Background:

In Belgium, as in many other countries, the reception system is under increasing pressure due to a variety of factors, including persistently high numbers of applicants for international protection, lengthy asylum processing times, and challenges in transitioning beneficiaries of international protection to housing outside the reception system.

In this context, Belgium launched this ad hoc query to support the preparation of an EMN Inform to explore whether EMN Member and Observer Countries were using alternatives to provide housing in kind between 2020 and 2025, to alleviate pressure on their accommodation centres, while respecting their legal obligations, supporting applicants’ autonomy, addressing their vulnerability, and promoting their integration into society – within the framework of the European legislative, judicial, and policy framework. 

Respondents:

25 EMN Member and Observer Countries (including BE)  provided a public answer to this ad hoc query.

Findings:

A preliminary analysis of the results of the ad hoc query shows that:

• Apart from the situation where applicants are allowed to choose to stay outside a reception structure without further support, most respondent countries (including BE) have not implemented alternatives to providing housing in kind between 2020 and 2025.  
   
• A few countries have implemented alternatives as a continuous component of their reception system. For instance, in AT, at the provincial level, applicants for international protection who reside in individual accommodations could be granted a monthly sum of money to support financing their private accommodation. 
   
• In some countries (FR, NO, CY, IE), alternatives to providing housing in kind were implemented in response to high pressure on reception systems or as part of the preparedness measures (NO). For instance, in IE, due to the significant pressure on the reception system and overall housing shortages, not all applicants were accommodated upon arrival. Rules on daily expense allowances were then changed so that these applicants could be offered an increased allowance. Agreements with homelessness NGOs were also made to ensure that drop-in day services were available to applicants for international protection not offered accommodation. 
   
• Another group of a few countries implemented alternatives for applicants with specific needs (for instance, in CY, for applicants with vulnerabilities or in some federal states of DE, for applicants with exceptional needs). 
   
• To support applicants granted alternatives to providing housing in kind, countries can put in place other support services. For instance, in FR, these individuals were supported by first reception structures (SPADA) which provide administrative and social assistance. 
   
• In BE, no alternatives to providing housing in kind to applicants were in place, but some services were established to support applicants living outside the reception network, such as the Info Point Brussels, an integrated information point serving as a central hub for providing information and guidance and facilitating referrals to essential services such as medical care and shelters, and the Refugee Medical Point, a frontline service that aims to provide low-threshold access to basic healthcare for people in vulnerable situations.
   
• A few countries also put systems in place to monitor applicants granted alternatives to providing housing in kind. For instance, in PL, several monitoring mechanisms were established, including visits by staff to the places declared as residence to monitor the living conditions of the individuals and confirm their actual presence, especially in relation to vulnerable groups. 
   
• In contrast, SE has, since 2025, been moving in the other direction, with a new law that, by the end of August 2025, required all applicants living in self-arranged housing to move into accommodation assigned by the authorities in order to keep their daily allowances.  

For concise and comparative information, please refer to the Inform on the subject. For detailed country-specific information, please consult the compilation of responses attached above.