Wealth of All Nations: Identification of Strategies to Assist Refugee Young People in Transition to Independence  

• Towards a national policy
• Rationale for resource allocation
• Access and equity
• Integrated settlement services
• Consultation with young refugees
• Monitoring performance
• Describing and meeting needs
• Eligibility criteria
• Racism and intolerance
• Good practice strategies
• Further research
• Conclusion

This final chapter highlights some of the key findings of the research and presents strategies to enable youth service providers, schools, government and non-government welfare and income support providers to strengthen their capacity to meet the needs of refugee young people and assist their transition to independence.

Towards a national policy

Young refugees are not a homogeneous group. Cultural difference, gender, age at arrival and the nature of preand post-migration experiences will all have a bearing on a young person’s capacity to adjust to a new life and a new culture. At the same time, the experience of fleeing a country, being unable to return and then living with uncertainty about the safety of loved ones left behind engenders a state of stress and fearfulness not experienced by other young Australians.

Previous research has focused on either young people from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds with an acknowledgment that some are refugees, or on refugees in general, regardless of age. Lack of explicit focus would be understandable if there were very few young refugees in Australia, but this is not the case. The number of young people with refugee experiences living in Australia (some 16,000 to 20,000 in total) is about the same as the number of homeless young people. This report argues that the number of young refugees, in conjunction with their broad commonality of experience, is sufficient reason for this group to receive policy attention in their own right. An integrated or more holistic youth policy is required, covering all areas of the traditional ‘menu’ of needs.

Considerable progress has been made over the years in the support for refugee resettlement in Australia. However, the underpinning assumption with respect to support for young refugees has been that young people’s needs are met within the family group and by supporting the family. This assumption should not go unchallenged, particularly where settlement is viewed as more than just a short-term period. The same rationale for having youth policy for young people generally can be applied to young refugees. It is a basic tenet of youth policy in Australia that young people have specific needs notwithstanding the level of support they receive from their families. It is further recognised that young people from diverse cultural backgrounds may need additional support and specialist services to ensure that their needs are adequately met.

Anecdotal evidence from people experienced in working with young refugees, and concerns arising from an analysis of young refugees’ complex and multiple needs, suggest there are unaddressed problems in meeting the needs of this group. It is proposed here that a major reason for this is that young refugees are not explicitly targeted in policy. Nevertheless, Australia has some well-developed policies that affect young refugees indirectly. These include a range of youth policies, access and equity strategies, the National Integrated Settlement Strategy and Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy. The lack of identification of young refugees as a specific high-need or disadvantaged group in the aims, objectives and strategies of the relevant policy documents, however, represents a policy blind spot with serious implications for practice. A national policy for the support of young refugees is needed in order achieve a cross-portfolio perspective. A national policy would also provide a framework for ensuring that the needs of young refugees are better addressed by more deliberate use of existing human and financial resources to support this group.

Rationale for resource allocation

Successful implementation of a national policy is dependent on several factors. Good policies are not likely to be effective unless the ‘right’ people are targeted and there are adequate resources attached to programs.

The significant number of young refugees in Australia is a compelling reason for committing more resources to their support. Besides the obvious humanitarian reasons for doing this, it also makes sound economic sense. While the support needs of young refugees are particularly pressing when they first arrive in Australia, with adequate and timely support, the contribution these young people can make to the country in the longer term is likely to be considerable. Refugees are people who have overcome many hurdles just to be in Australia, they are generally extremely committed to their new country, and they bring with them a unique array of cultural and linguistic skills and understanding. The biliteracy and bicultural skills of many young migrants represent an important, but underutilised national resource (Sherington 1993). It is increasingly being recognised that, where nurtured, these skills can greatly enhance Australia’s economic competitiveness. Rado and D’Cruz (1994, p.xiii) argue, ‘If Australia wants to enter the international market, the greater the number of citizens who are biliterate, the greater the advantage to the individual and the nation’. To the extent that economic strength is a prerequisite to achieving broader social and humanitarian goals, it is reasonable that such considerations should be reflected in Australia’s immigration policy as a whole.

Without adequate support, however, the opportunities young refugees have for longer-term independence and full participation in Australian society may be seriously curtailed. The high risk of homelessness among refugee young people revealed by this project is indicative of a broad failure of policy. Significant numbers of refugee young people are clearly falling through the social safety net; their lack of stable accommodation suggests a concurrent lack of the social connectedness essential for growth and independence. The social and economic costs of this policy failure are rarely considered but again it is useful to draw a parallel between government and community response to homeless young people. (For example, see Pinkney and Ewing 1997 for an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of an early intervention service response to homeless youth.)

Beyond adequate resources and appropriate response, to be effective, policies must be ‘owned’ by those who will implement them, the commitment to implementing them must be continually encouraged and reinforced, and adequate coordination across the relevant stakeholders must be developed. These three additional major challenges for translating policy into action – eliciting and requiring commitments from those responsible for implementation, increasing coordination of stakeholders and consultation with policy stakeholders – are addressed next.

[ top ]

Access and equity

As part of its Access and Equity Strategy, the Federal Government has developed a Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society that should (in theory) guarantee adequate services for all, regardless of age and ethnicity. The charter is a statement that expresses Australia’s commitment to multiculturalism and to overcoming possible barriers to getting access to government support that might arise from cultural and linguistic difference. It is clear from the findings of this study that access and equity are central issues for policy focused on the needs of young refugees. From the limited evidence available, it appears that young refugees have low levels of awareness of social services and lower rates of participation in services relative to their need. Key informants continually raised concerns about access and equity for young refugees.

A particular challenge for mainstream organisations is to understand the common experience of young refugees, their settlement processes and the sociopolitical and cultural sensitivities of refugee service users. This does not imply a uniform approach towards refugee young people. A high value must be placed on individualised service delivery, premised on an expectation of diversity and difference within the population of refugee young people.

For ethno-specific services, on the other hand, the common challenge is to avoid assuming a parental perspective on the types of service required which will undermine the cultural appropriateness of the agency for younger clients. This does not imply exclusion of the young person’s family. Instead it recognises and responds to an inevitable tension between acknowledging the primary role of a family as caregivers and providers of support for a young person, and being aware that the young person is growing up and will almost certainly have views independent of his or her family. Cultural norms about independence, responsibility for decision-making and the respective roles of children and parents must be carefully considered.

There are six components of accessibility according to Minas et al. (1996). These are:

• visible accessibility, which requires potential users to be aware of the existence of the service;
• physical accessibility, which must take into account the geographical location of the service and the availability of public transport;
• procedural accessibility, which includes concerns about referral and registration processes;
• economic accessibility, which is about the affordability of a service;
• psychological accessibility, which must consider the beliefs and expectations of potential service users; and
• cultural accessibility, which is service provision that takes account of the preferred language, values and behavioural norms of refugee service users.

To ensure access and equity, all of these issues should be considered. It is not the exclusive responsibility of government to ensure access and equity; responsibility is shared with service providers in the community and private sectors. Insufficient attention has been given to how this commitment can be carried through in practice. Agreed standards for determining the adequacy of access and equity policies need to be developed. As an initial suggestion, an access and equity policy should include:

• a stated commitment to access and equity;
• strategies to guarantee or increase access and equity;
• specifically nominated individuals deemed responsible for the implementation of these strategies;
• appropriate timelines; and
• appropriate and measurable performance indicators.

Mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that social service agencies follow through and are held accountable for the implementation of their access and equity policies. This might occur in a number of ways including adoption of the following measures:

• Access and equity outcomes could be built into service agreements (‘x’% of service users must be of non-Anglo-Australian background consistent with the demographic profile of the community being served) so that access and equity principles are translated into practice.
• Funding bodies might from time to time commission access and equity evaluations of funded agencies. Publication and wide circulation of the findings from such evaluations would serve to convey the seriousness with which access and equity objectives are regarded and would bring community pressure to bear on those agencies that have not met their objectives.
• Consumers and ethnic organisations could be involved in the planning and management of community agencies, as a means of informal accountability to the community, which, it is hoped, would over time increase the capacity of agencies to respond sensitively and appropriately to the needs of their ethnic constituents.
• A children’s and youth ombudsman or commissioner could be appointed. This position would establish independent mechanisms for airing and resolving grievances, for monitoring adherence to access and equity policies and for providing advice and guidelines to nongovernment and community-based organisations. The ombudsman/commissioner might also report to government on emerging issues and policy implementation.

Further research into the viability and relative merits of these options might usefully be carried out, with the experience of individual states providing a good basis for further development.

[ top ]

Integrated settlement services

The National Integrated Settlement Strategy (NISS) and Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) explicitly encourage the different tiers of government and the community sector to work together in the interests of people with refugee experiences. These are positive strategies with a great deal of potential but their effectiveness is constrained by limited resources. Young refugees are not adequately targeted within either the NISS or IHSS. Poor coordination and inadequate targeting are significant factors making it difficult to translate potentially progressive policy ideas into effective practice.

At the agency level, good service provision for refugee young people demands interagency relationships and protocols with a wider range of organisations than might be expected in mainstream community services. For example, a housing service networked with other housing services and some generalist support services may be adequate to the needs of most clients. However, when working with a young refugee, this same service may need to forge and utilise connections with recreation services, dental health services, torture and trauma services, ethno-specific organisations, religious groups and other agencies not normally encountered in the daily work of mainstream housing service providers.

Consultation with young refugees

Direct consultation with young refugees is inadequate, and policy formulation and program development appear to be the poorer for it. There is a need for mechanisms to enable ongoing consultation with these young people. This might be facilitated by a nongovernment peak organisation. In 1994, the Australian Youth Foundation and the Australian Multicultural Foundation looked into the feasibility of a national youth peak structure for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Their study recommended that the functions of such a body could be integrated into the work of existing youth peak organisations. Consultation should be a foundation principle of a national policy for young refugees.

Monitoring performance

Data collection on young refugees’ usage of services is underdeveloped. Researchers are often forced to guess whether or not young people are likely to have had refugee experiences on the basis of their country of birth. The potential for error is considerable. Improvements to data collection procedures would enable more rigorous assessments of whether access and equity considerations had been met. It is not always feasible or appropriate for information on a migrant’s entry or protection visa classification to be recorded. However, there are some possible exceptions to this. Given the relationship between visa category and access to income support, it is desirable that Centrelink and agencies dispensing emergency financial assistance record this information.

The problem of developing indicators of refugee experience falls within the larger project of developing a standardised approach to collecting data on the ethnic, cultural and linguistic background of clients in order to monitor the potential disadvantage (or in some instances, advantage) arising from these factors. In 1999 the Australian Bureau of Statistics responded to the widely recognised need for a nationally consistent framework for the collection and dissemination of data on ethnicity by developing Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity. These standards were endorsed by the Council of Ministers of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in April 1999. The aim was to develop a standard set of variables to measure cultural and language diversity that could be used in all administrative and service provision settings. Details of these standards are provided in Chapter 3. The initial project was directed primarily towards developing cultural and language indicators to replace the term ‘non-English speaking background’ (NESB). NESB was seen to be an inadequate indicator of possible socioeconomic disadvantage arising from cultural and ethnic diversity and, at the same time, a term that had evolved negative connotations, being unable to express the positive aspects of cultural diversity.

Ensuring the implementation of data collection strategies at the agency level is likely to be a recurring problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests there are ongoing problems in the adoption and implementation of the new ABS standards, particularly, but not exclusively, in the smaller agencies. In June 2001 the Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on Multicultural Affairs published a guide to assist government departments and agencies to implement the standards. The guide includes a checklist for implementation and urges departments and agencies to develop a system for monitoring the implementation process. ¹

The systematic implementation of the ABS Standards is a pressing issue on which other policy research and development depends.

[ top ]

Describing and meeting needs

Within the constraints of tracking and collecting information about young refugees, this study has documented the range and depth of needs of this group of young people. The concept of need itself is somewhat problematic and is not easily applied to refugees without a full consideration of the underpinning cultural assumptions (see Chapter 4). The approach advocated in this report is for the adoption of a comparative definition of need, which acknowledges the relative disadvantage of young refugees, but which is tempered by appreciation of the capacities and resilience that young refugees generally bring to their situation.

It is clear that young refugees have complex and multifaceted needs upon arrival in Australia that can be compounded by their lack of familiarity with the Australian welfare system and by poor English language skills. Young refugees commonly experience a fractured adolescence and childhood (associated with the refugee experience), and their development may be ‘frozen’ as they work through complex issues of personal and ethnic identity. These young people may have difficulty in evolving a stable adult identity (Hartley & Anderson 1998).

The enormity of the challenge facing young refugees translates into a complexity of support needs that may seem almost impossible to meet. The findings of this study show that young refugees are more likely to experience significant periods of residential mobility, their risk of homelessness is six to 10 times greater than that of other young people in Australia, and at least some groups of refugee young people are also more likely to be in custody than other groups of young people. However, where a longer-term perspective is adopted, this negative outlook is not warranted. Young refugees, like young people generally, tend to be resilient and adaptive. They are proven survivors and in most cases demonstrate an overwhelming and unambiguous commitment to Australia and to making the best of their lives in a new home.

An exclusive focus on the needs of refugees, without taking into account their capacities and determination, tends to generate an overly pessimistic discourse which underestimates the potential for a well-planned service response to assist young refugees make a successful transition to independence in Australia.

The issues are similar to those expressed in the policy debate over responding to ‘marginal’ and ‘atrisk’ young people. There is a tension between recognising and responding to risk with the consequent need to target limited resources to those most in need and, at the same time, avoiding the possible negative impacts of labeling, including the perpetuation of entrenched dependencies on government services. This discord is substantially resolved once it is realised that the notion of risk is an analytic category useful for making sense of the dimensions of a problem, while resilience emphasises the positive resources that individuals draw on to take charge when changing their lives. Recognition of resilience should fundamentally inform practice. Agencies supporting young refugees need to find ways to enable refugee young people to actively contribute to society, feel good about doing this and reach their individual potential. However, the resources needed for success should be measured in terms of the multiplicity and complexity of the needs of this group of young people, otherwise the ultimate effectiveness of support will be undermined. Young people with refugee experiences should therefore be seen as a ‘high risk’ group, meriting priority attention and specific allocation of resources in many areas of social policy, much in the same way as homeless young people have received such attention in recent years.

The complexity of needs signals the importance of a longer-term perspective on ‘settlement’ services and support than is currently the case. The review of government support undertaken for this study suggests that the least developed program areas are those that potentially respond to the longer-term needs of refugees. This is not a problem any department of immigration can solve by itself. The federal departments responsible for education, income and employment services will have to assume greater responsibility for explicitly addressing the needs of young refugees within their programs.

The explicit identification of young people with refugee experiences as a special needs group within the program areas of relevant departments is one way of enabling a longer-term perspective on strategies for assisting successful settlement.

An effective national policy for young refugees should focus not only on an initial period of settlement but beyond to their future lives as new residents and citizens of Australia. The importance of adopting a longer-term perspective on ‘settlement’ raises the issue of how to define the target population of young refugee settlers. Currently many young people with refugee experiences living in Australia are not considered by government to be prospective ‘settlers’. This is true in the case of temporary protection visa holders who, by definition, are allowed to remain in Australia for a limited time; it is not intended that people under the terms and conditions of these visas settle and make Australia their home. Most mainstream government services, including income support, are only available to migrants with permanent residency status.

We argue that young people with refugee experiences who are resident in Australia on a temporary basis and/or whose claims for refugee status and protection are still being processed (asylum seekers), should be included in a national young refugee support policy even though their ‘final’ destination may be a country other than Australia (see chapters 2 and 5). Both temporary protection visa holders and asylum seekers are resident in Australia for an uncertain period of time. Even young people who remain ineligible for permanent protection visas and hence permanent residency status may remain in Australia for longer than three years since temporary protection visas may be renewed. For people in their teens and early twenties, even relatively short periods without adequate support can seriously undermine long-term life chances and independence (whether in Australia or elsewhere). On humanitarian grounds and on the grounds of enhancing the effectiveness of policy designed to enable early and effective settlement, all young people with refugee experiences living in Australia and seeking Australia’s protection should be treated ‘as if’ they were going to remain in the country indefinitely. This would entail having access to education, income, employment and other mainstream supports from the beginning of their stay.

