"There are no precise estimates of the number of possible returnees, but they usually range from 50.000, as counted in the mid-2000s in various EU countries, to the unofficial 100.000 as mentioned in the Strategy for the Reintegration of Returnees based on the Readmission Agreement," the report states. on the needs of returnees to the Republic of Serbia by Professor Slobodan Cvejiฤ, published as part of the project entitled "Building the capacity of institutions involved in migration management and reintegration returnees to the Republic of Serbia". This project is being implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), from the pre-accession funds of the European Commission and in cooperation with the Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia and the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia. By the way, seven years ago, in September 2007, Serbia signed the Agreement with the European Community on readmission, which foresees the voluntary return or deportation of persons illegally staying on the territory of the EU.
The report was made on the basis of a survey conducted on a sample of 500 returnee households. And if the exact number of returnees is not yet known, it is certain, says the report, "that these people face numerous difficulties in their daily life and are deprived of basic life needs such as food, housing, health care, etc." which could affect a higher percentage of secondary migration, i.e. the re-leaving of the country by persons who returned to the country and failed to integrate into society. If the educational structure of the returnees is observed, it is also clear why integration is difficult - half of the respondents have completed elementary school, a quarter have no formal education at all, a quarter have secondary education, and only two people have completed university. Four percent of those surveyed use a computer, a third have a driver's license, 28 percent master a trade, and only 13 percent are employed.
In reviewing the financial situation of returnee households, Professor Cvejiฤ states that the extremely poor economic situation is reflected in the fact that "almost half of the households (48 percent) realized their total consumption during the month before the survey was less than the amount of the minimum wage in Serbia (15.138 dinars )", and that "the average for all households in the sample is 21.579 dinars, with an average consumption per household head of 5770 dinars"; as many as 97,7 percent of the respondents stated that they did not have enough income to cover the basic needs of the household - food, paying bills, health care, hygiene, education and local transportation.
In conclusion, Professor Cvejiฤ states that returnees are active on the labor market and "significantly more oriented towards employment than receiving social assistance". Nevertheless, "the problem of unemployment generated by low education threatens to be renewed in the next generations because the percentage of children who stop schooling before finishing high school is high. For this reason, support in this area is as urgent as support in employment," the report concludes.
1. The perception of the basic problems and needs of the returnees is correct: respondents from local institutions and organizations pointed out the same as the returnee research showed: this is a poorly educated social group with a high unemployment rate and a very poor economic position.
2. Returnees are active on the labor market: they are much more oriented towards employment than receiving social assistance, they are ready for various forms of support in employment and it is especially important to point out that the majority of them prefer support for self-employment.
3. The problem of unemployment generated by low education threatens to be renewed in the following generations as the percentage of children who stop schooling before finishing high school is high. For this reason, support in this area is as urgent as support in employment.
4. Another important problem is the housing conditions in which returnees live. This problem relates more to housing quality than ownership status. In this case, the returnees would accept different forms of support, and the problem was correctly perceived by the service providers.
5. Local institutions are relatively well acquainted with the problems of returnees. Nevertheless, it can be said that it is necessary to spread information about this phenomenon from the circle of individuals and instances responsible for dealing with this problem to a wider circle of service providers, and especially it is necessary to better connect different actors in the design and implementation of support measures.
6. The safety social network for returnees is particularly weak in municipalities where the concentration of returnees is small: there, the perception of problems and the connection of actors in the support network are weak, and this pushes returnees in these municipalities to the very margins of society. We should not forget that almost 1/3 of returnees live in these municipalities.
7. The special target group in the campaign to raise awareness about the problems of integration of returnees should be the employees of CSW. The research showed that they do not clearly recognize returnees as a special social group, and the CSW is the place where information flows intersect with other institutions about the needs of returnees, and for the returnees themselves about the possibilities of using various social services and support measures.
