsmiths, University of London
http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/research/urbanchange/amicall/
Co-financed by the
European Fund for
the Integration of
Third Country
Nationals

3.  Communications Campaigns: media outreach, messaging,
myth-busting - Barcelona Anti-Rumour (ES); Migrantas poster
campaign (DE); I love Hackney (UK)
 Intercultural Communications Acivities: educational and
celebratory activities to bring cultures together – Marburg
Soup Festival (DE); Neighbourhood House in San Salvario (IT)
 Face-to-Face Communications Activities: promoting
interaction between migrants and other community members
– Rotterdam Dialogues (NL); Hospitalet mediation service
(ES)

4. A dynamic understanding of integration needs to take public attitudes
seriously, and not just focus on migrants’ duties.
The local matters – integration is fundamentally local.And
LRAs are taking a lead in a time of crisis, despite constraints due
to national policies and fiscal austerity.
BUT communication is never a stand-alone activity –
needs to be considered part of wider agendas for inclusion and
participation. Strategic/embedded communications and place
shaping work better than one-off actions. Successful approaches
include consistent messaging, balanced information, a range
of communication channels including face-to-face, and the use
of humour and emotion as well as information.

5.  Activities are not rigorously evaluated – this is difficult to do,
and impact hard to ascertain.
 Platforms for sharing learning and practice within and
across countries are vital – but under threat from austerity.
 Community matters: activities work better when solidly
based on understanding needs and issues, and considering the
whole-of-community effects. (Examples: Slough, Rotterdam.)
 There is a lack of clarity around target groups – e.g. often only
reaching those populations already engaged.

6.  Innovation is vulnerable to change (including “mainstreaming”)
when driven by individuals who get burnt out or moved on.
Political leadership can make or break projects; successful
examples (e.g. Scotland, Barcelona) emerge where there is cross-
party consensus.
 Joined-up working within administrations is required to
achieve this, as well as co-operation with other LRAs and other
layers of governance.
 LRAs should mobilise all the stakeholders, building networks
and coalitions across sectors. Civil society might require
additional time and resources to contribute fully. partnerships
with media are also effective (e.g. Reggio Emilia, Leicester).

7.  Dr Ben Gidley, Senior Researcher, Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) University
of Oxford ben.gidley@compas.ox.ac.uk
http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk