‘Eat, Sleep, School, Repeat’: The Influence of the Dutch Asylum System on the Capabilities and Aspirations of Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Adolescents During Their Transition to Adulthood
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
ABSTRACT
This study examines the transition to adulthood of unaccompanied asylum-seeking adolescents in the context of the Dutch asylum system. We thereby focus on adolescents' capabilities and their perceptions of the enabling or hampering role of the system, the laws and policies which constitute it, and the ways in which these are implemented and put into practice. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and participant observation, we argue that the asylum system was experienced as a succession of waiting periods—for an asylum status and for family reunification—during which adolescents experienced uncertainties and limited agency in pursuing their aspirations. Earlier studies focused on predominantly refugees' asylum status as determining capabilities. While informants generally received their asylum status before their eighteenth birthday, expanding their capabilities, uncertainties and inabilities regarding family reunification extended into their nominal adulthood. Relationships with professionals both alleviated and compounded informants' concerns during these waiting periods.
1 Introduction
Adolescents who enter the Dutch asylum system are often in the final years of their nominal childhood, with over 56% of applicants being 16 or 17 years old in the period between 2008 and 2022 (Statistics Netherlands 2023). With the age of 18 as the nominal age of adulthood and the age of 21 as the age limit for extended youth care (Nidos, VNG 2022), this means that they only have a few years to reconcile their pre-arrival experiences and prepare for a future before they age out of care and transition to ‘adulthood’. This transition entails a range of choices, challenges, and potentially conflicting views on adolescents' futures. Adolescents are often expected to prepare for (financial) self-reliance, for example through social workers' emphases on the importance of work and housing after ageing out of care (Geenen and Powers 2007; Sirriyeh and Ní Raghallaigh 2018), while they are also busy building a social network and developing feelings of belonging in their host country (Winkens et al. 2023). Since adolescents often have little time to prepare for these challenges before ageing out of care, the time they spend in the asylum system might therefore constitute a significant part of their preparation time.
After entering the asylum system, refugee adolescents often have to wait a long time before they receive a final asylum decision. Adolescents often have aspirations, such as finding work, studying, and caring for family (Vervliet et al. 2015), and the lack of an asylum status can make it difficult to pursue those legally. EU law prescribes that asylum decisions should, in principle, be made within 6 months (Directive 2013/32/EU 2024, art. 31). In practice, this time limit is often exceeded. Between December 2022 and March 2023, the average Dutch processing time for an application within the general asylum procedure1 was 43 weeks (Immigration and Naturalisation Service 2023), resulting in a backlog of forty thousand cases (Eurostat, 2023). The Netherlands thus matches a broader European trend, as many EU countries have been struggling with inadequate reception and processing capacity since the end of the Covid-19 pandemic (European Council on Refugees and Exiles 2022), with over 43% of applications taking longer than six months to process (European Union Agency for Asylum 2023).
In principle, the asylum policy of European member states should safeguard the best interest of unaccompanied minors (Directive 2013/33/EU 2024, art. 23), for example through access to education (idem, art. 14). While the policies of European states often guarantee these best interests on paper, in practice they often offer minors inadequate care (Vissing and Leitão 2021). In the Netherlands, adolescents aged 15 and above, who have not yet received an asylum decision, are generally placed in process reception centres for minor refugees.2 These centres are managed by the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers [COA] (COA 2024). Every unaccompanied minor is assigned a guardian through Nidos, the national guardianship organisation for unaccompanied minors. When they have received a positive decision before the age of seventeen and a half, they are placed in small-scale living facilities under contract to Nidos. The exact living arrangements differ depending on adolescents' level of self-sufficiency, but generally they live together with other youth and have ‘mentors’, youth workers for unaccompanied young people, available for a number of hours per week (Nidos, VNG 2022). However, under current capacity constraints, adolescents often have to remain in reception centres longer than intended or have to move between temporary emergency reception centres (van den Burgh 2023), which do not all offer adequate educational or other facilities. The Dutch National Ombudsman and Ombudsman for Children (2023) argued that these arrangements do not support the best interest and the developmental perspective of (unaccompanied) asylum-seeking minors.
