Social integration

Rewarding social relationships in everyday life help to expand networks and create trust and a sense of belonging. However, the absence of these relationships can result in loneliness, exclusion or segregation. Experiences with negative attitudes or discrimination can have negative consequences for integration, health and quality of life.

Social integration, also known as everyday integration, is a two-way process that is about building bridges between the minority and majority. This requires both effort from each immigrant and that immigrants are met with openness and are given the opportunity to participate in the same way as others are. These efforts will contribute towards immigrants experiencing a greater sense of belonging and participation in society by us counteracting  segregation and promoting joint meeting places and having a common understanding of the fundamental values and norms in Norwegian society (Ministry of Education and Research, 2018). Another important aspect of social integration is self-determination, or the freedom to decide for oneself how to live one’s life.

Unlike, for example, indicators of connection to the labour force and education, for which good indicators exist, social integration is more difficult to measure. For this we need to rely more on subjective experiences and attitudes in different groups of the population. This also makes it more difficult to measure and compare indicators of social integration over time, and there may be greater uncertainty associated with the research findings related to certain topics in the field.8

General trust

Immigrants have less trust in other people

Several studies have examined the connection between the trust immigrants have in other people and previous experiences and socialisation in their home country (Dinesen, 2012; Nannestad et al., 2014). Immigrants in Norway often come from countries where a low level of trust is more prevalent, and this can have a sustained effect on their level of trust, even after having immigrated. However, studies also show that immigrants adapt to the higher level of horizontal trust in the receiving country. The empirical evidence therefore points in both directions.

What is meant by general trust?

Horizontal trust can be defined as the tendency to trust other people, and this type of trust is therefore also called interpersonal trust. It is common to distinguish between general trust, i.e. trust in strangers in a society, and specific trust, which is about how much one trusts specific people or groups.

In the context of integration, general trust is a difficult metric to use, because it is uncertain whether it should be understood as a prerequisite for integration, or as a result of integration (Dalen et al., 2024).

A question that is often used when measuring horizontal (general) trust is: “Do you think you can generally trust most people, or do you think you cannot be careful enough when encountering other people?” In response to this question, 57 per cent of people with immigrants background stated that most people can be trusted, compared with 69 per cent of people without immigrant backgrounds (Dalen et al., 2024). Several studies have found that, on average, people with immigrant backgrounds are somewhat less trusting of other people than the rest of the population (Dalen et al., 2024; Dalen, Flatø and Friberg, 2022; Støren, 2019; Vrålstad and Wiggen, 2016).

General trust also varies between different groups with immigrant backgrounds. Immigrants from Country Group 1 (Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand) distinguish themselves by the fact that they are far more likely to state that other people can be trusted. A total of 80 per cent believe this, compared to 48 per cent in Country Group 2 (new EU countries in Eastern and Central Europe), 55 per cent in Country Group 3 (countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America) and 50 per cent among people born in Norway to immigrant parents from Country Group 3. When divided among individual countries, people from Germany and Sweden express the highest level of trust, while people from Poland, Syria and Lithuania express the lowest level of trust (Dalen et al., 2024).

Figure 7.1. General trust, measured by the question “Would you say that you can generally trust most people, or do you think you cannot be careful enough when encountering other people?” 2023. Percentage (Dalen et al., 2024).

Part of the explanation for the differences between people born in Norway to immigrant parents and immigrants can be age, because people born in Norway to immigrant parents are a relatively young group. Older people with immigrant backgrounds are more inclined to trust others than young people (Dalen et al., 2024). Other characteristics that may have a positive correlation with horizontal trust include longer period of residence, better Norwegian language skills and a stronger connection to the labour force (Dalen, Flatø and Friberg, 2022; Støren, 2019). Unemployment, poor finances and the experience of being discriminated against can have a negative correlation with trust in other people (Støren, 2019).

Social networks and contact

Increasingly more contact with immigrants in different arenas

As the number of immigrants in Norway increases, so does the number of people in the general population who have contact with them. The proportion of the population who report that they have contact with immigrants increased from two of three in 2004 to over four of five in 2024 (Statistics Norway, 2024ab). Most of those who have contact with immigrants report that their experiences in this regard are positive. Women and young people are more positive than men and older people (Strøm and Molstad, 2021). Figure 7.2 shows the increased contact between immigrants and the rest of the population across different arenas.

When asked about their relations with immigrants, a large majority responded that they would be comfortable having an immigrant as a close colleague (95 per cent). 84 per cent responded that they would be comfortable with having a son or daughter who wanted to marry an immigrant. However, these figures decreased by two and three percentage points respectively from 2023 (Statistics Norway, 2024bb).

Figure 7.2. Contact with immigrants, by arena. 2024. Percentage (Statistics Norway, 2024ab)

There is a correlation between personal contact with immigrants and more positive attitudes towards immigration and greater trust in general (Brekke et al., 2024; Finseraas et al., 2019). It is particularly those who have contact with people with immigrant backgrounds in connection with work, volunteering or leisure activities who are more positive towards immigration (Brekke et al., 2024; Strøm, Molstad and Arnesen, 2023). At the same time, it is not a simple task to demonstrate whether someone becomes more positively inclined towards people with immigrant backgrounds by meeting them, or whether it is those who are already positively inclined who seek out arenas where they can meet people with immigrant backgrounds (Brekke and Fladmoe, 2022).

People with immigrant backgrounds report that they have significantly fewer close relations who they can count on receiving help from if they experience significant personal problems than people without immigrant backgrounds. For example, 21 per cent report that they only have one or two people who they can count on, compared to ten per cent among people without immigrant backgrounds (Dalen et al., 2024).

Figure 7.3. Response to the question: “How many people are you so close to that you can count
on their help if you have major personal problems?” 2023. Percentage (Dalen et al., 2024).

Sense of belonging and acceptance

People born in Norway feel integrated but not accepted

The population of Norway is becoming increasingly more diverse, and the concept of “Norwegianness” is not unambiguous. Young people with immigrant backgrounds gradually acquire an identity as Norwegian. At the same time, a significant proportion experience that others do not recognize them as being Norwegian (Friberg, 2021). The question of perceived “Norwegianness” can be problematic, because it suggests that immigrants must or should identify as being Norwegian. However, it can be a question that reveals one’s connection to the community and sense of belonging in Norway. A study of immigrants’ everyday lives and integration shows that 56 per cent of people with immigrant backgrounds consider themselves as being Norwegian. A significantly lower proportion, 32 per cent, believe that others view them as being Norwegian. There is a thus a large disconnect between one’s own perception of “Norwegianness” and how others may view this. Furthermore, this disconnect is about the same for Norwegian-born children of immigrants as for their parents (Dalen et al., 2024). 

In the same study, 80 per cent of people with immigrant backgrounds responded that they feel integrated into Norwegian society. 74 per cent feel accepted. The gap between feeling integrated and accepted is widest for people born in Norway to immigrant parents. In this group, 90 per cent reported that they feel integrated, but only 70 per cent feel accepted.

Figure 7.4. Proportion who feel completely or relatively integrated and completely or relatively accepted in Norwegian society. 2023. Percentage (Dalen et al., 2024).

It may appear paradoxical that children of immigrants who are born and raised in Norway feel less accepted than their parents. This is a known phenomenon and is referred to in the research literature as the integration paradox (Dalen et al., 2024; Midtbøen and Kitterød, 2019; Schaeffer and Kas, 2023). Increased integration does not necessarily entail a stronger experience of acceptance and sense of belonging. There can be a number of different reasons for this. Immigrants and their Norwegian-born children who participate in multiple social arenas and have more contact with the rest of the population are more exposed to unlawful discrimination and exclusion. Another theory is that the more integrated someone is, the more inclined they are to interpret different experiences as discrimination, because they have higher expectations of receiving equal treatment and greater awareness about discrimination as a social problem.

Findings suggest that the likelihood of feeling both integrated and accepted is higher for people with immigrant backgrounds who have more contact with people without immigrant backgrounds (Dalen et al., 2024). The research indicates that the integration paradox is primarily explained by immigrants and their Norwegian-born, highly educated children, being more aware of discrimination and having higher expectations for equality and inclusion in society.

Participation in volunteering

Poor Norwegian language skills are the biggest obstacle to volunteering

Voluntary organisations are important arenas for integration and participation in the community. Through participation in voluntary work and various leisure activities, people have access to more social meeting spaces and get the opportunity to build social networks and to be included in local communities. Research also reveals a positive, albeit weak link between volunteer work and quality of life (Skiple, Eimhjellen and Christensen, 2024). 

Immigrants participate to a somewhat lesser extent in organised activities and volunteer work than the rest of the population (Eimhjellen et al., 2023; Eimhjellen, Bentsen and Wollebæk, 2020; Haugland and Dalen, 2023; Jacobsen et al., 2021). Gender, age, education and Norwegian language skills can influence the likelihood of participating in volunteering. Immigrant women, older immigrants and immigrants with low levels of education and poor Norwegian language skills have lower participation rates (Eimhjellen and Arnesen, 2018).

The participation and representation of immigrants in volunteering may also vary depending on the type of organisation or how the voluntary efforts are organised. For example, immigrants participate to a lesser extent the more formalized the involvement is, and the more time it takes to participate (Statistics Norway, 2022f).

