This case study was prepared within the framework of the Certificate Program on Circular and Return Migration Management at the University for Continuing Education Krems. It applies the theoretical and practical knowledge acquired during the program to a real-world case: the planning and implementation of the second phase of ARRIVES (Assisting the Reintegration of Returnees through Integrated Vocational and Entrepreneurship Support in Nigeria). The program supports Nigerian returnees from Germany in their economic and social reintegration through an integrated package of coaching, vocational training, and entrepreneurship support in Nigeria (Social Impact et al. 2022; IRARA 2023). Because ARRIVES is embedded in one author’s professional environment, it offers a concrete opportunity to analyze how cross-border return and reintegration support can be designed, implemented, and monitored in practice.

This case study was developed jointly by two authors: One who is professionally involved in the program and another who became closely familiar with it through sustained collaboration, shared seminar participation, and ongoing exchange. Throughout the Certificate Program, ARRIVES has been discussed and critically examined from multiple angles (funders, implementing partners, national authorities, and, crucially, migrants themselves). This dual positioning, practitioner and critical observer, frames the case study as a reflexive exercise that keeps the migrant person at the center of analysis, treating them not merely as a beneficiary or a “target group”, but as a human being around whom political, economic, and administrative efforts are (and should be) organized (Schön 1983). In doing so, we also foreground the lived reality that return decisions and reintegration outcomes are shaped not only by policies and services, but by social obligations, stigma, and relational expectations across borders, pressures that are often intensified rather than relieved by the prospect of return.

Circular and return migration have long been central to global migration governance debates. While voluntary return is frequently promoted by states and international organizations as a “win–win,” or even a “triple-win,” solution, its feasibility and sustainability depend on a complex interplay of factors: Structural drivers in the country of origin, legal status and livelihood opportunities in the country of destination, and the availability and quality of reintegration support (Black & Gent 2006; Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Wickramasekara 2011; IOM 2019; OECD 2020). Within the Germany–Nigeria corridor, these dynamics are particularly pronounced. Nigeria is characterized by rapid demographic growth, high youth unemployment, and a vibrant “culture of migration,” in which mobility is embedded as a household and community strategy for advancement (Adhikari 2021). Media narratives and information ecosystems also shape migration imaginaries and return-related stigma in Nigeria, adding an often-overlooked layer to how “stay” and “leave” options are publicly understood (Nwoha et al. 2025). Yet beyond macro drivers and narratives, many returnees re-enter a dense social environment in which migration has been framed by families, peers, and sometimes sponsors as a collective investment that should yield visible returns. Returning “without results” can be read not merely as personal disappointment but as moral failure, triggering shame, blame, and renewed pressure to migrate again. In this sense, reintegration unfolds within a social economy of expectations: The obligation to be a “good migrant”, to send remittances, to repay debts, and to “come back successful”.

Germany, by contrast, has emerged as a key destination due to labor demand, its dual vocational training system, and the presence of an established Nigerian diaspora that reduces social and informational barriers to migration. At the same time, comparatively low recognition rates for Nigerian asylum seekers in Germany and across the EU together with a sizable population in precarious or irregular status underscore persistent challenges in the governance and protection of this group (EUAA 2025; BAMF 2024). For many Nigerians navigating protracted legal uncertainty, the attempt to regularize status in Europe takes place under a “double pressure”: institutional constraints (limited legal pathways, enforcement risk, repeated renewals) and social constraints (family expectations, reputational stakes, and stigma attached to both return and “staying stuck”).

In response to these tensions, German and Nigerian authorities often in collaboration with European and international partners have sought to shift from an approach centered primarily on control and enforcement toward one that integrates identification, voluntary return, and development-oriented reintegration (OECD 2020; ILO 2020). ARRIVES is indicative of this shift. Commissioned and funded by German and European actors and implemented in cooperation with Nigerian institutions and international organizations, ARRIVES creates a structured link between pre-departure preparation in Germany and post-arrival coaching, vocational training, job placement, and microenterprise support in Nigeria (Social Impact et al. 2022; IRARA 2023). Its underlying logic is to transform return from a one-off administrative event into a phased reintegration process, in which economic opportunities, psychosocial well-being, and community acceptance are treated as mutually reinforcing dimensions of sustainable “stay” in Nigeria (IOM 2019; Odermatt 2023). At the same time, this case study takes seriously the “blurred boundary” between voluntary and subtly compelled return: When return is increasingly promoted within European and German policy landscapes, and when legal options narrow over time, “choice” is often exercised within tight margins. These structural pressures interact with social obligation and stigma, producing a “cocktail” in which return may appear voluntary on paper while feeling unavoidable in practice.

The relevance of this case study lies in its capacity to connect academic insights from the Krems program with the authors’ professional, academic, and politically engaged involvement in migration- and diaspora-related work in Germany. Experience in consular assistance, migrant counseling, and cooperation with Nigerian communities provides a grounded lens on how policies and programs are experienced by migrants, and where gaps in coordination, communication, and support persist (Vathi, King & Kalir 2023). In this context, the baseline assessment of media coverage of migration in Nigeria offers an additional lens for understanding the narrative environment in which return and reintegration are socially interpreted, including dynamics of stigma, credibility, and outreach (Nwoha et al. 2025). ARRIVES is therefore examined not only as a program design on paper, but also as a practical response to concrete constraints and aspirations within the Germany–Nigeria migration nexus. Crucially, we approach reintegration as a relational process: returnees re-enter families, peer networks, debt relations, and community moral economies that can either become “stay factors” or amplify re-migration pressure.

This case study also serves as a tool for professional self-reflection: it aims, first, to strengthen the authors’ own practice and, second, to identify areas where program design and implementation could be improved to better align institutional expectations with the needs and rights of returnees who have experienced the disruptions of migration and (re)migration. This includes identifying where program logics and indicator frameworks may under-capture social pressure, stigma dynamics, and the emotional labor of “returning without success”, even though these factors can decisively shape reintegration trajectories.

The overall purpose of this case study is threefold. First, it demonstrates how key concepts from circular and return migration management such as mixed migration, assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR), the “triple-win” narrative, and Theory of Change approaches (i.e., an explicit causal model that links activities and outputs to short-/medium-term outcomes and longer-term impact, while making key assumptions and risks transparent and testable (Weiss 1995)) can be operationalized in a concrete cross-border program (Black & Gent 2006; Wickramasekara 2011; IOM 2019). Second, it reflects on the professional and institutional implications of implementing a reintegration scheme that links actors and instruments across Germany and Nigeria, with particular attention to coordination, accountability, and monitoring and evaluation (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; OECD 2020). Third, it assesses the conditions under which ARRIVES can contribute to sustainable reintegration outcomes for Nigerian returnees, while also generating benefits for local communities in Nigeria and supporting more coherent migration governance in Germany (Adhikari 2021; Odermatt 2023). Across these aims, we treat “sustainable reintegration” not only as an economic and administrative benchmark, but as the capacity to rebuild a socially credible life, one that withstands stigma, renegotiates obligations, and restores a sense of dignity in the eyes of self and others.

Following the analytical steps proposed by the Certificate Program and illustrated in the model case studies, the case study proceeds as follows. Section 2 presents the background and problem analysis of Nigerian migration between Germany and Nigeria. Section 3 defines the target group(s). Section 4 maps the institutional framework and key actors. Section 5 formulates the overall and specific objectives. Section 6 outlines the main strategies and measures. Section 7 describes the monitoring and evaluation approach. Section 8 summarizes the logical framework and logical model implications for future programming and learning.

2. Background and Problem Analysis

2.1 Situation prior to departure and motives to emigrate/flee

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, combines rapid demographic growth with structural development constraints. Youth and young adults constitute most of the population, yet formal job creation has not kept pace, resulting in high and persistent youth unemployment and underemployment, especially in urban and peri-urban areas (Kelong 2025; Aliyu, Salisu & Kale 2024). Economic hardship is compounded by regional insecurity, uneven state presence, and governance deficits that erode trust in public institutions (Adhikari 2021; Adelakun 2025). These structural “push” factors foster widespread perceptions of “no future” at home, particularly among young people with incomplete education and limited access to capital.

At the same time, emigration from Nigeria is not only reactive but also aspirational and it is often organized as a household project shaped by social obligations, debt relations, and reputational expectations. Long-standing diasporic networks in Europe and North America circulate information, remittances, and success stories, embedding migration as a legitimate household strategy for social mobility and risk diversification (Unegbu et al. 2025; Adhikari 2021). This “culture of migration” cuts across educational levels, but ARRIVES’ practical experience suggests that many prospective returnees and participants are not highly educated and may have limited formal training, an important constraint that shapes both their migration pathways and their labor-market options in destination countries. In this sense, “aspiration” often coexists with constrained skills recognition, precarious employment niches, and a heightened risk of legal insecurity abroad.

Recent evidence suggests that these aspirations and risk perceptions are also shaped by an information environment in which migration is often communicated through highly networked digital channels and event-driven storytelling, rather than through detailed policy knowledge (Nwoha et al. 2025). In addition, religion plays a significant role in many Nigerians’ migration imaginaries and coping strategies: Faith-based narratives of “breakthrough,” destiny, and divine protection can sustain hope through uncertainty and can influence high-stakes decisions even when formal information is partial, contradictory, or fear-inducing. Religious networks (churches, mosques, prayer groups, diaspora congregations) may also function as moral communities that provide support, legitimacy, and “meaning-making” for migration and later for return sometimes outweighing purely instrumental cost–benefit reasoning.

Within this imaginary, Germany occupies an increasingly prominent place. As a major European economy facing structural skills shortages, particularly in healthcare, engineering, information technology, and skilled trades, Germany is framed as offering relatively predictable rule-of-law conditions, vocational training opportunities, and a growing Nigerian diaspora community. Recent EU analyses explicitly explore Nigeria as a priority partner for youth employment and legal migration schemes, further reinforcing this perception (European Commission 2024). However, legal pathways (student visas, skilled labor migration, scholarship schemes) remain accessible only to a small, relatively privileged segment of potential migrants. For many others, mismatches between aspirations and available channels lead to irregular mobility: Overland journeys via North Africa, smuggling routes, or the instrumentalization of the asylum system as a de facto migration channel. At the same time, the baseline assessment of Nigerian migration coverage highlights risks of imprecise or sensational terminology and misinformation dynamics on social media, factors that can further distort perceptions of “accessible” pathways and the dangers of irregular routes (Nwoha et al. 2025).

In sum, pre-departure conditions are characterized by a combination of economic precarity, governance and security concerns, and strong migratory aspirations sustained by social networks and cultural narratives. Nigeria thus constitutes a paradigmatic setting in which emigration is simultaneously a response to structural constraints and a forward-looking investment in imagined futures. Importantly, these “imagined futures” are co-produced through everyday communication ecosystems (online social media, WhatsApp/Facebook networks, influencers), which can amplify both aspiration and anxiety around migration (Nwoha et al. 2025). They are also moralized through family and community expectations and, frequently, through religious idioms of hope and endurance creating a powerful social script in which leaving is framed as courage and success and returning “empty-handed” risks being read as failure.

2.2 Situation in the country of temporary residence (Germany) and motives to return

Nigerians in Germany occupy a heterogeneous legal and socio-economic landscape. A minority arrives through regular channels (study, work, family reunification) but ARRIVES primarily targets those whose presence is linked to the asylum and protection system. While Nigerian nationals have represented a visible share of asylum applicants in Germany in recent years, their protection rates have remained comparatively low, reflecting the gap between Nigeria-specific migration drivers and the narrow legal criteria for refugee or subsidiary protection under the Asylum Act.

The consequence is a sizeable population in precarious legal statuses. Internal ARRIVES documentation, drawing on Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and Federal Ministry of the Interior data, estimates that as of 31 July 2025 around 10,000 Nigerian nationals in Germany were formally obliged to leave the country (Ausreisepflichtig). When additional groups are considered Nigerians with negative asylum decisions still in procedure, those in expiring opportunities stay schemes (Chancenaufenthalt), individuals with other temporary titles approaching expiry, persons without registration, and visa overstayers the potential pool of Nigerians who may become subject to return obligations is estimated at 25,000+.

For many of these individuals, everyday life is marked by legal insecurity (Duldung/tolerated stay, repeated renewals, risk of detention), restricted access to formal employment and vocational training, and psychological stress linked to uncertainty about the future. While recent reforms such as the opportunity right of residence (Chancenaufenthaltsrecht) have opened limited regularization avenues, they often require proof of long residence, clean criminal records, and integration achievements that are difficult to meet for all. The cumulative effect is a prolonged “limbo” in which neither durable stay nor return appears clearly viable.

Importantly, this limbo is not only administrative; it is also relational and reputational. Many Nigerians in precarious status experience a “double pressure”: Institutional constraints (narrow legal pathways, enforcement risk, repeated renewals) and social constraints (family expectations, debt obligations, and the demand to be a “good migrant” who delivers visible progress). Even when life in Germany is experienced as harsh, uncertain, or humiliating, returning can feel riskier because it may entail facing shame, blame, or the perception that the migration project “failed”. In practice, these social dynamics shape not only whether return is contemplated, but also when often pushing people to postpone return until options are nearly exhausted.

Germany has responded by framing return, particularly voluntary return as a central tool of migration management. Policy statements emphasize the importance of voluntary return programs and cooperation with countries of origin as key elements of a “comprehensive” migration policy (BAMF/EMN 2017). Federal schemes such as StarthilfePlus and related AMIF-funded projects combine financial and advisory support for those who opt to return. Research on these programs highlights a complex mix of return motives: Legal pressure after final negative asylum decisions, family obligations, health concerns, but also assessments of livelihood prospects in the country of origin versus in Germany (BAMF Research Centre 2023).

Yet existing return and reintegration processes exhibit important gaps. The ARRIVES documentation identify several shortcomings in the status quo: Limited integration between return preparation in Germany and reintegration support in Nigeria; lack of a structured information flow among actors; inadequate use of country-of-origin labor-market intelligence in pre-departure counseling; and insufficiently tailored economic reintegration measures in Nigeria. These structural weaknesses mean that many returns are treated as administrative endpoints rather than as the start of a reintegration process, increasing the risk of economic failure, renewed mobility, or onward irregular migration. In parallel, Nigerian media coverage of deportees and forced/voluntary returns tends to concentrate on dramatic testimonies, humanitarian rescue, trauma, and institutional response, while longer-term reintegration trajectories and “what happens next” remain less visible, an information gap that can shape expectations and fears among potential returnees (Nwoha et al. 2025).

Against this backdrop, motives to return are formed at the intersection of negative legal prospects in Germany and changing assessments of opportunities in Nigeria. Empirical work from BAMF’s Research Centre suggests that perceived economic perspectives in the country of origin are a decisive factor in the decision to return, often more important than the absolute generosity of financial return assistance. ARRIVES explicitly builds on this insight by seeking to communicate credible “stay options” and positive returnee trajectories, thereby shifting the perceived cost–benefit balance of return. This communicative dimension responds not only to economic realities but also to a documented demand among young Nigerians and returnees for more balanced, contextualized information about migration risks, opportunities, and reintegration (Nwoha et al. 2025).

At the same time, many return decisions unfold in a pessimistic comparative frame: Even a precarious life in Germany may be perceived by migrants and their networks as preferable to “going back to nothing”, especially when Nigerian social media ecosystems and peer networks foreground crisis narratives, scarcity, and blocked life chances at home. This can make return feel like the “last resort” in a high-stakes migration game: a step taken when legal options shrink, stress accumulates, and the moral and emotional costs of staying in limbo become unbearable rather than a freely chosen transition under genuinely open alternatives.

2.3 Situation in the country of return (Nigeria) at present

Returnees from Germany reintegrate into a Nigerian context that is economically dynamic yet structurally constrained. Nigeria remains Africa’s largest economy by gross domestic production (GDP), but growth is volatile and unevenly distributed across regions and social groups. Thriving sectors include oil and gas, telecommunications, agribusiness, and services, yet macroeconomic turbulence and uneven state capacity continue to shape everyday life. High inflation, currency volatility, and fluctuating oil revenues have eroded purchasing power and intensified household-level insecurity in recent years (Adhikari 2021; OECD 2024). For returnees, these macro trends translate into very practical constraints: Unstable prices for inputs, unpredictable consumer demand, difficulties planning a small business, and persistent pressure to meet immediate family needs.

ARRIVES monitoring shows that macroeconomic instability had direct implications for return behavior. The number of supported returns to Nigeria dropped sharply in 2024, a development that project partners attribute in part to the deteriorating economic situation in Nigeria alongside legal changes in Germany (notably the opportunity right of residence, Chancenaufenthaltsgesetz). Even when some indicators suggest episodic stabilization, returnees’ decisions are strongly shaped by perceived volatility because what matters for livelihoods is not only “macro stabilization” but whether people can actually buy goods, find customers, pay rent, and service debts month to month. At the same time, the media baseline assessment suggests that migration and return are often publicly communicated as crisis moments, with limited “follow-up” visibility of reintegration outcomes potentially reinforcing uncertainty about whether return can be sustained in practice (Nwoha et al. 2025).

Institutionally, Nigeria hosts a patchwork of reintegration initiatives, including the organization for international migration (IOM)-implemented AVRR projects, EU-funded programs, and national entrepreneurship schemes, but these often operate in silos and focus on short-term financial assistance rather than on medium-term coaching, skills development, and market integration (IOM 2019; OECD 2024). The ARRIVES project application emphasizes that existing measures insufficiently connect return preparation in Germany with tailored, sector-specific opportunities in Nigeria and that knowledge of local market conditions is rarely fed back into counseling processes in Germany. The baseline assessment further points to gaps in how migration and return are explained to the public (limited context, narrow voice selection, inconsistent terminology), suggesting that credible reintegration offers may struggle to “cut through” without deliberate, trust-building communication (Nwoha et al. 2025).

However, the most decisive constraints are often lived “from the inside”: return is not only an economic transition but an identity shock. Many returnees come back from Europe carrying a heavy symbolic burden of hopes raised, promises implied, and sacrifices made by families or sponsors. Returning without visible success can be experienced (and socially read) as moral failure, producing shame, stress, and a fragile sense of belonging. Expectations from family and friends rarely disappear upon return; they may intensify, especially when migration was financed through debt or framed as a collective investment that should yield tangible returns. Unrealistic expectations about “European success” can translate into disappointment and blame when returnees come back without substantial savings or visible achievements (Koser & Kuschminder 2015). This can weaken social support networks precisely when they are most needed and can increase pressure to re-migrate.

Religion often mediates these psychosocial dynamics. Faith can provide a language of meaning and endurance (“God has a plan”, “this is a test”, “breakthrough is coming”), and religious communities can offer practical support, social protection, and a pathway to regain dignity and recognition. At the same time, religious and community moral economies can also reinforce pressure to “prove” that the journey was not pointless, especially when public testimony, visible generosity, or symbolic markers of achievement are culturally valorized.

Gendered vulnerabilities such as exposure to violence, single parenthood, and care burdens further complicate reintegration, particularly for women and LGBTQIA+ people. Where public narratives emphasize trauma and victimhood without showcasing longer-term rebuilding or everyday reintegration experiences, stigma may be reinforced rather than reduced (Nwoha et al. 2025). In this sense, reintegration outcomes depend not only on jobs or income, but on whether returnees can re-negotiate social expectations, restore self-worth, and rebuild relational trust, often while navigating economic volatility and limited institutional support.

From a reintegration-theory perspective, IOM conceptualizes “sustainable reintegration” as a situation in which returnees reach levels of economic self-sufficiency, social stability, and psychosocial well-being comparable to those of non-migrant community members, and where the process does not generate negative spillovers on communities (IOM 2019; IOM 2021). In current Nigerian conditions, many return processes fall short of this benchmark: economic assistance is often fragmented or short-lived, psychosocial support is limited, and community involvement in reintegration planning is weak. ARRIVES’ relevance, therefore, lies partly in whether it can reduce not only material precarity but also the psychosocial “cost of return”, the shame, stress, and stigma that can quietly undo economic gains.

2.4 Potential impact of returning migrants

Despite these constraints, returning migrants hold significant potential to contribute to local development in Nigeria. Research on migration and development highlights several channels through which returnees can have positive impacts:

Human capital transfer. Returnees often bring back skills acquired in destination countries ranging from formal qualifications to tacit knowledge of work organization, quality standards and customer relations which can improve productivity in local firms or support the establishment of new businesses (Adhikari 2021; OECD 2024).
Entrepreneurship and job creation. Access to modest capital, combined with exposure to new business models, can position returnees as micro- and small-enterprise founders, potentially generating employment for others and diversifying local economies. This is especially salient in Nigeria’s vibrant informal and small and medium enterprise (SME) sectors, where barriers to entry are lower but business failure rates are high without adequate support.
Transnational linkages. Returnees can act as bridges between Nigerian communities and German/European partners, facilitating trade, investment, training exchanges and knowledge partnerships. EU policy documents explicitly identify returnees and diaspora members as key actors for deepening youth employment and legal migration partnerships with Nigeria (European Commission 2024).
Narrative and social recognition effects. Public storytelling about return can shape community acceptance and the “social costs” of reintegration: Balanced narratives (beyond extremes of spectacular success or failure) can reduce stigma and support social stability, while sensational frames can intensify blame and pressure to re-migrate (Nwoha et al. 2025). Yet this also creates a “burden of representation”: Returnees may be implicitly tasked with embodying success, gratitude, and resilience, precisely when their realities are ambivalent, fragile, or still unfolding.

However, the same literature warns that return does not automatically translate into positive development outcomes. Without supportive environments, returnees may deplete savings rapidly, fail in business ventures, or experience downward social mobility and psychological distress (Kuschminder 2019; Schuster & Majidi 2015). Unsuccessful reintegration can fuel cycles of irregular re-migration, exacerbate household indebtedness and strain community relations.

ARRIVES is designed precisely to shift this balance. By combining pre-departure coaching in Germany, structured vocational and entrepreneurship support in Nigeria, and ongoing follow-up, it aims to transform returnees into multipliers demonstrating that dignified, economically viable return is possible and using successful cases in outreach to other potential returnees. In doing so, it also intervenes implicitly within a wider narrative ecosystem by making reintegration pathways more visible and credible (Nwoha et al. 2025). From a human-centered perspective, the key question is whether this narrative work can remain ethical avoiding pressure to perform “success” and whether it can include realistic accounts of setbacks, care burdens, and slow rebuilding without reproducing stigma.

2.5 Problem definition and rationale for ARRIVES

The foregoing analysis suggests that the Germany–Nigeria migration corridor is characterized by:

Strong pre-departure push and aspiration factors in Nigeria (youth unemployment, governance and security deficits, culture of migration).
Structurally low protection prospects and prolonged legal limbo for many Nigerians in Germany.
A fragmented return and reintegration architecture, with weak linkages between counseling in Germany and economic opportunities in Nigeria.
Under-utilized developmental potential of returnees, whose skills and networks are often lost through poorly supported or enforced returns.
An information and narrative environment in which migration and return are frequently communicated through crisis-oriented, event-driven frames and highly mediated online networks, limiting the public visibility of longer-term reintegration trajectories and practical “stay options” (Nwoha et al. 2025).
A dense social and moral economy of expectations around migration and return, family obligations, debt repayment, reputational stakes, and religious meaning-making that shapes decisions and reintegration outcomes as strongly as policy incentives do.

ARRIVES emerge as an attempt to address these interlocking problems through a cross-border, phased approach. The project application describes its core innovation as the tighter “interlinking the individual phases of the return chain” (Verzahnung der einzelnen Phasen der Rückkehrkette) between Germany and Nigeria, with a specific focus on economic reintegration through entrepreneurship and job placement. The ARRIVES further emphasizes the creation of a coordinated support process linking preparatory measures in Germany with structured reintegration support in Nigeria, as well as the development of cloud-based systems for information exchange between partners. In this context, the program’s communication and outreach components can be read as enabling conditions for uptake and sustainability, particularly given the documented influence of online media, social networks, and influencers on migration perceptions among young Nigerians (Nwoha et al. 2025). This also implies a need for careful, non-stigmatizing terminology in outreach and counseling (e.g., avoiding labels such as “illegal migrants”), aligning program messaging with ethical reporting standards and returnees’ expectations for balanced information (Nwoha et al. 2025). It also implies a duty to acknowledge the blurred boundary between voluntary and subtly compelled return: When legal options narrow over time and social pressures intensify, “choice” may be formally voluntary while experienced as constrained in practice.

