The verdict of the voters of Zurich in September last year was clear. Provisional admitted persons who earn only little or no income should only be granted asylum – and therefore considerably less than those who receive social assistance. The new rules have been applicable since 1 July. There have been difficult times for those affected. This is shown in a report from the Monitoring and Contact Point for Persons Taken Prison (Map-F), which is published today and is already available in the Tages Anzeiger.
Map-F was established after the vote of the members of the No-committee; She advises those affected and observes how communities implement the new regulation. For the first report, Map-F wrote to all 166 municipalities; 73 answered.
The report makes it clear that everyone who has to live asylum seekers can only pay the money for the essentials. A family of four receives just over 1400 francs a month for their daily needs in most communities – including food, toiletries, electricity and water, Billag costs, clothing and household items. A person does not have to live with 700 francs. In social contributions, the contributions are 50 percent higher.
The drastic reduction has consequences. "We hear each other again and again in counseling sessions that people hardly know how to endure," says Moritz Wyder, Managing Director of Map-F. These are also experienced relief organizations. For example, in the case of the "Brot Egge" of the Sozialwerke Pastor Sieber, since the amendment of the law, people have asked for a card that entitles them to free food. "Bread-shaking" leader Stefan Haun says: "These people are in existential need."
Another big problem, according to the report, is the fact that the communities are largely free, which benefits those affected. Because that leads to stark differences.
Only the basic requirements vary. Although the social conference of the canton has issued non-binding guidelines, only part of the municipalities comply with this. Several communities have become completely out of responsibility and leave the determination of the basic needs of the refugee care company ORS; their approaches are deeper through the volume than those of the social conference.
Other communities have their own rules. For example, Stäfa. There, a person receives only 360 francs a month, a family of four 1250th. But the church per capita per month and 50 francs for unforeseen returns, it says in the report.
Thomas Baumann, head of the Stäfner Sozialdienst, defends the regulation, which labels Map-F as "irritating": "We pay for costs that have to be paid elsewhere for basic needs, such as Billag costs and energy costs, and a fee of 9 hours. Passport of the ZVV. "In fact, the provisionally admitted in Stäfa would have no less than elsewhere. Bauman does not deny that Stäfa limits the independence of the recipients, but rather prefers "care".
Much is not regulated
Even greater are the differences in housing costs and forms. Only one in three municipalities surveyed offers provisionally accepted people the same maximum rent as social assistance. These are usually between 900 and 1200 francs for a single household and around 1700 to 1800 francs for a family of four. In most communities, the approaches are now considerably lower. In many places, the rental costs per person may not exceed 300 to 350 francs – regardless of the size of the household. There is also a general rule that single people are not entitled to their own home. Different municipalities decide on a case-by-case basis how high the rent can be.
Although it seems that the fear that many people have made to move to a collective home or shared property is coming out for the time being. Some cases are already known. And Moritz Wyder points out: "Many people have only received a request in early July to look for cheaper accommodation, and many are still fully open." Map-F also writes about different municipalities, which since 1 July have differed between the effective and the rent allowance, even from the basic needs, if people strive for a cheaper apartment.
Finally, the situation in two other areas is completely confusing: integration offers and additional services depending on the situation. Both are clearly regulated in social welfare. In asylum matters, however, the municipalities are free to decide.
Although the municipalities are legally obliged to integrate provisionally admitted persons and thus, for example, support courses and internships. But how and to what extent they do that is up to the churches. The result according to the report: the vast majority of municipalities have reduced the benefits. How much, it remains unclear, says the report: "Map-F has received countless vague and ambiguous answers." For example, Bubikon wrote that "integration only happens with existing motivation", Embrach wants to decide "situational". That leaves a lot of discretion.
No change in sight
In several examples, the report shows the consequences of the unclear regulations. For example, there is a 16-year-old who was born here and attends an apprenticeship. The result of the amendment of the law: the basic needs of his family of four people were reduced by the full student wages, the contribution to the lunch catering has been scrapped by the community, the train ticket for the training company has to pay the family out of the tight budget. Or that Eritrean woman doing an internship in an old people's home. Now the housing community has reduced its budget so that it is unclear whether the young woman can still pay the ticket for work.
In both cases the local community has torpedoed the efforts of those affected into a self-aware, independent life, ie the advisory center.
Opposing this is almost impossible, says Moritz Wyder: "If there are no set rules, those affected can not demand anything, they have no claims to make and can not defend themselves against community instructions." This is all the more important because the canton for the time being is the first residence and can not relocate to another community as long as they depend on support. The place of residence becomes a lottery.
For Map-F this is untenable: threatened "lack of transparency, inequality and arbitrariness". That is why it needs binding guidelines for all communities. However, the canton does not want to know anything about it. Urs Grob, spokesman for safety director Mario Fehr (SP), writes on request: "The General Council has already stated in December 2016 that it has no reason to limit the discretion of the communities by means of guidelines." The municipalities, the then conclusion of the government council, "The asylum care is extremely competent."
Created: 22.08.2018, 23:25