[ top ]

Eligibility criteria

Underpinning the discussion so far, as well as all of the above recommendations, is a key principle: that human needs should be addressed within the community service infrastructure. At present, eligibility for a range of mainstream and migrant-specific supports and services is determined on the basis of visa classification and residency status. The ‘hierarchy of benefits’ set in place by current distinctions in the visa classification system results in serious inequities in the treatment of young refugees. First, people with similar claims for refugee status, or more broadly, for humanitarian protection, are treated differently according to the means by which they entered the country. Second, young people with similar refugee experiences and similar settlement support needs entered, or were allowed to stay in, Australia on visas that confer very different entitlements to government assistance.

Young refugees living in Australia under temporary protection visas (TPV) were identified as a particularly disadvantaged group. These young people came to Australia without valid documentation and were subject to mandatory detention while their claims for protection were being assessed. Despite being recognised as refugees under the criteria of the United Nations Refugee Convention, TPV holders have very restricted entitlements compared to other refugees. The entitlements conferred by the TPV are intentionally restricted in order to serve as a deterrent to possible future unauthorised arrivals and the syndicates of people smugglers who arrange their passage to Australia. Under the conditions of their visas, these young refugees are allowed to live and work in Australia for an initial period of three years yet they are not entitled to most Centrelink services and income support payments, nor to English language tuition. As temporary residents, they are not eligible to sponsor their close family members to Australia and are prevented from entering and exiting the country freely.

A second group of young people with refugee experiences seen to be treated inequitably under current arrangements are those who were sponsored to Australia by refugee settlers under the Family Stream of the Migration Program. A survey conducted as part of this project indicates that these young people are likely to have refugee experiences. The large majority (71%) of Family Stream migrants interviewed originated from countries undergoing considerable violence at the time of their departure, just under one-third reported that their family was subject to persecution, and 22% stated that they had been afraid for their lives. However, regardless of the strength of their own claims to special assistance on humanitarian grounds, family reunion entrants have limited access to the resettlement services available to entrants under the Humanitarian Program and are not exempted from the Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Period for income support. The logic of this distinction is based on an expectation of financial and accommodation support from the Australian sponsors of Family Stream entrants. This expectation is neither realistic nor fair when applied to sponsors who themselves have come from refugee backgrounds. Consultation with service providers and young refugees highlighted the hardship caused to young people entering as ‘family reunion’ migrants when sponsorship arrangements break down.

The likely impact of these restrictions to eligibility is to undermine the chances of some particularly highrisk groups of migrants for successful settlement. Current arrangements are not only inequitable, but from the point of view of strategic settlement policy, they are also likely to be ineffective. The approach to determining eligibility stands in marked contrast to federal youth policy generally, where emphasis is increasingly placed on ensuring young people at risk of not making a successful transition to independence are specifically targeted for preventative assistance. The overlap in the populations of young refugees and homeless young people heightens this contradiction.

In light of these considerations, a review of eligibility criteria for government assistance is urgently required together with an investigation into the design and implementation of a needs-based approach to determining eligibility. Chapter 5 articulates the case for ensuring that young people with refugee experiences are eligible for government assistance on the basis of need, rather than visa category. Development of a needs-based approach will require difficult negotiation between sometimes conflicting government goals – those relating to population policy, border protection policy, humanitarian settlement policy and youth policy.

Adoption of a needs-based approach is likely to mean increased expenditure in the short-term, even if the level of humanitarian entry remains constant. This cost must be weighed against the long-term humanitarian, cultural and economic gains from adequate support of a group of young people who may live their whole life in Australia.

Racism and intolerance

Meeting the needs of young refugees will always be difficult when they encounter racial intolerance on a daily basis. Despite an official policy of multiculturalism, there remain forms of institutional discrimination that can be difficult to change. The personal practices of individuals in contact with young refugees often involve cultural insensitivity and sometimes overt hostility or racism. Apart from the broader policies on multiculturalism in Australia, there needs to be continuing community education to encourage the community to respond positively and generously to disadvantaged groups including refugees and asylum seekers.

[ top ]

Good practice strategies

‘Good practice’ responses to the needs of young refugees require at a minimum an understanding of common refugee experiences and of young people’s issues in general. Beyond this, good practice also requires a ‘whole of organisation’ commitment: integration across management, in all organisational processes, in personal practice and in external relationships.

