• Barriers to accessing essential services (employment assistance, psych. support, healthcare)
• Majority did not receive any form of reintegration assistance from Govt./NGOs 
• Most progs. one off, lacking follow-up, progress evaluation, continuity, sustained long-term approach
• 2/3rds unaware of available reintegration assistance services including where/how to access 
• Returnees who sought assistance complain of complicated, time-consuming, extensive procedures, strict eligibility criteria, and unsupportive attitudes 
• Reintegration progs. focused on meeting basic needs, without adapting to evolving challenges, offering meaningful incentives to invest skills/savings 
• Female returnees, esp. housemaids face difficulties in converting overseas-acquired skills into marketable competencies within the local labour mkt. 

This is Part I of a two-part series. The second part, will be published in an upcoming issue of The Daily Morning

Even though reintegration is a critical and vital phase in the international labour migration process, access to reintegration assistance services remains limited, fragmented and often under-utilised, leaving many Middle-East migrant worker returnees with unmet service-related needs, facing barriers to accessing essential services like employment assistance, psychological support and healthcare.

These findings were made in an original research article on ‘One size does not fit all: Reintegration of returnee Middle-East migrant workers’ which was authored by D. Wijeratne (attached to the Colombo University's Postgraduate Institute of Medicine) and A. Pathmeswaran (attached to the Kelaniya University's Medical Faculty's Public Health Department), and published in the Journal of the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka's 31st Volume's Third Issue September 2025.

In Sri Lanka, approximately 1.5 million individuals, nearly 20% of the workforce, are employed abroad as temporary or contract-based migrant workers, with the majority working in the Middle-East (Central Bank Annual Report 2022). Each year, an estimated 250,000-320,000 Sri Lankans migrate for temporary employment (Bureau of Foreign Employment [BFE] Annual Statistics 2022 and 2023), while a similar number is expected to return annually. This international labour migration has become a vital means of livelihood, offering economic opportunities for both skilled and unskilled workers (S.T. Hettige, E.S. Ekanayake, R. Jayasundere, A. Rathnayake and P. Figurado’s ‘Understanding psychosocial issues faced by migrant workers and their families’, and S. Ukwatta's ‘Economic and social impacts of the migration of Sri Lankan transnational domestic workers on families and children left behind’). Moreover, remittances from migrant workers play a vital role in stabilising the national economy and reducing poverty by supporting household incomes.

For most Middle-East migrant workers, returning home and reintegrating into their home community mark the final phase of the migration journey. Reintegration, defined as the ‘re-inclusion of a returned migrant worker into the society of his/her country of origin or habitual residence’ encompasses economic, social, and cultural dimensions (the International Organisation for Migration's [IOM] ‘International Migration Law Glossary on Migration’ [Second edition]). Successful reintegration restores livelihood, promotes dignity, ensures social inclusion and enables active civic participation. Identifying and addressing returnees’ unmet service needs are crucial for facilitating their reintegration into their home communities (the IOM's ‘Reintegration – Effective Approaches’). Returnees who successfully reintegrate can invest their foreign-earned skills and capital into local economic prosperity (the IOM's ‘Health of Migrants: Resetting the Agenda. Report of the Second Global Consultation’, and M. McAuliffe and O.L. Adhiambo's ‘World Migration Report of last year [2024]’), contributing to broader national development (M. Collyer, P. Wimalsena, N. Ansar and M.A. Khan's ‘Return migrants in Sri Lanka’). However, the reintegration phase and specific service needs of returnees remain poorly understood, in turn creating many challenges to their successful reintegration (the International Labour Organisation's ‘Reintegration with Home Community: Perspectives of Returnee Migrant Workers in Sri Lanka’).

The conditions surrounding the migration process, including working conditions abroad, often expose workers to health-related risks and inequalities (A. Davies, A. Basten and C. Frattini's ‘Migration: A social determinant of the health of migrants’). These challenges may persist or worsen during reintegration, making return and reintegration a key social determinant of migrants’ health (S. Iglesias, A. Narandran and R. Bueno's ‘Social determinants of migrants’ health across Asia and Europe’). Unsuccessful reintegration can lead to adverse social, economic, and health outcomes for individuals, families, and communities (K. Wickramage and C. Siriwardhana's ‘Mental health of migrants in low-skilled work and the families that they leave behind’).

The National Labour Migration Policy (the Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare Ministry) and the National Migration Health Policy (the Health Ministry) acknowledge the challenges surrounding reintegration and advocate for more research to bridge existing knowledge gaps. A better understanding of returnee migrants’ needs can inform the design of targeted community-based interventions that promote successful reintegration and enhance the well-being of returnees and their families. 