Findings from a survey of the immigrant population show that 76 per cent of people with immigrant backgrounds have participated in at least one voluntary association in the past two years, and the same applies to 83 per cent of people without immigrant backgrounds (Dalen et al., 2024).

Figure 7.5. Proportion who have participated (member, attended meetings and/or contributed as a volunteer) in different types of associations over the past two years. 2023. Percentage (Dalen et al., 2024).

Having inadequate Norwegian language skills is the single factor that most immigrants highlight as preventing them from participating in volunteer work. A lack of information and knowledge about what characterises volunteering in Norway can also constitute barriers to participation. Other reasons may include factors related to life situation, financial challenges, bureaucracy and lack of meeting places (Espegren, Mjelde and Danielsen, 2022).

In addition, some immigrants come from countries with different traditions and systems for volunteering, and different means of organisation. Experiences from one’s country of origin provide different prerequisites for inclusion in volunteer work in Norway. When compared to volunteering in other countries, volunteering in Norway generally has a strong link to the government authorities through financial support, cooperation and agreements, and this linkcan represent a challenge for some. For immigrant groups who have experience with less bureaucratic volunteer work from their country of origin, it can take time to understand and build trust in Norwegian civil society. Experiences with government authorities and public institutions in one’s country of origin can vary between different immigrant groups, and this can contribute towards explaining the scepticism towards organisations that cooperate with the government authorities (Espegren, Mjelde and Danielsen, 2022).

Children’s participation in leisure activities

Financial situation plays a major role in whether children participate in leisure activities

Having the opportunity to participate and be active in one’s leisure time is a fundamental
right of all children and young people, cf. Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child. Being involved in leisure activities contributes to a sense of belonging,
community and mastery, as well as to better physical and mental health (Eime et al., 2013).

Leisure activities are also an important integration arena. While young people with minority backgrounds who participate in volunteering or sport are more socially engaged, no equivalent effect is found among young people without minority backgrounds (Ødegård and Fladmoe, 2020).

There are differences between children and young people with and without immigrant backgrounds in terms of how many participate in leisure activities (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023; Myrli and Mehus, 2015; Walseth and Strandbu, 2014). This particularly applies to organised sports, which is the single activity that organises the most children and young people.

A 2023 survey revealed that 63 per cent of young people with minority backgrounds participated in sports during their teenage years. The corresponding figure for young people without immigrant backgrounds was 79 per cent (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023). Furthermore, 20 per cent of young people with minority backgrounds have never participated in organised sports. The same applies to 6 per cent of young people without minority backgrounds. The degree of participation is higher among young people with immigrant backgrounds who were born in Norway, or who came to Norway before the age of five. However, there are also more people in this group than young people in general who have never participated (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023).

Figure 7.6. Participation in sports during childhood. 2023. Percentage (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023)

those who have never participated in organised sports. 25 per cent of this group has never participated, compared to 6 per cent of girls with Norwegian-born parents. The gap is smaller among boys with and without minority backgrounds. Girls also stop participating in sports at an earlier stage than boys. Socioeconomic background explains part of the difference between the groups with and without minority backgrounds, particularly for boys (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023).

Figure 7.7 shows how many girls and boys have participated in leisure activities in the last month. This provides a more nuanced picture of the level of participation among minority young people. Both girls and boys with immigrant backgrounds participate in a broader range of other organised leisure activities than girls and boys without minority backgrounds. Among other things, girls with immigrant backgrounds are somewhat more often involved in religious associations, music or cultural schools or other associations (book clubs etc.) (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023).

Figure 7.7. Participation in leisure activities during the last month. 2023. Percentage (Bakken and Strandbu, 2023).

Differences in class backgrounds and financial situation are part of the explanation for why fewer children and young people with minority backgrounds participate in organised leisure activities (Bakken and Enstad, 2023; Jacobsen et al., 2021; Strandbu, Bakken and Sletten, 2019). In addition, research points to factors such as discrimination, the ability of parents to follow up their children’s activities, culture and traditions as barriers to participation in leisure activities (Nygård, 2022; Strandbu, Bakken and Sletten, 2019).

Attitudes to immigration and integration

The positive trend has reversed

Every year a number of comprehensive surveys of the population’s attitudes to immigrants and immigration are conducted. These surveys include Statistics Norway’s survey of attitudes (Statistics Norway, 2024z) and IMDi’s Integration Barometer (Brekke et al., 2024).

Figure 7.8. “Do you think that immigration is generally a good thing or a bad thing for Norway?” 2017–2023. Percentage (Brekke et al., 2024).