The key elements of good practice in service delivery for young refugees clients are:

• cultural and linguistic appropriateness;
• integration of services including both broader interagency networks and stronger networks, for example for facilitating referrals;
• recognition of diversity and individualised and flexible service delivery;
• a holistic approach to addressing the needs of each young person; and
• attention to family context and, wherever possible, family involvement.

An unintentional lack of cultural sensitivity is evident in service institutions and among service providers. It is important that mainstream professionals have ample opportunity to become sensitised to cross-cultural methods of working. In-service training and training of mainstream service providers by ethnospecific service providers can assist in the sensitisation of mainstream professionals. Opportunities to learn through experience also need to be provided.

Cross-cultural awareness training is often a lowpriority, low-status activity in Australia. It is rarely mandatory, often poorly publicised, and the results of programs (for replication purposes) are poorly disseminated. As a result, cross-cultural awareness programs tend to preach to the converted. The following strategies could be adopted:

• In the interests of sensitising professionals to linguistic diversity, all community service students, as part of their study, could compulsorily practise working with interpreters or undertake placements in which they can learn and expand on cross-cultural skills gained in classroom situations.
• Formal reciprocal training programs involving ethno-specific services/agencies and mainstream agencies could be encouraged. This could involve ethno-specific and mainstream/specialist service providers exchanging their training services. Government could subsidise agencies involved for one hour of salary for every hour of training exchanged. An innovation like this would have the secondary benefits of generating increased employment opportunities for migrants and of fostering improved networks and integrated services.
• Another option might be to support trained ‘culture brokers’. The role of a culture broker would be to bridge the gap between the culture of the service user and the culture of the professional caregivers or the agency culture. Many people employed in the social service sector already undertake culture brokerage type work, especially those employed by Migrant Resource Centres; however, it is usually unacknowledged or undervalued. In refining this idea, a key issue would be how best to ensure the culture brokerage services can be flexible enough to benefit new refugee groups emerging in each region or community.

Further research

Some important issues have been beyond the scope of this project. One area about which little is known relates to the needs of those born in Australia to parents from refugee backgrounds. Members of this group are paradoxically referred to as ‘second generation refugees’. It is possible that this group of young people share many of the needs of young refugees, in the same way as children born to survivors of the holocaust have been found to have significant needs not dissimilar to their parents. On the other hand, Australian-born young people from refugee families grow up in the new community and are likely to adapt more easily and associate more closely with their peers in school.

Over the last few years, several hundred young asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their own countries and eventually arriving in Australia without documentation have been forced to experience often lengthy periods in Australian Immigration Reception and Processing Centres while their claims (or their parents’ claims) for refugee status are being considered. Since October 1999, asylum seekers found to be refugees and allowed to stay in Australia but who arrived without authorisation have only had access to temporary protection visas (TPVs). This class of visa gives reduced access to mainstream settlement and income support services, does not allow holders to sponsor close members of their families to join them in Australia, and prohibits free exit and re-entry. The combination of traumatic migration experiences, mandatory detention and subsequent reduced access to basic services suggests young asylum seekers who came to Australia without authorisation are likely to be a particularly disadvantaged group. There is little documented evidence regarding the impact of this new policy and legislative context on young people's capacity to achieve long-term independence within Australia. Regardless of the debate on the success or otherwise of the TPV as a disincentive for people smuggling and unauthorised arrival, there is a critical need for research into the settlement and postsettlement experiences of this group of young refugees.

[ top ]

Conclusion

This report has described the needs of young refugees and has reviewed policies, services and programs whose coverage, at least in theory, extends to this group of young people. Areas for potential improvement have been highlighted and some examples of good practice have been suggested. Australia’s approach to resettlement has grown in sophistication over the past decade and it stands as a positive achievement in policy and program terms. Nevertheless, the findings of this project strongly indicate that the current policy and program framework is not able to adequately address the needs of young people with refugee experiences. The main limitations of Australia’s response to young refugees are:

• the short-range conception of the settlement process;
• an increasingly inequitable approach to determining eligibility for government services; and
• a failure in policy and program design to sufficiently identify the particular barriers and needs that arise from refugee experiences.

The case made in this report is that refugee young people require an explicit focus within youth policy and settlement policy.

1. The Guide: Implementing the Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity can be downloaded from the DIMIA website.