Methodology

Wijeratne et al.'s qualitative study engaged returnee migrant workers and their families through focus group discussions (FGDs) and individual in-depth interviews (IDIs). The study was conducted in the Kurunegala Divisional Secretariat (DS) Division, which is reported to have significant outbound labour migration to the Middle-East, accounting for nearly 50% of the district's migration over the past two decades. The study population comprised of male and female Sri Lankan migrant workers employed under various manpower levels (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled, and domestic workers/housemaids, including caretakers, garment factory workers, and those employed in construction-related sectors, the auto-repair industry, heavy-vehicle driving and hotel services) in the Middle-East and their family members residing in the Kurunegala DS Division. Selection criteria included returnees who had been back in Sri Lanka for at least 12 months, ensuring a sufficient post-return period for the reintegration process (R. Laan's ‘Sri Lankan diaspora returning ‘home’: Transnational ways of belonging and being’). Those who had been back for over five years were excluded. The study sample represented labour-oriented manpower levels which form the majority of Sri Lanka’s outbound workforce. 

Return migrants are a hard-to-reach population due to their status as ‘frequent movers’, particularly during the initial reintegration phase, as their living situations tend to be unstable and transitional, and many continue to consider re-migration. Multiple migration cycles to meet economic needs are common among Sri Lankan migrant workers, with some committing circular migration. Even those intending to reintegrate often face job insecurity and struggle to find local employment that offers a decent income, prompting frequent relocation. Social reintegration-related challenges such as difficulties re-establishing themselves in their home communities may also lead returnees to seek more accepting and supportive environments. For some, as their living standards improve, they move to better housing in areas with improved facilities. Additionally, returnees who are preparing to migrate again may relocate during this process. 

Geographic dispersal across both urban and rural areas, combined with the absence of an updated returnee migrant worker database/register, further complicates efforts to track and engage this population (a Spanish-Colombian study). Therefore, multiple non-probability purposive sampling methods were used to recruit participants, including referrals from field public health and administrative officers, snowball sampling and direct recruitment by the researchers. Semi-structured interview guides were developed. FGDs with six-12 participants were organised under gender and employment/occupation categories, while ensuring diversity by grouping returnees from different socio-economic backgrounds together. All interviews were conducted between April and November 2021.

Results

A total of six FGDs (51) and 19 IDIs with 12 returnees, three spouses and four family members were conducted. The majority of the participants were Sinhalese (41) followed by Sri Lankan Moors (21) and Tamils (eight). The participants were aged between 25 and 63 years, with the returnee migrant workers’ age ranging from 29-58 years. Following their return, over 75% had been engaged in income-generating activities compared to 38.3% before migration. Regarding the family members interviewed, nearly two-thirds were spouses (65.2%), while 17.4% were the migrant workers’ parents.

Perception towards reintegration support

Most respondents believed that the Government should provide formal reintegration support to recognise migrant workers’ contributions. As one participant expressed: “Nobody seems to focus on the reintegration and welfare of returning migrants. The Government should take responsibility for them”. 

Among 47 returnee migrant workers, only 11 received any form of reintegration assistance from the Government or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This assistance included basic training for self-employment, vocational skills training, financial aid and health-related services (e.g. medical consultations, medication, assistive devices). However, most programmes were one-time initiatives lacking follow-up or progress evaluation. “Upon my return, our Grama Niladhari connected me with an NGO. They provided training and donated a sewing machine to help me start my own business”. 

“My employer didn’t pay me the promised salary, and I struggled to afford my children’s education. Thankfully, an NGO introduced me to a programme that provided two annual scholarships of Rs. 10,000 each for my daughter and son until they completed their General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level”. “Before my bypass surgery last year, my family faced significant financial and social challenges. During that difficult time, members of the village youth club stepped in and supported us”.

Over 70% of the returnees and their families reported not receiving reintegration assistance. This lack of support hindered some returnees from investing their skills and capital in their home country. A returnee employed in the automobile industry noted: “I have over 10 years of experience in the automobile industry, both abroad and in Sri Lanka. I have attempted to start my own business a few times but without success. But, I should have sought assistance from the BFE.” 

“I returned to Sri Lanka nearly two years ago, and so far, I haven’t received any support from any Government or private organisation. Nobody informed us about such assistance services.” 

Barriers to accessing reintegration services

Nearly two-thirds of the participants, including family members, were unaware of the available reintegration assistance services offered by the Government and NGOs. Many returnees even did not know from where and how to access accurate and up-to-date information about available reintegration assistance services. “Many returnee migrants, including myself, were unaware of the reintegration assistance services available or how to access them.” 

“I thought that reintegration services were only for workers who faced adversity or abuse in the Middle-East. I didn’t know what types of reintegration assistance were available for other returnee migrants.” 

Participants who sought assistance highlighted challenges with complicated procedures and strict eligibility criteria, which led to confusion and uncertainty. One returnee mentioned being disqualified from receiving support and reintegration assistance from the BFE due to not being registered with the BFE and for not migrating through official channels. “When I returned, I sought assistance from the BFE for injustices that I faced during my contract in Saudi Arabia. However, they said that I wasn’t registered with them and claimed that they weren’t responsible for undocumented migrant workers.” 

“Upon return, I went to various government offices seeking assistance, but the officers kept giving different reasons and asking me to come back another day. They provided no proper guidance. After two-three rounds of disappointment, I gave up seeking assistance.”

Accessing financial aid was another barrier, as banks often denied loans to returnees without a fixed income or guarantors, and microloan processes were overly complex and time-consuming. A returnee from the construction industry said: “I returned from Qatar after five-six years, planning to open a structural steel construction site. In addition to my savings, I needed a bank loan for the remaining capital. I couldn’t secure a loan due to the strict requirements and the extensive paperwork.” 