In this study, we examine the aspirations and capabilities of unaccompanied asylum-seeking adolescents transitioning to nominal adulthood in the context of the Dutch asylum system. In particular, we focus on the perceived influence of the implementation of asylum policy, as well as the influence of associated actors—guardians, peers, and mentors in various accommodations. In order to do so, we examine their capabilities and aspirations for the future, how these changed over time, and which role the asylum system as well as its actors played therein. While recent systematic reviews show that social relationships have an influence on unaccompanied minors' daily lives and aspirations for the future (Anna Seidel et al. 2022; Winkens et al. 2023), earlier studies often primarily focus on the influence of non-personal asylum structures on asylum-seekers' aspirations and capabilities (e.g., Chase 2020; De Haas 2021). As the time spent in the asylum system is a significant part of adolescents' preparation time before they age out of care and become nominally independent adults, we aim to gain a broader understanding of the social and institutional context in which adolescents make choices that impact their eventual adulthood.
2 Capabilities and Aspirations of Unaccompanied Refugee Adolescents
In order to capture the influence of the asylum system on the aspirations and transition to adulthood of unaccompanied adolescents, we adopt the capabilities approach in this study. This approach focuses on the freedoms and opportunities which people experience in pursuing their wellbeing and life goals while subject to broader socio-political structures (Sen 2022). It distinguishes itself from other, more utilitarian evaluations of individuals' state of being, by not singularly focusing on the intended outcomes or effects of certain actions and interventions, but by also examining the degree to which individuals experienced freedoms or opportunities in choosing the actions towards that outcome, so-called ‘capability’ (Sen 1993). For example, by not just evaluating whether policy supports the education or integration of unaccompanied youth, but to also examine whether youth themselves experienced agency and possible systemic disadvantages while navigating through that policy (cf. van Raemdonck et al. 2022). In our study, we specifically focus on three interlinked aspects of the capabilities approach, which Chase (2020) applied in a study on the aspirations of unaccompanied refugee youth. These are: 1. An emphasis on adolescents' agency and opportunities in pursuing their aspirations, instead of solely focusing on care outcomes. 2. The expansion or constraint of these capabilities by broader socio-political structures. 3. The linkage between adolescents' capabilities and wellbeing.
In terms of adolescents' feelings of agency and opportunity, previous studies describe a range of aspirations that unaccompanied minors can pursue. These are often functional aspirations that were formulated before migrating, focusing on improving the lives of themselves or their relatives, and which can change over time (cf. De Haas 2021). Upon arrival in their host country, adolescents often want to continue pursuing these (Brun 2015; Chase 2020; Oppedal et al. 2017; Vervliet et al. 2015).
The degree to which adolescents perceive their ability to pursue their aspirations is influenced by broader structures, the second aspect of the capabilities approach. The period between arrival in a country and the final asylum decision can be experienced as ‘protracted displacement’ (Brun 2015), or ‘time in limbo’ (Kohli and Kaukko 2018; Thommessen et al. 2015). That is, a time of boredom, waiting, and uncertainty about their asylum application (Allsopp et al. 2015; Chase 2020; Fuller and Hayes 2020; Lundberg and Dahlquist 2012)—in short, a time of limited capabilities.
The degree of experienced agency and opportunity is also linked to feelings of wellbeing, the third aspect of the capabilities approach. Chase (2020) exemplifies this through adolescents whose asylum applications have been rejected. This rejection entails the loss of access to many of the support structures that they had as an asylum-seeker and their feelings of agency (Chase 2020), which has negative repercussions on their mental and physical health (Allsopp et al. 2015; Elsrud 2020; Lundberg and Dahlquist 2012).
Apart from directly influencing the capabilities of unaccompanied adolescents, the asylum system also plays an important contextual role in determining the challenges that adolescents face during their transition to adulthood (cf. Wade 2011). In many countries, an adolescent's asylum status determines the care, guidance, and facilities that adolescents have access to. For example, an inability to go to school or work legally impacts the challenges regarding self-reliance that are often associated with adulthood (Winkens et al. 2023). Moreover, a rejected asylum application often necessitates preparations for a future in adolescents' country of origin, as opposed to a future in the host country with an accepted application (Wade 2019). In such cases, the transition to adulthood also entails the transition from non-deportable minor to deportable adult (Rosen 2024). By distinguishing between influences by asylum structures and by actors working in or for those, we aim to highlight the dynamic interactions and power relations between individuals and their social field (cf. Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004). These are often overlooked in capabilities studies (Chase 2020). While the national asylum and care structure has a large influence on adolescents' agency and aspirations, adolescents will most often interact with the professionals who are assigned to them locally. This microsystem (cf. Bronfenbrenner 1979), the persons in direct contact with an adolescent, also influences the adolescents' aspirations and challenges while they transition to adulthood (Winkens et al. 2023).