At the same time, the experience of ARRIVES 1 revealed vulnerability: A sharp drop in returns in 2024, linked to both deteriorating economic conditions in Nigeria and legal changes in Germany, exposed the limits of relying solely on “passive” inflows of participants from existing programs such as StartHope, even though the eligible population in Germany is substantial relative to ARRIVES’ single-corridor (Nigeria-focused) scope. In response, the project reallocated resources to build a communication team; ARRIVES expanded its “dialogue tour” strategy as a brand-positioning campaign in German federal states; and intensified outreach to Nigerian communities and diaspora organizations. ARRIVES 2 builds on these lessons by scaling up outreach, documenting success stories systematically, and leveraging returnees as multipliers, while taking advantage of a potentially improving macroeconomic environment in Nigeria. These adjustments are not merely operational: They also respond to the social realities of return stigma, moral expectations, and the psychosocial weight of “coming back without success” which can directly affect program uptake and reintegration trajectories.

The problem that ARRIVES addresses can thus be summarized as follows: How to turn legally and socio-economically precarious migration trajectories between Germany and Nigeria into sustainable reintegration pathways that respect migrants’ rights, meet institutional objectives, and contribute to developmental “stay factors” in Nigeria. “Stay factors” are not only economic; they are also social and symbolic: The ability to return with dignity, renegotiate obligations, and rebuild belonging in families and communities that may judge returnees harshly. The subsequent sections of this case study analyze how ARRIVES’ target group definition, institutional partnerships, strategies, and monitoring framework seek to operationalize this ambition.

3. Definition of Target Group(s)

Building on the background analysis, ARRIVES 2 operates in a context where up to 25,000 Nigerian nationals in Germany may, at some point, come into contact with return obligations or incentives (negative asylum decisions, expiring temporary titles, Duldung, visa overstay, irregular stay) (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). Within this broad and heterogeneous population, the program defines a more specific primary target group of direct beneficiaries, as well as several indirect target groups that are affected through family, community and institutional spillovers. In addition, ARRIVES 2 operates within an “information ecosystem” in which migration decisions and return expectations are shaped not only by policies and counseling, but also by media narratives and online influencer content. Evidence from a recent Nigerian media baseline assessment indicates that migration reporting can be state-centric, event-driven and at times prone to unbalanced or sensational framings, while influencers play an increasingly important role in shaping youth perceptions of mobility, risk and “success.” This matters for targeting because it affects trust, stigma, and the credibility of reintegration “stay options” communicated to potential participants. In addition to media and influencer dynamics, targeting is shaped by a social and moral economy of return: Family expectations, debt obligations, and stigma attached to “coming back without success” can influence whether individuals seek support, disclose vulnerabilities, or postpone return until options are nearly exhausted.

3.1 Primary target group: Nigerian returnees from Germany

The core direct beneficiaries of ARRIVES are Nigerian third-country nationals returning from Germany who are prepared to engage (to varying degrees and under varying constraints) in a structured reintegration process. The project application emphasizes two interlinked economic reintegration pathways: (1) Returnees who wish to start a small business after return (Existenzgründende), and (2) Those who seek wage employment and require tailored job-placement support (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022; IRARA 2023).

In operational terms, the primary target group can be described along several dimensions:

Nationality and migration trajectory. Nigerian citizens who have lived in Germany for a significant period, mostly within or adjacent to the asylum and protection system. Their trajectories often include multiple accommodation centers, fragmented support by different actors, and episodes of irregular stay or undocumented work.
Legal status. Individuals at the end of unsuccessful asylum procedures; persons whose duldung or other temporary titles are expiring; and those who decide to return earlier because they perceive their prospects for durable residence in Germany as extremely limited. Legal precarity and the constant threat of detention or forced removal are central features of their everyday life (BAMF/EMN 2017; BAMF Research Centre 2023).
Age and life-course. Predominantly young adults of working age but including older adults and family units. Many have interrupted educational or vocational biographies, incomplete apprenticeships, short-term jobs in logistics, catering, care or construction, or skills acquired informally “on the job” without formal certification (Adhikari 2021; Koser & Kuschminder 2015). ARRIVES’ program experience also suggests that many participants have limited formal schooling or incomplete vocational credentials, which constrains access to regulated training pathways in Germany and reinforces dependence on informal or low-skilled employment niches.
Socio-economic situation. Limited savings, insecure housing histories in Germany and weak formal labor-market attachment in both countries. For some, debt incurred to finance migration (loans, sale of family assets, obligations to sponsors) shapes their decision-making about return and intensifies the pressure to “succeed” economically after going back (Kuschminder 2019; Schuster & Majidi 2015).
Psychosocial profile. A high prevalence of legal uncertainty, fear of detention or forced removal, shame about a “failed migration project”, and anxiety towards families and communities in Nigeria who may have invested financially and emotionally in their journey (IOM 2019; Koser & Kuschminder 2015). Many navigate complex feelings of guilt, disappointment and loss, while simultaneously needing to make highly consequential decisions about their future. These pressures can be reinforced by public narratives around return. Nigerian media reporting frequently labels returnees through frames such as “stranded,” “rescued”, “evacuated”, or “repatriated”, while host-country narratives may emphasize “deportees” and administrative/security framings. Such terminology can shape stigma, self-perception and willingness to engage with programs, and it underlines the importance of privacy-sensitive counseling and genuinely informed consent when returnee “success stories” are used for outreach. Beyond stress linked to legal uncertainty, many returnees carry an “identity burden”: Returning from Europe without visible success can be experienced as moral failure, undermining self-worth and belonging and intensifying pressure to ‘prove’ that the migration project was not pointless.

ARRIVES 2 expects to accompany approximately 375 returns over three years (2025–2028), combining intensive entrepreneurship coaching with job placement and family-oriented counseling (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022; IRARA 2023). Even if this number represents only a fraction of the broader Nigerian population in Germany potentially affected by return, it is a significant cohort when understood not as “cases” but as social actors whose choices and trajectories may shape the perceptions of return in their wider networks.

3.2 Indirect target groups and a systemic perspective on beneficiaries

The ARRIVES indicator framework explicitly conceptualizes the target group in systemic terms: The program does not address the returning person in isolation, but as part of a family, community and institutional ecosystem (IOM 2019; Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). This leads to several clearly identifiable indirect target groups:

Family members in Germany and Nigeria. Spouses, partners, children and other dependents are directly affected by the decision to return and by the quality of reintegration. ARRIVES foresees family-oriented coaching in which individual needs (schooling, childcare, health, housing) are assessed and translated into concrete support measures for example, organizing school places, initiating medical referrals or linking family members to training and employment offers in Nigeria (IRARA 2023). In practice, this means that even when only one person is formally registered as “beneficiary”, several others experience tangible changes in their life chances.
Local employers, TVET (Technical and Vocational Education and Training) providers and MSMEs in Nigeria. Through job-hunting and entrepreneurship components, local firms, training centers and micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) become secondary beneficiaries. They receive better-prepared candidates, access to entrepreneurship support services and, in some cases, sector studies and networking opportunities to foster local labor-market integration (OECD 2024; IRARA 2023).
Communities and municipalities in Nigeria. When returnees manage to stabilize their livelihoods and enterprises, they contribute to local economies, generate employment and, ideally, reduce pressures for renewed irregular migration. At the same time, communities are not treated merely as passive recipients of “development benefits”: Community meetings and outreach activities are envisaged to address stigma, adjust expectations and collectively explore “stay factors” in the local context (Adhikari 2021; OECD 2024).
Multipliers and institutions in Germany. The project implementation plan identifies a broad set of multipliers with privileged access to Nigerians in precarious status: Return counseling centers, refugee support organizations, diaspora associations, accommodation centers with high Nigerian populations, and religious communities (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). Through outreach, networking and information events, these actors function both as channels to the primary target group and as beneficiaries of improved tools, knowledge and referral systems. Religious communities often function as trust infrastructures and meaning-making spaces in which migration and return are interpreted; they can therefore be decisive for reachability, credibility of information, and psychosocial support, while also requiring careful safeguarding to avoid stigma or coercive “success”
Media actors and online influencers (Nigeria and diaspora). Given the documented role of journalists and influencers in shaping migration perceptions particularly among youth these actors can function as indirect target groups and strategic intermediaries. A recent baseline assessment recommends strengthening collaboration and networks (e.g., communities of practice) to support more factual, balanced and relatable narratives. For ARRIVES, this implies that parts of the program’s outreach and anti-stigma work may depend on engaging trusted communicators, while managing ethical risks (sensationalism, privacy breaches, or instrumentalization of returnee stories).