Variations in attitudes over time can be viewed in the context of various events and cycles in society. After the large influx of Syrian refugees in 2015, the share who believe that immigrants generally make useful contributions to the Norwegian labour market fell to 66 per cent, which was the lowest level since 2004 (Molstad, 2021). In the months following the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022, a significant increase in positive attitudes towards immigration and greater support among the Norwegian population for accepting refugees were registered. At the end of 2021, four out of ten people believed that Norway should accept more refugees. In March 2022, six out of ten gave the same response. The proportion who believed immigration is good for Norway, and that integration is, on the whole, going well, increased significantly over the same short period of time (Brekke and Fladmoe, 2022).

In the autumn of 2023, attitudes towards immigration had returned to the same level as before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The proportion who believes that the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society is going well is now at a higher level than before the fullscale invasion of Ukraine. However, the population is still divided on its view of integration. 

About four out of ten people believe that integration is not going well, just under three out of ten believe that it is going well, and almost four out of ten respond with “none of the above”. More people believe that integration is going better in the area where they live than in society in general, and those who live in less central areas are more positive (Brekke et al., 2024).

Statistics Norway’s survey of attitudes reveals that, for the first time since 2016, there is a decrease in the proportion of people who have positive attitudes towards immigrants. This may be due to the return to a normal state of affairs after a few years of considerable focus on refugees from Ukraine (Molstad and Arnesen, 2024). In 2023, 87 per cent responded that most immigrants make an important contribution to Norwegian working life. This proportion has decreased by five percentage points in 2024. More people are also of the opinion that immigrants are a source of insecurity in society. 14 per cent had this opinion in 2023, and 22 per cent in 2024 (Statistics Norway, 2024z)

Figure 7.9. Percentage who strongly/somewhat agree and strongly/somewhat disagree with two statements. 2002–2024. Percentage (Statistics Norway, 2024z).

This indication of a change in attitudes is also clear when it comes to attitudes regarding the right of refugees and asylum seekers to be able to stay in Norway (Figure 7.10). While the proportion who believe it should be easier for refugees and asylum seekers to stay in Norway increased steadily between 2016 and 2023, this trend has reversed in 2024. However, half of respondents believe the system should remain in its current form (Statistics Norway, 2024aa).

Figure 7.10. Attitudes towards the right of refugees and asylum seekers to stay in Norway. Should it be easier, more difficult or the same as it is today? 2002–2024. Percentage Statistics Norway, 2024aa).

However, in some areas, the population are split on their view of immigration. Among other things, attitudes to immigration may depend on the country of origin, reason for immigration or religion.

There are more people who believe that Norway should accept a larger number of labour immigrants and refugees than is presently the case, than those who believe that the country should accept a larger number of asylum seekers and family members. More people than before state that foreign labour is important to ensure the provision of welfare services (Brekke et al., 2024). 

Furthermore, research shows that religious minorities, and especially Muslims, face some negative attitudes and prejudices in Norwegian society (Moe and Døving, 2022). For example, 41 per cent of the population report that they are sceptical of people with Muslim beliefs, and 60 per cent believe that Islamic values are not compatible with the fundamental values in Norwegian society (Brekke et al., 2024). In comparison, 16, 19 and 23 per cent respectively believe that Christian, Jewish and Buddhist values are incompatible with fundamental values in Norwegian society (Brekke and Fladmoe, 2022). 30.7 per cent of the population has what can be characterised as pronounced prejudices against Muslims by supporting claims such as "Muslims themselves bear much of the blame for growing hatred of Muslims", that "Muslims pose a threat to Norwegian culture", and that "Muslims do not fit into a modern Western society" (Moe, 2022).

Attitudes towards immigration and religious minorities vary between different parts of the Norwegian population. Women are more positive about immigration than men, and people with higher education are more positive than people with lower levels of education. People who often have contact with immigrants are consistently more positive in their attitudes towards immigrants than those who rarely have contact with immigrants. Historically, young adults have been more positive towards immigrants than older people. The difference between younger and older people has now decreased. This may be partly due to the fact that younger men have become slightly more negative towards immigration. There are also clear differences in attitudes between different voter groups, where people who vote for the Socialist Left Party (SV), Red Party (Rødt), Green Party (MDG) and Liberal Party (Venstre) are the most positive, while people who vote for the Progress Party (Frp) and Industry and Business Party (INP) are the most negative (Brekke et al., 2024).

Racism and discrimination

Children of immigrants experience more discrimination

Racism and discrimination can be obstacles to achieving good living conditions, to entry into the labour market, to deriving benefit from education and training and to access to the housing market. This can lead to negative outcomes between different population groups. Discrimination can lead to a weakened sense of belonging to the community and less trust both in society and in other people.

It can be difficult to detect and measure discrimination. A number of different methods are used for this in studies of discrimination, including experiments, observation and surveys that examine immigrants’ own experiences.

What is meant by racism and discrimination?

The Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act defines discrimination as “direct or indirect differential treatment.” Pursuant to the Act, direct differential treatment “means treatment of a person that is worse than the treatment that is, has been or would have been afforded to other persons in a corresponding situation”, while indirect differential treatment “means any apparently neutral provision, condition, practice, act or omission that results in persons being put in a worse position than others.”

Racism can be defined as ideas, ideologies, statements or actions that divide people into "races" or ethnic groups, where some are claimed to be of less value than others (Proba, 2024a). Racism is not referred to as grounds for discrimination in the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act. Section 185 of the Norwegian Penal Code prohibits discriminatory or hateful statements based on someone’s skin colour, ethnicity, religion, life stance, sexual orientation or disability.

The difference between racism and discrimination is not clearly defined, however the concept of racism has traditionally had a greater emphasis on intentionality, while discrimination focusses more on behaviour, practice and outcomes. In Norwegian social research, the concept of discrimination has been more commonly used than the concept of racism.

66 per cent of people with immigrant backgrounds report that they have experienced discrimination during their lives, compared to 40 per cent of the rest of the population. In other words, immigrants and their Norwegian-born children are significantly more susceptible to discrimination than the rest of the population. Discrimination occurs in many different social arenas. As shown in Figure 7.11, most people report that they have experienced discrimination in the workplace or when looking for work (Dalen et al. 2024).

Figure 7.11. Have experienced being discriminated against or treated worse than others in different arenas during their lives. “Have experienced discrimination...” Percentage (Dalen et al., 2024).

Discrimination is considered one of the biggest barriers to integration, both among immigrants themselves and in the population as such (Brekke and Fladmoe, 2022; Dalen, Flatø and Friberg, 2022) Eight out of ten people believe that discrimination against immigrants takes place in Norway. In 2023, 29 per cent of the Norwegian population responded that discrimination occurs to a large extent. This is more than a tripling compared to 2013, when nine per cent were of the same belief. In addition, more than half of the respondents in 2023 (53 per cent) stated that discrimination occurs to some extent (Brekke et al., 2024). This indicates that there is a growing and fairly common perception among the population that discrimination of immigrants occurs.

Figure 7.12 shows that almost eight out of ten people believe that discrimination occurs in employment and when renting out homes. Six out of ten people believe discrimination takes place in contact with the police, and four out of ten believe it occurs in contact with NAV (Brekke et al., 2024).

Figure 7.12. Proportion of the population who agree or disagree that discrimination occurs, and in what arenas it occurs. 2023. Percentage (Brekke et al., etc. 2024).

In Norway, (access to) the workforce is the arena where most research has been conducted on the prevalence of racism and discrimination. Applicants with immigrant backgrounds are significantly less likely to be called in for a job interview (Birkelund et al., 2019; Midtbøen, 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Midtbøen and Rogstad, 2012). Unfair discrimination against ethnic minorities occurs at all stages of the recruitment process – including in public enterprises (Bjørnset, Sterri and Rogstad, 2021). Discrimination also occurs in connection with wage setting and development, however there is significant variation between sectors, industries and job types when concerning the extent of this (Alecu and Drange, 2019; Bratsberg, Raaum and Røed, 2017; Drange, 2016; Drange and Helland, 2018).

School and education are another arena where racism and discrimination have an impact on integration. There is a correlation between perceived discrimination, racism and educational achievements. Discrimination can lead to a reduction in academic confidence and less belief in success at school, lower well-being, poorer results, socio-emotional difficulties (for example, depression) and negative behavioural consequences (for example, drug use and anti-social behaviour) (Wollscheid et al., 2022). In a recent survey, 21 per cent of respondents with parents born outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand reported that they had been exposed to racist speech at school in the past year (Proba, 2024a). Among children of immigrants who enrol in higher education, it is found thateven the expectation of encountering discrimination can lead to them lowering their hopes for their educational pathway and career (Orupabo, 2018; and Abrahamsen, 2020).

Discrimination also takes place in the rental market. People with immigrant backgrounds more often rent their homes than the rest of the population, however are less likely to have a rental application approved (Andersson, Jakobsson and Kotsadam, 2012; Flage, 2018). A field experiment demonstrated that the probability of receiving a positive response from landlords is more than 16 percentage points lower for applicants with Arabic-sounding names than for applicants with Norwegian-sounding names with the same job, and that there is no less discrimination in the current rental market than there was ten years ago (Benedictow et al., 2023). Statistics from the Anti-discrimination Tribunal also show that they have received 30 reports of ethnic discrimination in the housing market since 2018. On the whole, these make up a relatively small proportion of all complaints the ombudsman receives (Anti-discrimination Tribunal, 2024). There is reason to believe that there are dark numbers and that many do not report matters to the Anti-discrimination Tribunal, often because it is difficult to prove the exact reason.