The dynamics between adolescents and their social field should be studied over a longer period of time, as they are prone to change (Blakeslee 2012; Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004). This can be due to policy measures, such as when an adolescent loses their guardian or care network after becoming an adult (Allsopp et al. 2015), or when their asylum application is rejected (Elsrud 2020). But adolescents themselves can also actively decide to maintain or discontinue relations with certain actors in their network (Bryceson and Vuorela 2002), for example by focusing on actors who can support or advise them (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004).
3 Methods and Setting
3.1 Design
This study is part of a broader qualitative, ethnographic research project in which we followed a group of unaccompanied refugee adolescents for a period of 2 years. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Pedagogical and Educational Sciences at the University of Groningen, reference number: PED-2021-S-0097.
3.2 Population
Eleven unaccompanied Syrian adolescents participated in the study, eight of whom were male and three were female. At the start of the project, our informants had been in the Netherlands between 7 days and 3 years. We included adolescents who were between 16 and 18 years at the start of the study, as they would transition over the course of the study and would therefore have experiences both before and after ‘adulthood’. Initially, most of them lived in a process reception centre, with four informants having received a positive asylum decision before the start of the study. As the study progressed, all had received a refugee status and moved to smaller-scale semi-independent living facilities. We focused on Syrian refugees, as they constitute the largest group of unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands in recent years (Statistics Netherlands 2023), and the majority of Syrian asylum applications were accepted. This means that Syrian adolescents have a perspective on adulthood in the Netherlands.
3.3 Procedure and Instrument
Informants were recruited through a convenience sample, with the help of several refugee organisations (reception centres, transition classes, and guardians) and snowball sampling. Adolescents' legal guardians were consulted to ascertain that they did not deem an adolescent too vulnerable to participate. The researcher took care to introduce themselves as independent from any government agency or school in contact with (potential) informants.
Informed consent was obtained from all informants. When potential informants were asked to participate in the study, they received an information letter detailing the purpose of the study, data storage practices in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation, confidentiality, and the voluntary nature of their participation and answers. They were also given a flyer that explained the goal of the study. Before signing the informed consent form, informants were asked whether they had any further questions regarding the study.
Data collection began in February 2022, during the Covid pandemic in the Netherlands. Informants were formally interviewed an average of 4 times (between 1 and 13 times), using a semi-structured topic list. Topics focused on adolescents' ability to form and maintain contact or relations in both the Netherlands and transnationally, experiences with the asylum, future aspirations, and the influence of relationships on the latter two topics. Each subsequent interview started with a summary of the previous interview, and informants were asked whether anything relevant had changed in the meantime.
An important part of the interview setting was the building of trust, for example, by letting adolescents choose an interview location. Reasons for their choice of locations ranged from feelings that their housing was not a safe interview location due to the presence of other residents to busy schedules and preferring somewhere on the way to where they were going. Contact also took place outside of and after interview settings, for example, through small talk in their home or by accompanying informants in contact with their social network. This approach aimed to build up a degree of informality and rapport, thereby reducing the degree of social desirability in the answers that informants provided. Nevertheless, the number of interviews differed per informant. The reasons given usually were generally related to informants' available time and interest in participating in the study. For example, once informants received an asylum status, and gained more opportunities to spend their time, it usually became more difficult to schedule interviews. Others, like the informant interviewed 13 times, actively invited the primary research to conduct follow-up interviews. While similar topics were discussed in each interview, this means that we have more follow-up data for some informants than for others. As often as possible, interviews took place in informants' language of preference. The primary researcher was fluent in Dutch and English and had a basic to intermediate knowledge of Arabic. If informants wanted to conduct the full interview in Arabic or another language, an interpreter was used. In some cases, informants suggested a friend or acquaintance as an interpreter; in other cases, an Arabic-speaking student contributed to the data collection. Informants could also bring others along to the interviews if they preferred; this was, for example, the case if interviews took place in a common area and informants wanted housemates to remain present or if they had plans with friends afterwards and brought them along to the interview. Some of the quotes in the following parts of this article have been translated to English from Dutch, Kurdish, or Arabic (See Table 1 for details about interview frequency and others present during interviews, apart from the primary researcher).