This layered understanding of beneficiaries foregrounds a key analytical point: Successful reintegration depends not only on the “motivation” or “entrepreneurial spirit” of the returning person, but on the density and quality of relationships surrounding them family, employers, community leaders, counselors and institutions across two countries (IOM 2019; Vathi, King & Kalir 2023). It also depends on the credibility of the information environment surrounding return: Which voices are trusted, which narratives dominate, and whether return is publicly framed as failure, rescue, or a viable pathway.

3.3 Numbers and socio-economic characteristics

While ARRIVES deliberately avoids a narrow profiling of “ideal” beneficiaries, its design is clearly influenced by certain socio-economic assumptions. The program is built around the expectation that a substantial portion of participants have, or can develop, the capacity to engage in (self-)employment and micro-entrepreneurship if adequate support is provided. This implies:

Basic functional literacy and numeracy, sufficient to participate in training, manage simple business records and navigate administrative procedures.
Minimum health and psychosocial stability, allowing beneficiaries to concentrate on education or enterprise development.
Some form of work experience or demonstrable interest in specific sectors, such as services, retail, agriculture, crafts or digital activities.

At the same time, these assumptions must be treated as program hypotheses rather than implicit eligibility filters. Given that many ARRIVES participants may have limited formal education or low administrative literacy, the program’s effectiveness depends on adapting coaching materials, pacing, and support intensity so that entrepreneurship readiness is built rather than presupposed. ARRIVES documentation also acknowledges that many potential participants have been partially excluded from formal labor-market integration in Germany and have experienced long periods of inactivity or informal work (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). In that sense, the socio-economic characteristics of the target group are marked by potential rather than by pre-existing success: The program invests in people precisely because their trajectories have been interrupted. A further practical implication is uneven “reachability”: Participation may correlate not only with need, but with access to trusted information channels, digital literacy, and proximity to intermediaries (counselors, diaspora organizations, or online networks) through which ARRIVES is communicated. This adds an informational layer to inclusion and exclusion dynamics.

However, this also reveals an inherent tension. Programs like ARRIVES are often under pressure to demonstrate “impact” through indicators such as job placements, business survival or income increases (OECD 2020; IOM 2019). This can create subtle incentives to prioritize those who already show higher levels of education, social capital or entrepreneurial aptitude, while those with more complex vulnerabilities risk being sidelined as “too difficult” or “not yet ready” for such schemes (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Kuschminder 2019). The section 3.5 below returns to this tension more explicitly.

3.4 Gender and diversity dimensions

Research on return and reintegration consistently shows that experiences are strongly gendered and shaped by other axes of inequality such as age, disability, sexual orientation and legal status (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Kuschminder 2019; IOM 2019). For ARRIVES, this has several implications for target-group definition:

Women and single mothers. Women may have faced gender-based violence, exploitation or care-related interruptions in education and employment. Upon return, they often bear primary responsibility for children and elder care, while facing constrained mobility and social scrutiny. The social expectation to “justify” the migration project can weigh more heavily on women, especially when they return without visible financial gains. Tailored coaching, safe-space counseling and flexible business models (e.g. home-based enterprises, group ventures) are therefore essential for their inclusion.
Survivors of violence and trauma. Although ARRIVES is not a specialized protection program, some participants may have experienced trauma along the migration route or in Germany (detention, racism, labor exploitation). For them, reintegration support must be closely coordinated with psychosocial services and, where relevant, specialized NGOs. From a target-group perspective, this means recognizing that “economic reintegration” cannot be disentangled from questions of safety, healing and trust in institutions (IOM 2019).
Young adults with disrupted transitions. Many returnees belong to a generation whose transition to adulthood has been structurally interrupted by migration, legal limbo and economic precarity. Their biographies are marked by “stuckness” rather than linear progression, which shapes both their risk of re-migration and their openness to structured support (Schuster & Majidi 2015; Adhikari 2021). Targeting this group requires not only economic opportunities but also spaces to re-imagine futures that no longer hinge solely on mobility.
LGBTQIA+ people and other minorities. For some returnees, returning may involve entering environments where discrimination or criminalization is a real risk. Even when ARRIVES cannot transform broader legal frameworks, it can integrate risk assessment, confidentiality and referral to trusted partners into its targeting and counseling practices. This moves beyond a narrow economic lens and recognizes that “sustainable reintegration” presupposes at least a minimum level of safety and dignity (IOM 2019; Odermatt 2023). Here, confidentiality is also an “information environment” issue: Public storytelling formats that may work for some returnees (e.g., media features, outreach testimonials) can create disproportionate risk for women survivors of violence or LGBTQIA+ people. A differentiated consent and safeguarding approach are therefore integral to an inclusive definition of the target group.

From a human-centered perspective, these dimensions remind us that ARRIVES’ “target group” is not simply a statistical category of “Nigerian third-country nationals”, but a set of people carrying intersecting vulnerabilities and resources. The program’s theory of change therefore hinges on recognizing these intersectional risks and capacities in individual coaching plans rather than assuming a homogeneous beneficiary profile (IOM 2019; Odermatt 2023).

3.5 Critical and reflexive considerations on inclusion, exclusion and deservingness

Defining a target group is never a neutral, technical exercise. It necessarily involves drawing boundaries deciding who is inside and who is outside the circle of support. From our dual positioning as practitioner and critical observer, three layers of tension stand out.

First, selection bias towards the “most promising” cases.

Entrepreneurship-oriented reintegration programs tend to attract or select participants who already display comparatively high levels of agency, literacy and social capital (OECD 2020; Koser & Kuschminder 2015). In ARRIVES, this may translate into privileging those who:

Can articulate a coherent business idea,
Are able to attend regular coaching sessions, or
Already demonstrate some degree of resilience and initiative.

In addition, there may be an implicit preference for those who are more “communicable” (e.g., able and willing to share their story in outreach contexts), which can further privilege participants with higher confidence, language skills, or safer personal circumstances especially in a media environment where returnee stories can be framed in stigma-laden or trauma-centered ways.

There is a risk that people with more severe psychosocial challenges, lower levels of education, experiences of long-term irregularity, or less “convincing” narratives of return are implicitly assessed as less suitable and thus remain under-represented precisely those whose need for structured support is arguably greatest. In other words, the program may inadvertently reward those who most closely fit the image of the “ideal entrepreneurial returnee”, potentially reproducing hierarchies of deservingness within an already marginalized group.

Second, temporal and spatial exclusions.

ARRIVES focuses on returnees within a limited time window after return and in specific geographical areas where partners and markets are present. This is understandable from an implementation perspective, but it creates a distinction between “reachable” and “unreachable” returnees. Those who returned years earlier without support, who withdrew from institutional contact out of fear, or who relocated to regions not covered by the program may remain largely invisible. Their struggles, however, are part of the same migration system: They too are Nigerians who experienced unsuccessful migration to Germany and now navigate reintegration with fewer resources. From a reflexive perspective, the program’s target group thus sits on a continuum with a wider, largely unattended population of returnees who may only appear in aggregate statistics but not in project reports (Kuschminder 2019; Schuster & Majidi 2015).

