In many EMN Member and Observer Countries, reception systems for applicants for international protection rely on in-kind housing, whereby accommodation is provided directly by the state or mandated authorities through reception centres, shared facilities, or other housing arrangements. Alternatives to in-kind housing refer to reception measures based on financial allowances or vouchers that enable applicants to secure accommodation independently while still ensuring adequate housing and living conditions in line with EU standards. 

The Inform examines how EMN Member and Observer Countries have implemented such alternatives between 2020 and 2025. It aims to identify national approaches and innovative solutions that balance legal obligations with the need to support applicants' autonomy, address their vulnerabilities, and facilitate their integration into society.

Key findings include:

• Five EMN Member Countries (AT, CY, FR, IE, PL) reported implementing financial allowances as alternatives to in-kind housing, either as a permanent feature of their reception system or as a contingency measure during periods of pressure on reception capacity. Austria and Poland operate continuous allowance schemes, while Cyprus, France and Ireland mainly use financial support when reception capacity is constrained. In addition to these five EMN Member Countries, Germany reported using financial allowances to cover housing in exceptional cases, depending on individual needs and at the discretion of federal states.
   
• In EMN Member and Observer Countries providing financial allowances as alternatives to in-kind housing, eligibility was often linked to administrative requirements (e.g. formally accepting the reception offer), vulnerability assessments, or reception capacity constraints.
   
• Two approaches to setting housing support were identified: nationally fixed rates, typically by regulation, and locally determined amounts that reflect housing costs or individual needs.
   
• All EMN Member and Observer Countries implementing alternatives to in-kind housing also reported systems to ensure that applicants have access to essential services such as legal support, psychological assistance, and healthcare.
   
• EMN Member and Observer Countries with alternatives to in-kind housing schemes reported specific measures to support applicants with special reception needs. Unaccompanied minors were expressly excluded from alternative to in-kind housing schemes in the majority of cases.
   
• Monitoring approaches vary across countries. Some operate centralised national databases that record personal details and track the payment of financial allowances, combined with periodic appointments to confirm continued eligibility and current residence. Others rely primarily on applicants’ obligation to register changes of address, or on oversight by the local authority responsible for administering benefits.  

For the full comparative analysis, please read the complete Inform attached above.