People born in Norway to immigrant parents experience being discriminated against on the basis of ethnic background, skin colour and religion/life stance to a greater extent than immigrants. 75 per cent in this group responded that they have experienced discrimination due to ethnic background, 53 per cent due to skin colour and 32 per cent due to religion/life stance (Dalen et al., 2024).

How is hate speech defined?

The Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud uses a broad, social science definition, which includes both lawful and unlawful hate speech. According to this definition, hate speech is degrading, threatening, harassing or stigmatising speech which affects an individual’s or a group’s dignity, reputation and status in society by means of linguistic and visual effects that promote negative feelings, attitudes and perceptions based on characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity and age (The Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, 2015).

Racism or other negative attitudes towards ethnic groups can be expressed as hateful or derogatory speech (Dalen, Flatø and Friberg, 2022). More immigrants experience different forms of hate speech and violence compared to the population at large.10 Among people with immigrant backgrounds, 12 per cent report that someone has said something hateful to them in the past year, compared to 6 per cent in the rest of the population. Immigrants and people born in Norwegian to immigrant parents from Asia, Africa and Latin America are particularly vulnerable (Dalen et al., 2024). For example, 17 per cent of people born in Norway to immigrant parents from this group report that they have experienced someone having said something hateful to them, compared to 14 per cent of their parents, 11 per cent of immigrants from new EU countries in Eastern and Central Europe and 6 per cent of immigrants from Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand.

Young people with ethnic minority backgrounds more often experience hate speech on the basis of ethnicity, skin colour or religion/life stance than young people who have parents born in the Nordic region. This group is particularly vulnerable if a person belongs to a religion other than Christianity, and if a person goes to school with a low percentage of students with an immigrant background. The risk of being exposed to hate speech increases significantly if the person belongs to multiple different minority groups, for example if they are LGBTQ+, have a family background from an indigenous group, are a national minority, or have a visible physical disability (Nadim and Fladmoe, 2021).

Criminality

Immigrants more often exposed to violence and fraud

Crime and immigration receive a great deal of attention in the public debate, and are often linked to how “successful” the integration of immigrants has been. Crime can be viewed as an indicator of a lack of social integration because criminal behaviour suggests failure to adhere to common norms and rules of behaviour in a society (Proba, 2019). Good and factual discussions about crime and integration require a good knowledge base.

Furthermore, it is important to be aware of underlying factors that can explain crime among immigrants – both as offenders and victims. Immigrants and the rest of the population have different population compositions, and this can provide some explanation for the crime statistics. For example, the immigrant population consists of a larger proportion of young men than the population without immigrant backgrounds, and young men are also overrepresented in the crime statistics. However, gender and age do not fully explain the difference. Crime is linked to both social and economic factors such as poor living conditions and unemployment (Andersen, Holtsmark and Mohn, 2017). People with challenging living conditions are more susceptible to violence and abuse, and there is also a higher proportion of people with immigrant backgrounds who are not in work and education (Dale et al., 2023; Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

Since 2015, the total number of people charged with criminal offences per year has decreased from about 80,000 to 60,000. The proportion of people with foreign citizenshipcharged with criminal offences has remained relatively stable at just over 20 per cent during the same period (Statistics Norway, 2024a). The number of prison inmates decreased from about 4,000 people in 2015 to just under 3,700 in 2022. This decrease is primarily due to a fall in the number of prison inmates with foreign citizenship. In 2022, prison inmates with foreign citizenship accounted for 24 per cent of all inmates, compared to 34 per cent in 2015 (Statistics Norway, 2023a).

Figure 7.13. Prison inmates and people charged with criminal offences, by citizenship. 2016– 2022. Percentage.

Young men, both with and without immigrant backgrounds, are more often charged with criminal offences. This also applies when taking into account differences in gender and age composition. However, this overrepresentation decreases over time, and applies to virtually all groups of offenders and all groups of immigrants (Andersen and Mohn, 2017).

However, there are significant variations in terms of country of origin and different groups of offences (Statistics Norway, 2019). Overrepresentation is generally highest for immigrants from Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and South and Central America. This overrepresentation decreases if we adjust for gender and age, and disappears for immigrants from Poland. Immigrants from the Nordic region are equally likely as the rest of the population to be charged with criminal offences, and immigrants from Western Europe and North America are underrepresented (Andersen and Mohn, 2017). Immigrants with refugee backgrounds have the highest proportion of people charged with crimes, while people who have immigrated due to education have the lowest rates (Andersen, Holstmark and Mohn, 2017).

People with immigrant backgrounds who are born in Norway are also overrepresented when compared with the rest of the population (Andersen and Mohn, 2017). The average figures forthe years 2015–2017 show that the annual proportion of Norwegian-born men with immigrant parents in the 15–35 age group who were charged with criminal offences was 6.6 per cent, compared to 4.1 per cent for the rest of the population (Statistics Norway, 2019).