This reachability gap is also informational: Returnees who are disconnected from diaspora organizations, counseling services, or the media/influencer channels through which program information circulates may be systematically under-reached, regardless of need.

Third, the moral economy of “voluntariness”.

As a voluntary return and reintegration program, ARRIVES presupposes that participants have chosen to return. Yet, as Section 2 has shown, this choice is often made under conditions of constrained options: Looming deportation, lack of regularization pathways, accumulated exhaustion from legal limbo, and pressure from family or community. These pressures are not only legal-administrative but also relational: Shame, debt, and reputational stakes can make ‘return’ feel simultaneously unavoidable and socially risky. When we define the target group as “voluntary returnees”, we risk obscuring the structural coercion embedded in these decisions. At the same time, the discourse of voluntariness underpins the program’s legitimacy and distinguishes it from forced return. This tension places a particular responsibility on counselors and program staff: They must continuously scrutinize whether “informed consent” is meaningful under such conditions and how to ensure that participation in ARRIVES does not become, in practice, the only acceptable way to exit Germany (Black & Gent 2006; Vathi, King & Kalir 2023). The “voluntary/forced” boundary is also narrated publicly: Media terminology frequently shifts between humanizing frames (“rescued,” “stranded”) and state-centric labels (“deportees,” “nationals”), which can blur agency and reinforce external judgments about return. For ARRIVES, this strengthens the case for careful, rights-based communication and for avoiding outreach narratives that inadvertently normalize coercion.

As authors, we understand this section not simply as a description of categories, but as an invitation to read the term “target group” against the grain. Behind each criterion nationality, legal status, time since return, entrepreneurial potential there are concrete biographies marked by hope, shame, fear, resilience and relational obligations. A reflexive definition of the target group therefore implies at least three commitments:

Analytical honesty: acknowledging who is rendered visible and who remains at the margins of support, and why.
Programmatic humility: accepting that a project like ARRIVES cannot, by design, reach everyone in need, while resisting the temptation to present its beneficiaries as representative of all Nigerian returnees.
Ethical attentiveness: recognizing that each act of targeting participates in shaping hierarchies of deservingness and in distributing not only resources, but also recognition, attention and narrative space.

In this sense, the definition of the target group in ARRIVES is both a practical tool for implementation and a mirror of broader power relations in the Germany–Nigeria migration nexus. The following sections explore how objectives, strategies and monitoring arrangements respond to, but also partly reproduce, these tensions.

4. Framework and Actors

The ARRIVES program operates within a dense web of actors and policy frameworks that stretch across Germany, the European Union and Nigeria. Understanding this constellation is essential for grasping both the opportunities and the constraints that shape Nigerian returnees’ trajectories. In line with the human-centered approach of this case study, this section reads the institutional architecture not only as a technical arrangement, but as a field of power that conditions what kinds of futures become imaginable and attainable for migrants. Importantly, this “field of power” also includes the information environment: Media narratives, digital platforms and the actors who translate migration into publicly circulating stories (journalists, influencers, communication officers, and data-producing institutions).

4.1 Multi-level actor constellation

At the core of ARRIVES stands a transnational partnership between three implementing organizations: Social Impact (SI), IRARA and the International Trade Centre (ITC). Social Impact, a German social enterprise, is responsible for pre-departure qualification and the holistic coaching in Germany, including the development of business ideas, assessment of support needs and preparation for return decision-making (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). IRARA, as a reintegration service provider and contractor under Frontex’s Joint Reintegration Services (JRS), leads the reintegration support in Nigeria, including arrival assistance, case management, access to housing, health, education, psychosocial support and economic measures such as job placement and business start-up support (IRARA 2023). ITC contributes its technical expertise in entrepreneurship and market analysis, supporting the development of viable business models and sector-specific tools for micro and small enterprises (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).

The project application explicitly emphasizes that these three actors seek to transform what has historically been a fragmented “chain” of uncoordinated activities into a coherent cross-border process, so that returnees experience the journey from pre-departure counseling in Germany to reintegration support in Nigeria as a continuous pathway rather than as a series of disconnected interventions (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). This involves both institutional coordination (regular joint meetings, shared case management tools, aligned procedures) and practical collaboration in individual cases for example, early handover of files to Nigerian partners before departure, joint review of business ideas, and integrated feedback loops between Germany and Nigeria. In practice, “coherence” also depends on how return and reintegration are narrated and understood by potential participants and their networks especially in a context where migration is often discussed through event-driven and frequently sensationalized coverage, and where digital platforms play a central role in shaping youth perceptions.

Around this core partnership, a wider circle of state and intergovernmental actors shapes the framework in which ARRIVES operate. On the German side, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) acts as managing authority for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and as contracting authority for ARRIVES, under the political guidance of the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (BMI) and in coordination with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) (BAMF/EMN 2017; Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). These institutions pursue a complex set of objectives: Reducing irregular stays and “Duldung limbo”; ensuring credible enforcement of negative asylum decisions, expanding lawful migration pathways, and demonstrating that return and reintegration can be organized in a “dignified” and development-sensitive manner.

At the Europe level, several actors are relevant. The European Commission (particularly DG HOME and DG INTPA) sets policy priorities and allocates AMIF resources for national and transnational projects, including return and reintegration schemes, while the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) manages JRS and provides IRARA with a reintegration budget and the RIAT case management system for each returnee (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022; IOM 2019). These arrangements position ARRIVES at the intersection between EU-wide reintegration services and Germany’s national AMIF program.

On the Nigerian side, ARRIVES is embedded in an institutional ecosystem that includes federal ministries, specialized agencies and international cooperation actors. IRARA and ITC are in close coordination with the German Development Cooperation (GIZ) in Nigeria, the Delegation of the European Union, the Federal Ministry of Labor and Employment (FMLE), the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI), the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), the Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) and the National Commission for Refugees, Migrants and Internally Displaced Persons (NCFRMI), as well as with the Civil Society Network on Migration and Development (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). These institutions provide the policy framework and, in some cases, concrete programs (e.g. entrepreneurship schemes, vocational training, employment services) into which ARRIVES seeks to plug returning migrants.

Finally, local-level actors in Nigeria municipal authorities, community leaders, religious organizations, women’s groups, business associations and TVET providers play a crucial mediating role. They are often not formal “partners” in the funding sense, but they constitute the social and institutional environment in which reintegration actually happens. Their attitudes towards return, their willingness to hire or support returnees, and their capacity to mitigate stigma or conflict can determine whether reintegration pathways become sustainable or remain fragile (Adhikari 2021; OECD 2024; IOM 2019). Alongside these “classic” local actors, the baseline assessment suggests that journalists, online media, and digital influencers (as well as institutional communication officers) constitute a parallel layer of “mediating actors” who shape which migration realities are visible, which voices are amplified, and whether return is framed mainly through crisis/trauma or also through longer-term reintegration trajectories and agency.

From a human-centered perspective, this actor constellation can be read as a series of concentric circles around the migrant person: From the case manager and coach who accompany them most directly, to the implementing partners that design the support package, and further out to governmental and intergovernmental bodies whose policies determine who is eligible, for what, and under which conditions. A further “outer ring” is the information ecosystem highly digitalized through which friends/family networks, social media and online outlets influence migration aspirations and return perceptions.

4.2 Guiding policies and global frameworks

ARRIVES is shaped by a range of policy instruments and normative frameworks that articulate what “good” return and reintegration should look like. At the European and German level, AMIF 2021–2027 sets strategic objectives for supporting effective return and sustainable reintegration, including cooperation with countries of origin, capacity-building of authorities and civil society, and the promotion of “safe and dignified” voluntary return (BAMF/EMN 2017; OECD 2020). Germany’s national return policy, as outlined in BAMF and European Migration Network (EMN) reports, stresses the importance of voluntary return programs, advisory structures and reintegration support, while simultaneously emphasizing the credibility of the asylum system and the enforcement of departure for those without protection status (BAMF/EMN 2017; BAMF Research Centre 2023).