| Participant | Number of formal interviews | Informal contacts outside of interviews | Language interviewed | Others present during interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
Kurdish English |
Friend (interpretation support) Friend (informal presence) |
| 2 | 13 | 3 | English |
Student (note taking) |
| 3 | 4 | 2 |
Kurdish Dutch |
Friend (interpretation support) Friend (informal presence) Student (note taking) |
| 4 | 2 | 1 |
Kurdish Arabic |
Friend (interpretation support) |
| 5 | 2 | 1 | Arabic |
Student (interpretation support) |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | Arabic | Friend (interpretation support) |
| 7 | 2 | 1 | Dutch | None |
| 8 | 3 | Arabic |
Student (interpretation support) |
|
| 9 | 4 | 1 | Dutch |
Student (note taking) |
| 10 | 6 | 3 | Dutch |
Friend (informal presence) Student (note taking) |
| 11 | 5 | 3 | Dutch |
Friend (informal presence) Student (note taking) |
If written consent for audio recordings was given at the start of the project, renewed oral consent for audio recordings was asked at the beginning of each interview. Nine of the eleven informants gave consent to record interviews. If consent was not given, extensive notes were taken throughout the interviews. Additional observations or informal conversations were written down in field notes.
3.4 Data Analysis
Recordings were fully transcribed. After reading through and familiarising ourselves with the data, the transcripts and notes were coded inductively using Atlas.ti, version 23. The data were analysed through a thematic analysis, an iterative process where we categorised and refined the initial codes into broader themes in order to identify latent patterns in the data (cf. Braun and Clarke 2006). To ensure the accuracy of the analysis, the results and conclusions were discussed with some of the informants.
4 Results
In analysing adolescents' experiences with the Dutch asylum system, we identified a central theme of consecutive waiting periods—for an asylum status and for family reunification. In the following parts, we will discuss these periods of waiting in chronological order. From the expectations with which adolescents arrived in the Netherlands, to the period while waiting for a status, up until the achievement of family reunification. During these periods, informants lived in various consecutive accommodations, with different peers and professionals. Both the nature of these accommodations and their social relationships influenced informants' evolving sense of capabilities over the course of these periods. After arrival, before they receive an asylum status, young people often experienced little agency in pursuing their ideal futures. While the granting of an asylum status expanded their capabilities to pursue most of their aspirations, feelings of being in a waiting period continued up until the achievement of family reunification.
4.1 Waiting for an Asylum Status
4.1.1 Expectations, Aspirations, and Inabilities
Upon arrival, our informants had expectations about the Netherlands, the Dutch asylum system, and opportunities to fulfil their aspirations. All of them came with some notion about being able to pursue a ‘better future’, both for themselves and their families. Apart from physical security, fleeing from conflict in Syria, this sense of a better future was often also linked to more opportunities for work or study.
If someone wants to come to Europe. To get a good life. Without war. To have a good job and such. When they choose The Netherlands, or Germany, or… Already know people here, in that country, you know. So that's why. […] But not for me. Because the whole of my family […] my uncle, all of my uncles, are in Germany. But I came to the Netherlands because eh, what's it called again? Yeah, the rules for family, for if I want to bring my family here. Yeah, are easier than in Germany. And faster. […] We asked people about that.
In practice, informants often had to wait a long time before they received their residence permit, which resulted in an extended period of feelings of inability. All aspired to reunify with their family members. As a residence permit was a pre-requisite to apply for family reunification, delays in the application process also meant a delay in achieving family reunification. With one exception, informants voiced their uncertainties and frustrations about this. While most were certain that they would receive a permit—only one informant doubted whether he would receive one—these uncertainties pertained to the lack of information about when they would receive a status. Some informants were especially frustrated when the applications of acquaintances were processed more quickly.