In 2022, over 28,000 immigrants, over 5,000 Norwegian-born children and over 144,000 people in the rest of the population were victims of reported criminal offences. Immigrants and the children of immigrants are relatively more frequently registered as victims of reported criminal offences than the population at large. In 2015, immigrants accounted for 14 per cent of all victims, while the figure for Norwegian-born children of immigrants was 2 per cent. Up until 2022, these proportions had increased to 19 and three per cent respectively (Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

Figure 7.14. Victims of reported criminal offences, by immigration background. 2012–2022. Percentage (Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

There is significant variation between different groups and different types of criminal offences. Immigrants are heavily overrepresented among those who are susceptible to violence, abuse, threats and fraud. Of young immigrants, 12.8 per cent report that they have been exposed to violence or threats in recent months, compared to 6.9 per cent of young people in the entire population (Vrålstad and Wiggen, 2017). However, there are far fewer registered victims of sexual offences among immigrants.

Figure 7.15. Over and under representation of immigrants as victims of reported criminal offences (compared to the rest of the population). Annual average 2017-2022. Percentage overrepresentation (Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

offences than women. A clear exception to this is sexual offences. Immigrant men are most susceptible to crimes for profit, while the rest of the population is most susceptible to property theft. People born in Norway to immigrant parents, both women and men, are the most susceptible to violence and abuse. The latter group consists of a large number of children and young people, and they are therefore less susceptible to crime for profit (Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

Figure 7.16. Victims of reported criminal offences, by immigration background, gender and primary offence group. Annual average 2017-2022. Percentage (Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

Immigrant children and young people are heavily overrepresented as victims of domestic abuse, compared to both the rest of the population and children born in Norway to immigrant parents. Domestic violence includes various forms of violence and abuse between current and former family members, and also includes children who witness the violence (Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS), 2023). An average of 300 male immigrants are registered as victims of domestic abuse each year, of whom nine out of ten are children under the age of 18. The corresponding figure for women is 35 per cent. However, overrepresentation among female immigrants is greatest in the 12-16 age group, where the number of victims is over seven times as high as for girls of the same age in the rest of the population (Fossanger, Fjelldalen and Mohn, 2024).

Updated and accessible knowledge is required about the links between crime and possible underlying factors, such as unemployment, financial difficulties and poor living conditions. We need to understand more about the mechanisms behind being susceptible to and committing criminal acts.

Negative social control

The right to live a free life

Everyone has the right to live their lives free from negative social control, honour-related violence, forced marriage and genital mutilation. This right is reflected both in our national laws and in international conventions that Norway has committed to (NOU, 2024). Efforts to combat these serious forms of control and abuse have long been part of Norwegian integration policy. As time has progressed, parents using more diffuse forms of control, pressure, threats and restrictions that strongly violate the autonomy and life development of children and young people has also become an important issue (Friberg and Bjørnset, 2019). Children and young people have extensive legal protections which grant them the right to a private life and a greater degree of self-determination as they get older. These principles also manifest themselves in the field of integration.

What are negative social control, involuntary stays abroad, forced marriage
and genital mutilation?

• The Action Plan Freedom from negative social control and honour-related violence
  defines negative social control as pressure, supervision, threats or coercion that systematically restrict someone in their life or repeatedly prevents them from making independent choices about their own life and future.
• Involuntary stays abroad involves children and young people being sent to their parents’ country of origin, or that parents bring their children to their country of origin and leave them there against their will.
• Forced marriage is understood as being a marriage where one or both spouses cannot choose to remain unmarried without being subjected to violence, deprivation of liberty, other criminal or unlawful conduct or undue pressure.
• Gender mutilation is understood as being different types of procedures that damage a woman’s genitalia, and that can have serious physical and psychological consequences for the person subjected to such procedures. Among other things, gender mutilation can result in infections, chronic pain, sexual problems, birth complications and increased risk of stillbirth.
• Honour-related violence is understood as violence triggered by the family or group’s need to maintain or re-establish honour and reputation. This takes place in families in which the individual is expected to submit to the collective, and where patriarchal honour codes are prominent.

Strict social control can limit the ability of young people to participate in society, while also contributing towards shielding them from negative influence. A distinction can be made between parental involvement – in the form of parents who pay close attention to where their children are, and who they are with – and parental restrictions – in the form of parents limiting the ability of young people to participate in social activities. A new study has found that parental involvement is positively associated with multiple integration outcomes, such as completing upper secondary school, transitioning to higher education and less use of social welfare. However, parental restrictions are also linked to failure to complete upper secondary school and increased use of social welfare (Friberg and Sterri, 2023).