Internationally, the conceptual backbone of ARRIVES aligns with the IOM Reintegration Handbook, which defines “sustainable reintegration” as a state in which returnees can cope with their needs in an autonomous, self-sufficient and dignified manner, reaching living standards comparable to those of non-migrant community members and without creating negative externalities for their communities (IOM 2019; IOM 2021). The Handbook advocates a multidimensional approach such as economic, social, psychosocial and stresses the need for integrated, case-managed support rather than one-off financial assistance.

Similarly, International Labor Organization (ILO) guidance on return and reintegration foregrounds “decent work” as a core benchmark, urging programs to prioritize quality of employment, labor rights and social protection rather than focusing solely on job quantity (ILO 2020). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) analysis of reintegration policies further underlines the importance of aligning reintegration measures with local labor-market demand, involving families and communities, and monitoring outcomes beyond the initial months after return (OECD 2020; OECD 2024).

In Nigeria, a number of national policies and strategies such as the National Migration Policy, youth employment and entrepreneurship initiatives, and diaspora engagement strategies form part of the normative environment in which ARRIVES must operate, even if they are not always fully implemented in practice (Adhikari 2021; OECD 2024). These frameworks formally recognize the potential of returnees and the diaspora for development, but they often lack sufficient resources or coordination mechanisms to translate this recognition into sustained support.

Academic literature on AVRR and reintegration provides an additional layer of critical framing. Studies by Koser and Kuschminder (2015), Kuschminder (2019) and Black and Gent (2006) question the “triple-win” narrative that is often used to justify return programs, arguing that structural constraints in origin countries, limited support and the ambiguous voluntariness of many returns can undermine both migrant well-being and developmental objectives (Wickramasekara 2011). Works by Vathi, King and Kalir (2023) and Odermatt (2023) highlight how return programs are entangled with broader geopolitics of migration control and externalization, raising questions about whose interests are ultimately prioritized.

The new media baseline adds a complementary, practice-relevant layer to these frameworks: It highlights that “good” return governance also requires attention to how migration is publicly represented especially in digital spaces because dominant reporting patterns can be reactive, event-driven and sensationalized, with limited structural context and limited visibility of longer-term reintegration trajectories. This implies a need for evidence-based communication, improved data literacy and structured interfaces between institutions, researchers and media actors (including influencers) to avoid misinformation spikes and one-sided narratives.

ARRIVES positions itself explicitly within this evolving policy landscape: It adopts the language of sustainability, dignity and multi-dimensional support promoted by IOM, ILO and OECD, while being financed and steered through instruments (AMIF, JRS) that are closely linked to European return management and border governance (IOM 2019; ILO 2020; OECD 2020; Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). This positioning makes “narrative governance” non-trivial: The same program can be experienced as supportive and dignifying by some, while being perceived by others through frames of control, crisis and deportation that dominate public discourse.

4.3 Complementarities and tensions between actors and policies

The interplay between these actors and frameworks generates both complementarities and tensions. On the complementary side, ARRIVES embodies an effort to align pre-departure counseling in Germany with post-arrival reintegration in Nigeria, thus operationalizing a “whole-of-chain” logic that many policy documents advocate but few programs achieve in practice (IOM 2019; OECD 2020; Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). The joint use of an integrated case management tool, the early handover of cases to Nigerian partners and the co-development of sectoral labor-market information exemplify this attempt to create a coherent pathway from the decision to return through to medium-term livelihood stabilization (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).

Moreover, the triangular partnership between SI, IRARA and ITC allows for a division of labor that draws on each actor’s strengths: SI’s experience with coaching, entrepreneurship and qualification in Germany; IRARA’s operational capacity and networks in Nigeria; and ITC’s entrepreneurship and market expertise. In theory, this structure should increase the quality and relevance of support for returnees, especially in terms of matching business ideas and training offers to real economic opportunities.

At the same time, several tensions emerge when the framework is read from the perspective of the target group. First, there is an inherent tension between enforcement-oriented objectives (reducing the number of people with precarious status in Germany, increasing return numbers) and the developmental rhetoric of “sustainable reintegration”. While policies stress voluntariness and informed choice, the actual decision to “voluntarily” return is often taken under conditions of legal and socio-economic pressure (BAMF Research Centre 2023; Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Schuster & Majidi 2015). This raises questions about how meaningful consent can be and to what extent programs like ARRIVES mitigate, or rather indirectly legitimize, structurally constrained options.

Second, the logic of project funding and monitoring can create subtle selection effects. AMIF and JRS frameworks prioritize measurable outcomes (employment, business survival, income change, non re-migration within a given time frame), which encourages implementers to invest in those participants who are most likely to reach such benchmarks (ILO 2020; OECD 2020). As discussed in the target group section, this can result in a bias towards beneficiaries with higher levels of education, language skills or entrepreneurial aptitude, while those with severe vulnerabilities or more complex biographies may be relegated to the margins (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Kuschminder 2019).

Third, structural asymmetries between European and Nigerian institutions persist despite the rhetoric of partnership. European actors control the bulk of financial resources and set many of the conditions under which programs operate, whereas Nigerian institutions are often tasked with ensuring “sustainability” without equivalent leverage over migration governance decisions in Europe (Vathi, King & Kalir 2023; Odermatt 2023). This can translate into expectations that local labor markets, social services and communities will absorb returnees in ways that may not be realistic given persistent structural unemployment, under-resourcing and social stigma.

Finally, there is a tension between standardization and individualization. Global frameworks and funding instruments require harmonized procedures, indicators and reporting formats, yet the lived realities of returnees are highly diverse. Programs such as ARRIVES must navigate this tension by using standard tools (e.g. KPIs, tracer surveys) while still allowing for individualized case management that responds to specific vulnerabilities, aspirations and family configurations (IOM 2019; IRARA 2023).

Further tension concerns the mismatch between institutional program logics and dominant public narratives. If migration and return are primarily framed through crisis, rescue, deportation and trauma, with little follow-up on reintegration outcomes, then “return with support” may lack public credibility among potential participants and their networks. This matters because decisions are not made in a vacuum; they are filtered through social media, peer networks and the perceived reputational risks of “coming back”.

This points to a complementarity (and a risk): Structured partnerships with media, data institutions and credible digital communicators can help create more balanced, human-centered narratives that include agency and longer-term trajectories, yet such communication can also be perceived as instrumental if it is seen as “selling return”. The baseline’s recommendations on joint analysis sessions between media and experts, quick-response fact-checking support, and a structured media/influencer community of practice are therefore relevant not as public relations add-ons, but as part of the enabling environment for informed decision-making.

4.4 Implications for target groups: A human-centered reading

From the vantage point of Nigerian returnees, the framework described above is not an abstract architecture but a set of structures that shape everyday choices, opportunities and vulnerabilities. Legal and policy decisions taken in Berlin, Abuja or Brussels materialize in concrete experiences: Whether a return is offered as a credible option with substantive support, or as the least-bad outcome in a context of shrinking residence prospects; whether counseling appointments feel like spaces of agency or of subtle pressure; whether business grants and training actually match local market realities; whether families and communities are engaged as allies or remain skeptical observers.

The multi-level actor constellation can be enabling: A well-coordinated handover between SI and IRARA, combined with ITC-informed business coaching and linkages or local employers, can create real “stay factors” that allow individuals to rebuild their lives in Nigeria. It can also be constrained by bureaucratic delays, eligibility rules, political priorities or funding cycles may interrupt support at critical moments, leaving returnees exposed to economic failure, renewed migration pressures or social exclusion (IOM 2019; OECD 2024; Kuschminder 2019).

The baseline assessment suggests that an additional enabling or constraining layer is the information environment in Nigeria. Where migration is a secondary topic that surfaces mainly through event-driven reporting, and where new media strongly shapes youth perceptions, returnees’ decisions and reintegration experiences are likely to be affected by what is visible, what is sensationalized, and whose voices are included or excluded.

A human-centered reading of the framework thus invites at least three reflexive insights. First, it highlights that migrants are not merely passive recipients of policy, but actors who navigate, interpret and sometimes resist institutional offers. Their strategies accepting, delaying or refusing return; re-negotiating family expectations; leveraging diaspora networks interact with the program’s theory of change in ways that cannot be fully scripted in project documents. Second, it underscores that “success” in reintegration cannot be reduced to aggregate indicators; it must be understood in terms of subjective well-being, dignity and the possibility of imagining a future that does not hinge solely on mobility (IOM 2019; Adhikari 2021). Third, it reminds us that every institutional design embeds normative choices about whose security and prosperity are prioritized by the state’s, the donors’, or the migrants’ and that reflexive practice requires making these choices visible rather than naturalizing them as purely technical.