Ahmed is 17.5. He starts the interview by saying that this is a problem, as he cannot go to school after he turns 18. He also does not have an ID at the moment. This means that he cannot apply for family reunification. He often talks with his parents about this issue. Paperwork is a recurring topic. He mentions the problem that he does not have an appointment with his lawyer. […] Being separated from his family, who live in Turkey, is painful. He mentions that he came to the Netherlands for himself, but also for his family. He says that it is not possible to live in Turkey due to the financial situation: children are not allowed to go to school, they can only work. If you cannot find work, you cannot live. (Interview notes)
4.1.2 Boredom, Inability and Isolation
The degree to which informants felt that they could pursue their aspirations varied. They lived in different accommodations, at different stages of waiting for an asylum status. These accommodations' facilities influenced the opportunities that adolescents encountered, with those living in emergency reception centres often experiencing these as inadequate.
Even the boys today, they were complaining […] like they were saying this routine is just basically suicide. We just wake up. We go to school. And if there is no school, we just wake up, we go to eat and we come back. After that, we go to eat again, and we come back. And sleep. So. Some of the boys were complaining that this eh… thing is just basically suicide. I don't consider it like that. But it's not good at all, this routine, I can say.
Personally I can, like, succeed. And I'm sure, even more than 100 percent I'm sure, I can succeed. But the abilities, the chances here are none.
-
- Interviewer
-
- Chances of what?
The abilities, let's say. Like we don't [use] the whole day every day. For example, for the schools. And such other things like a workshop for example, for the boys to work in and that. […] It's hard to do it. Harder than it usually should be.
For these informants, feelings of boredom and inability were often compounded by feelings of isolation. Adolescents in the emergency centre often found it difficult to connect with Dutch nationals or to experience Dutch society, despite aspiring to do so. The centre was located on the outskirts of a village, and informants had few contacts outside of it. This was made more difficult by the then current Covid measures, which limited gatherings. Going to a nearby city also often proved difficult, as public transport was expensive in relation to the allowance that informants received.
Not all experiences in emergency centres were entirely negative. Informants expressed that their situation could be better, but that were at least somewhere safe. According to Hemin the centre's facilities were less than ideal, but he expected that this could improve in the future. Another resident summarised it as followed: ‘Like, it's still better than… nothingness.’
The informants who lived in regular process reception centres also experienced some boredom and inability. The lack of an asylum status, and especially the inability to apply for family reunification, led to frustrations. However, all informants there went to the regular schools for immigrant minors, which were generally experienced as enabling them to work towards their educational aspirations. The non-emergency accommodations were also generally located nearby towns or cities, which enabled informants to, for example, join sports clubs or visit friends and classmates. Most were positive about being able to pursue activities outside the centre, with only one boy saying that he still felt bored.
4.1.3 Uncertainties About Housemates
While boredom was the main recurring issue in the emergency centre, the main issue for informants in regular centres focused on housemates. Adolescents across different centres complained about dirty or noisy residents. This could cause difficulties with sleeping or reduce their feelings of being ‘at home’ in the centre. Others worried about not getting along with others, either in their current or future accommodation. One Kurdish boy described fights and anger between Kurdish and Arab boys in his reception centre. But more generally, informants often worried that people in their next accommodation would have different standards than they, for example, by causing problems or using drugs and alcohol in the centre. These worries compounded other uncertainties, for example, those about informants' ongoing asylum applications.
For example, the first I was in Ter Apel [central registration centre] with all the people. You understand. Talking to everyone, something like that. Others in [emergency shelter]. Others in [new town, emergency shelter] others in [emergency shelter] went to [other shelter]. New people. And then to [small-scale facility]. New people. And then in [small-scale facility], new people. And then in [same town]. Other location also new people. And then here in [new city, small-scale facility] new people. A verry much difficult. Sometime my guardian says: ‘Yeah, you've forgotten very much, the name of the persons’.
4.1.4 Expanded Capabilities
-
- Freeman
-
- The studying. First, Ican go to that Schakelklas [Preparatory transition class], which would make me able to go to hbo or at least mbo4 [different levels of tertiary education]. And teach me better Dutch, better English, and better mathematics. That's really what you need for hbo. Second, you can start working. Save up some money and so on. And start like. Build yourself. […]
-
- Interviewer
-
- So that's the big change
-
- Freeman
-
- Study and work. That's the major change. The second one that now, the hope of bringing my family is much more. […] Yeah, that's a big relief for now.