Several returnees and family members reported feeling discouraged from seeking assistance due to the unhelpful actions and unsupportive attitudes of government officials. “I missed my opportunity to get a government job because our GN is having a personal dispute with me. The GN kept on finding errors in the documents and purposefully postponed giving his endorsement. Ultimately, I lost the job opportunity.”

Many felt that internal contacts or bribes were necessary to get things done, making it difficult to effectively navigate reintegration programmes. “At the (said) office, I sought help to resolve my visa issue, but, when I inquired about it from a minor staff member of that office, the latter made it sound overly complicated, requiring multiple days. Feeling sceptical, I waited. Unexpectedly, I ran into an old school friend who worked there. With his assistance, I completed the process within two-three hours.”

“I went to the DS office to register my ornamental fish business. A staff member told me to do it online, but, when I asked for help, they refused, saying that they were too busy. I struggled because I couldn’t read English or use a computer. Later, I found out that Sinhala versions were available in the office all along. I felt misled, and because I didn’t bribe anyone, the process was unnecessarily difficult.”

Discussions revealed that a lack of continuity in assistance was a major barrier, as the services were often one-time and lacked a sustained long-term approach. Additionally, there was no established mechanism to assess the effectiveness of these services in addressing returnees' perceived needs or to evaluate their long-term impact. As one returnee employed in the Middle-East as a caregiver said: “Most programmes feel like one-off events. They help initially, but, there’s no follow-up to assess whether we’ve benefited or need further support. It’s like planting a seed but never watering it.”

Both male and female returnees expressed that reintegration programs primarily focused on meeting basic needs, without adapting to evolving challenges or offering meaningful incentives to invest their skills and savings in their home country. “Returnees like me often find the current reintegration services lacking and insufficient to meet our needs. Rather than offering basic and limited assistance, there's a crucial need to revamp these programmes. They should actively encourage returnees to invest their resources in Sri Lanka, fostering job creation and economic growth.” 

“Reintegration programs are too basic. They don’t address our long-term needs or encourage us to use our skills and savings to contribute to our community.”

Access to migrant-friendly public services

Participants highlighted several essential public services necessary for successful reintegration, including employment assistance, business development support, vocational training (VT), children’s education, social protection, and legal aid. Among these, employment assistance emerged as a top priority, related to job placement, skills development, certification, and support for self-employment or small business ventures. 

One skilled agriculture worker who returned expressed: “I wanted to start an organic farm, and the DS office staff helped me with the information and support to find a market for my products. Unfortunately, many returnees are unaware of these resources.”

Many returnees emphasised the importance of job-oriented VT, particularly for returnees with experience in specific sectors like the automobile industry, who struggle to access relevant and sector-specific training opportunities. “I had four years of experience in the automobile industry in Saudi Arabia. When I returned, I applied for jobs in the private sector, but, they asked for academic qualifications. I looked for VT, but, there was no central information or coordination between the training institutes.” 

Female returnees, especially former housemaids, often faced difficulties in converting overseas-acquired skills into marketable competencies within the local labour market. “I worked as a housemaid in Kuwait for four years and struggled to find a job after returning. The BFE advised VT to improve my National Vocational Qualification level but gave little information on where to access it”.

Access to children’s education was another prominent service-related need expressed by returnees. “While I was employed in Kuwait, my family details were removed from the voter’s list by the GN. When I returned after several years, I couldn’t get the necessary proof on time, and my son missed the chance to enrol in a national school. This exclusion from the system is unfair to migrant workers and their families.”

Participants were asked about their experiences of discrimination or unequal treatment when accessing public services due to their migrant status. While most did not report instances of direct discrimination, they attributed negative experiences due to the inefficiency and unprofessional attitudes of some Government staff. As one participant, the spouse of a returnee housemaid, explained: “My wife returned two years ago, and I don’t think migrants face discrimination. The issue is inefficiency and the poor attitudes of government workers who don’t value others’ time”.

However, migrants were more likely to compare local living conditions with the systems and services that they experienced overseas, which often led to feelings of dissatisfaction. “I don’t agree with any discriminatory treatment for migrants, but, I do think that migrants note these barriers because they compare the system here with the overseas systems that they were used to.”

Several respondents also highlighted a ‘sense of insecurity’ in daily life as a barrier to reintegration into their local communities. “Our neighbourhood is unsafe due to the presence of drug addicts and alcoholics. They steal during the daytime, and last week, they even plucked coconuts from our trees.”

This sense of insecurity was further exacerbated by a loss of trust in public institutions responsible for law and order, contributing to uncertainty about the future if such issues remain unaddressed. “The Police are lethargic, and it frustrates me. How can we live in peace when there’s no law and order? I feel this more than my neighbours who have adapted. I’ve seen the difference between the safety abroad and what’s happening here. I’m worried about our future”. 

“I no longer trust institutions meant to ensure law and order. Complaining feels pointless. After six to eight years in Saudi Arabia, I never felt unsafe, but now, I do in my own country”.