Research shows that young people with immigrant backgrounds, and particularly girls with backgrounds from Asia and Africa, are the most vulnerable to parental restrictions. For example, this may include being allowed to associate with friends of the opposite sex in their spare time, have a girlfriend or boyfriend or participate in activities (Friberg and Bjørnset, 2019; Smette et al., 2021). The degree of parental restrictions varies according to country of origin, socioeconomic status, period of residence, characteristics of the local community, school grades, religious affiliation and degree of religiosity of the parents (Smette et al., 2021).

Negative social control not only takes place between adults and young people, it also takes place between young people themselves – and it takes place at school. Students control each other on the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression and religious practice, particularly in connection with fasting during Ramadan. Among other things, control is exercised between couples and ex-couples, and in the form of peer pressure, which can be, for example, pressure about what clothes to wear and pressure to use intoxicating substances. Girls and boys experience different forms of control. Girls face expectations of having to behave decently and respectably, and boys encounter pressures related to masculinity and control of their sisters (Proba, 2024b). Nearly one in ten high school students responded that they are controlled by fellow students in the classroom or during break times (Proba, 2021). 

Recent years have seen an increased focus on involuntary stays abroad in surveys of negative social control, honour-related violence and forced marriage. The motives vary, and may include a desire for a stronger cultural foundation, alternative schooling, family situation, preventing “Norwegianization”, removing young people from an environment of substance abuse, or behavioural problems (Ministry of Health and Care Services, 2020; Lidén, Bredal and Reisel, 2014; NOU, 2024). Involuntary stays abroad can cause people, and particularly children and young people, to lose their connection to Norway, Norwegian language skills, schooling and access to public benefits. Such stays are also linked to concerns about violence, deprivation of liberty, forced marriage and genital mutilation (NOU, 2024). Somalia is a country where genital mutilation is a relatively widespread practice. However, several studies reveal that there has been a change in attitude among the Somali community in Norway, and that most Somali immigrants abandoned this custom after they immigrated to Norway (Friberg and Bjørnset, 2019). 

In a 2021 survey, 13 per cent of high school students with immigrant backgrounds reported that they were afraid of being abandoned abroad against their will. Of those, seven per centsaid they had been threatened with this. Very few report that they have actually been subjected to an involuntary stay abroad (see Figure 7.17) (Proba, 2021).

Figure 7.17. Fear of involuntary stay abroad 2021. Percentage (Proba, 2021).

Research shows that queer people with immigrant backgrounds constitute one of the groups that is particularly vulnerable to negative social control (Proba, 2021). For example, several in this group are concerned about being exposed as queer, because this can result in an increased risk of threats, violence, persecution or ostracism by family in their home country or others in the same minority community in Norway (Akin et al., 2022). One in three people experience exclusion from minority communities on the basis of their sexual identity (Eggebø, Karlstrøm and Stubberud, 2020).

Some LGBT+ refugees who have recently arrived in Norway experience unsafe living conditions at asylum reception centres. Research has also documented that some people do not feel safe in a class environment in the Introduction Programme and during Norwegian language training. This may involve exclusion, pressure or coercion related to prioritising care tasks (Proba, 2024a). Queer people with longer periods of residence also report loneliness and an absence of social networks (Akin et al., 2022).

Domestic violence includes various forms of violence and abuse between current and former family members, and also includes children who witness the violence (Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS), 2023). The most serious form of honourrelated violence is honour killing. Between 2000 and 2022, 24 murder cases were identified as possible honour killings. These cases accounted for 3.8 percent of the total number of murder cases during the same period. About one-third of the perpetrators were of Pakistani origin. The other perpetrators had national backgrounds from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and India. More than half of the perpetrators were either partners or ex-partners of the victim (Norwegian Police, 2024). It is probable that there are significant dark numbers, and that more murders are committed in the victim’s country of origin.

Crisis Centres (Krisesenter) is a service offered to women, men and children exposed to domestic violence. 2,193 people resided at crisis centres in 2023. 89 per cent of the residents were women, and six out of ten residents had an immigrant background. In other words, immigrant women are strongly overrepresented among the residents. Since 2005, people with immigrant backgrounds have accounted for more than half of the stays at the crisis centres (between 51 and 67 per cent) (Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir), 2023). This overrepresentation has remained relatively stable, with shares of over 60 per cent since 2009.

Figure 7.18. Proportion of residents and stays at crisis centres by immigrant background. 2003–2023. Percentage (Bufdir, 2023)

In 2023, 35 per cent of all crisis centre residents had been exposed to negative social control, and seven per cent had been exposed to honour-related violence. Among residents with immigrant backgrounds, 11 per cent had been exposed to honour-related violence – an increase from 8 per cent in 2022. Psychological violence, physical violence, and threats were the most common causes of people needing to stay in crisis centres (Bufdir, 2023).