4.2 Waiting for Family Reunification
I [the interviewer] asked how his family reunification was going, because we discussed that the previous time. Ahmed answered that he didn't know anything yet. And that he, for example, also didn't know whether it was rejected or not. […] His advice to people from Syria would be that they could come to the Netherlands for a better future, but that they shouldn't do that for family reunification. He lived in Turkey for 6 years, but only went to school for 2 years there, and said that there is no future in Turkey. That's why he came to the Netherlands: for studying, money, and family reunification. (Interview notes)
While the residence permit allowed young people to pursue some of their aspirations, their ability to pursue their aspirations of a better future for their family therefore remained limited. This new period of waiting had a detrimental effect on their wellbeing. Informants talked about the experience of being separated from their families and the feelings of loneliness, worrying, or dislocation that this experience evoked. Although informants could start building a life in the Netherlands, which could distract them, worries about their families were often continuously present in the background. As the reunification process dragged on, so did its impact on young persons' wellbeing. Those informants who achieved family reunification during our data collection period described that these background worries only ended after family reunification.
-
- Aisha
-
- We're waiting and we're waiting. 9 months to a maximum, until we can get permission from the IND [for family reunification]. And 6 when we have received permission from the IND. 6 months until we can get a house. […]
-
- Housemate
-
- Yeah, and then they will say that she's going to live with her sister. So her family doesn't have to come.
4.3 Mediation by Professionals
Our informants did not transition through consecutive waiting periods within a social vacuum. A common theme in interviews with our informants was the influence of mentors and guardians on their wellbeing and capabilities. Adolescents' opinions about professionals were not always congruous with their opinions about the organisations for which these worked. While the asylum system and accommodations hindered their aspirations or capabilities, our informants mentioned supportive experiences with professionals in those same locations.
Freeman: Sometimes I do have kind of a hard time in explaining something or experiencing something so she does understand and know how to deal more than the others. Because she also doesn't live quite eh. she also lived quite a messy life. […] Eh… for example when the earthquake happened. I was really quiet that day. Nobody checked. Nobody saw the… the… the… concern in me but she was there coincidentally and she saw it. So she said: “It will be fine, as long as your family is out of there, they are fine”.
-
- Aisha
-
- She was our teacher. […] Really. I see her like my mother. Yeah, she really is. Wollah. Like my mother, well not like my mother. Like my mother really. But I consider her like that. I really have respect for her. Yes, she helps us a lot. […]
-
- Fatima
-
- Like my mother. Yeah. Because she always asks how we are doing. […] And she always tries to help us.
-
- Aisha
-
- […] If I take a picture. And she looks, she looks at that picture
-
- Fatima
-
- When I failed. “O, Fatima, that doesn't matter. You are really smart. Mashallah, you will pass the next time.”
-
- Interviewer
-
- Was it your choice to come to this house?
-
- Afran
-
- No *laughs* No. Eeh I said I wanted to go to the north of the Netherlands. For example, to Nijmegen, Arnhem, Utrecht, something like that. But my guardian tells me
5 Discussion
This study examined the perceived influence of the Dutch asylum system on asylum-seeking adolescents' capabilities and aspirations during their transition to adulthood. Our informants experienced this system as a succession of waiting periods, in a series of different accommodations, during which adolescents experienced uncertainty and limited agency and opportunity in pursuing their aspirations, both for themselves and their families. In short, a period of limited capabilities. While informants often received their asylum status before their eighteenth birthday, which expanded informants' capabilities, the waiting period for family reunification extended into their nominal adulthood. Actions by professionals and peers mediated adolescents' experiences with waithood.
In line with the first aspect of our application of the capabilities approach (cf. Chase 2020), we focused on our informants' agency or ability to pursue their aspirations. These aspirations were generally functional, focusing on a ‘better future’ for themselves and their families. For example, through security, studying, and family reunification, which is in line with earlier studies with migrant youth (De Haas 2021; Oppedal et al. 2017; Vervliet et al. 2015). These aspirations were already present before migration and influenced their decision for the Netherlands as a destination country. However, young people were not immediately able to pursue all of these upon arrival. Instead, their entry into the Dutch asylum system marked the beginning of a series of periods ‘in limbo’, of waiting, uncertainty, and inability (cf. Kohli and Kaukko 2018; Thommessen et al. 2015).
Following the second aspect of the capabilities approach (cf. Chase 2020), we examined how informants' capabilities were initially constrained and subsequently expanded by the asylum system. The periods of waiting curtailed young persons' perceived capabilities. Adolescents had clear aspirations, but their ability to pursue these was dependent on their asylum status or the available facilities, peers, and professionals in their reception centres. As these were determined by the implementation of asylum law and policy, young persons themselves had little influence on this, and therefore experienced few capabilities. Gender did not seem to influence experiences with waiting and uncertainty within the system, as informants of different genders had similar experiences. Adolescents' degree of boredom differed between reception facilities, but generally, this first stage of waiting corresponded with earlier literature on sustained uncertainty and inability while in ‘limbo’ (Allsopp et al. 2015; Chase 2020; Fuller and Hayes 2020; Lundberg and Dahlquist 2012).
When young persons gained an asylum status, their capabilities expanded. Being granted asylum status alleviated uncertainties about their future and allowed them to legally travel, work, find housing, and continue to study after their eighteenth birthday. In the context of the transition to adulthood, these are often seen as particular challenges for preparing youth in care for an independent future (Geenen and Powers 2007; Sirriyeh and Ní Raghallaigh 2018). As such, the reception of asylum status can be seen as a facilitator for the transition to adulthood (Winkens et al. 2023). However, the influence of the asylum system can extend into legal adulthood, as aspirations for family reunification are often only realised after adolescents' eighteenth birthday. When studying or making policy regarding transition challenges, these legal age limits might therefore not neatly delineate the period of uncertainties associated with becoming an adult.
The protracted successive periods of uncertainty had a negative influence on informants' wellbeing, which fits the third aspect of the capabilities approach: the link between wellbeing and capability (cf. Chase 2020). Earlier studies on periods in ‘limbo’ often focused on young persons' asylum status as the end point of the period of uncertainty and waiting (e.g., Kohli and Kaukko 2018). While being granted an asylum status alleviated some feelings of uncertainty and inability, we argue that ‘limbo’ partially extends further than the asylum decision. A major source of worry and uncertainty for our informants was the circumstances of their families and related aspirations to achieve reunification. For these aspirations, the granting of an asylum status was only the first milestone, which was generally succeeded by a new, protracted period of waiting outside of their direct influence. Therefore, while adolescents' capabilities were expanded by their asylum status (cf. Chase 2020), in relation to pursuing their own futures, their capabilities with regard to pursuing family reunification or alleviating concerns regarding their family remained limited. Since the wellbeing of adolescents is influenced by their perceived capabilities (cf. Chase 2020), the negative influence of asylum uncertainties extends beyond the granting of an asylum status.
While earlier applications of the capabilities approach often focused predominantly on the role of broader asylum structures on adolescents' wellbeing and aspirations (e.g., Chase 2020; De Haas 2021), our study shows that social relationships also influence adolescents' experience of ‘limbo’. While professionals could not influence the processing times of procedures, they acted as a source of support or non-support during this time of uncertainty. Talks with mentors or guardians could alleviate or distract from worries, even past the stay in a reception centre. Conversely, the stress caused by housemates or the lack of power in decisions by their guardians could compound adolescents' feelings of uncertainty. Unaccompanied young persons' asylum experiences should therefore not be solely viewed through the influence of a reified asylum system, but also through the lens of the professionals surrounding them (cf. Bronfenbrenner 1979).
As the long waiting periods within the Dutch asylum procedure were experienced as detrimental to informants' wellbeing, we argue that it does not fully safeguard the best interests of unaccompanied young persons, as prescribed by European law (Directive 2013/33/EU 2024, art. 23). Especially those informants who stayed in (a series of) emergency centres experienced such facilities inadequate in providing opportunities for education or daily activities. As other European countries struggle with similar processing times and capacity shortages (European Council on Refugees and Exiles 2022), it is possible that unaccompanied minors there experience similar protracted, successive waiting periods. As these can negatively impact the wellbeing of adolescents, we recommend a broader European comparison of unaccompanied young persons' experiences with such waiting periods.
Ethics Statement
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen. Research code: PED-2021-S-0097.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Endnotes
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
Due to the sensitive nature of the research topic and the risk of identifying participants, data is not available.