Building on the baseline’s recommendations, one practical implication is that programs like ARRIVES benefit from institutional interfaces with journalists, data institutions and digital creators (including influencers) to support evidence-based, non-stigmatizing and human-centered reporting while maintaining ethical safeguards (avoid coercive messaging, protect confidentiality, and prevent “success-story” tokenization).

In this sense, ARRIVES can be read both as a promising attempt to humanize and professionalize cross-border reintegration, and as a site where the broader contradictions of contemporary migration governance become palpable. The following sections explore how program objectives, strategies and monitoring arrangements seek to navigate these tensions in practice.

5. Objectives

Based on the background analysis, target group definition and institutional framework, this section formulates the overall goal and underlying objectives of ARRIVES 2. In line with the Certificate Program’s emphasis on theory of change, objectives are understood not only as formal statements for a log frame, but as hypotheses about how concrete changes in people’s lives can be achieved and measured under real-world constraints.

5.1 Overall goal

The overall goal of ARRIVES 2 is:

To contribute to sustainable, dignified reintegration of Nigerian returnees from Germany by enabling them and their families to achieve resilient livelihoods, social inclusion and psychosocial well-being in Nigeria, while strengthening local “stay factors” and reducing the need for renewed irregular migration.

This goal explicitly echoes the multidimensional understanding of “sustainable reintegration” proposed by IOM economic self-sufficiency, social stability and psychosocial well-being at levels comparable to non-migrant community members, without negative spillovers on households and communities (IOM 2019; IOM 2021). It also reflects the human-centered lens of this case study: Reintegration is not reduced to project outputs (business plans, trainings) but understood as the possibility for returnees to rebuild a life that they experience as viable, dignified and open to future horizons.

In practice, this overall goal can only be approximated over the three-year project period. ARRIVES therefore formulates a set of more specific objectives, linked to measurable indicators, which together are expected to shift the Germany–Nigeria migration corridor away from precarious “limbo” trajectories and towards more sustainable “stay paths” in Nigeria.

5.2 Underlying objectives and indicative indicators

Objective 1: Strengthen informed, voluntary decision-making and preparation among Nigerians with limited prospects of staying in Germany

Change logic.

ARRIVES starts from the assumption that return decisions made under acute pressure, with little preparation and limited information, are more likely to lead to precarious reintegration and renewed migration pressures (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; OECD 2020). By contrast, if potential returnees receive early, trusted, and realistic counseling on legal options, reintegration prospects and available support, they can make less crisis-driven decisions, involve their families and co-design reintegration plans that are grounded in their skills and aspirations (IOM 2019; BAMF Research Centre 2023). In addition, the program assumes that “informed decision-making” is strongly shaped by the information environment: Migration and return are widely discussed through digital platforms and social media networks, where narratives can be reactive, sensationalized, or incomplete. Therefore, ARRIVES’ counseling and outreach must include accessible, verified and context-rich communication that can counter misinformation spikes and support realistic expectations about return and reintegration.

Indicative indicators and target lines.

Examples of how this objective could be measured include:

Number of Nigerians in Germany reached through ARRIVES outreach and counseling.

Target line: ca. 1,000–1,200 people reached over three years through information sessions, outreach to communities and individual counseling, of whom at least 500 receive in-depth return and reintegration counseling (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).

Share of beneficiaries reporting that they felt “well informed” about legal options and reintegration possibilities at the moment of deciding to return.

Target line: ≥ 70% of ARRIVES-supported returnees in tracer surveys 3–6 months after return.

Share of beneficiaries whose family members were involved in the preparation process (e.g. through joint coaching sessions, family calls).

Target line: ≥ 60% of ARRIVES cases include at least one documented family-oriented counseling session before departure (IRARA 2023).

Share of outreach reached through digital/new media formats (e.g., WhatsApp-friendly explainers, short videos, community social media channels), reflecting the dominance of new media in shaping migration perceptions.
Target line: ≥ 50% of total outreach contacts originate from or are reinforced through digital channels.
Number of “verified information products” produced and disseminated (media kits / explainers / myth-vs-fact notes) and number of rapid responses provided when misinformation spikes.
Target line: at least 6–10 products and a documented rapid-response protocol with ≥ 10 deployments over the project period.

Qualitative tools such as short narrative interviews or reflective “decision timelines” should complement these indicators, capturing how returnees experienced the decision-making process (as pressured, negotiated, hopeful, resigned) and whether they felt they had meaningful agency, even within structural constraints.

Objective 2: Enable returnees and their families to establish sustainable, decent livelihoods in Nigeria through tailored employment and entrepreneurship support

Change logic.

International research and project experience underline that economic insecurity is a central predictor of unsuccessful reintegration and re-migration (IOM 2019; Kuschminder 2019; OECD 2020). ARRIVES therefore focuses its core resources on economic measures: Business coaching, seed capital, vocational training, job placement and linking families to existing programs in Nigeria (IRARA 2023; Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022). The underlying hypothesis is that if returnees receive coherent, context-sensitive support to translate their skills and aspirations into viable income-generating activities, then their capacity to “stay by choice” rather than “leave by necessity” increases.

Indicative indicators and target lines.

Drawing on the project’s indicator estimation, ARRIVES 2 expects to accompany around 375 returnees over three years (2025–2028), of whom approximately 80% will act as main founders and 20% as co-founders or family members involved in the reintegration plan.

Within this cohort, indicative targets could include:

Number of returnees completed intensive business coaching or job-placement support.

Target line: ≥ 300 returnees (80% of 375) complete a structured coaching cycle (minimum defined number of sessions) and have a documented business/employment plan at the end.

Share of returnees who have established a micro-enterprise or secured wage employment 6–12 months after return.

Target line: ≥ 65% of ARRIVES-supported returnees report either running a business with regular turnover or being employed for at least three consecutive months within the first year after return.

Share of returnee businesses is still active 12 months after start-up.

Target line: ≥ 60% survival rate of ARRIVES-supported businesses after one year, recognizing sector-specific variations and broader macro-economic risks (OECD 2024; IOM 2019).

Average change in self-reported income level (e.g. using a 4–5 point scale from “no regular income” to “stable income above basic needs”) between arrival and 12-month follow-up.

Target line: At least 60% of beneficiaries move up at least one category on the income stability scale.

From a human-centered perspective, these indicators should not be interpreted merely as performance metrics, but as proxies for whether returnees can pay rent, feed their families, service debts and make modest investments in the future. Qualitative follow-ups can explore how economic progress interacts with subjective feelings of security, dignity and hope.

Objective 3: Support social and psychosocial reintegration, reducing stigma and strengthening family and community support networks

Change logic.

Economic support alone does not guarantee sustainable reintegration. Stigma in communities, family disappointment, unresolved trauma and lingering feelings of failure can undermine even economically “successful” returns (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Schuster & Majidi 2015). ARRIVES therefore seeks to embed economic measures within broader social and psychosocial support: family coaching, community meetings, referrals to psychosocial services, and the use of returnees as multipliers and role models (IOM 2019; IRARA 2023).

Stigma is not only interpersonal but also discursive: Returnees are often portrayed publicly through frames of “failure” or crisis, which can intensify shame and weaken community support. ARRIVES therefore treats narrative work (returnee voices, balanced storytelling, community dialogues) as part of psychosocial reintegration rather than as an external communication add-on.

Indicative indicators and target lines.

Number of families receive joint counseling or family-oriented coaching.

Target line: ≥ 250 family units involved in at least one structured family session (e.g. spouse, children, key relatives) over the project period.

Share of beneficiaries reporting improved family support after return (e.g. on a Likert scale: “My family supports my decision to return” / “My family supports my current plans”).

Target line: ≥ 70% report stable or improved family support between arrival and 12-month follow-up.

Share of beneficiaries reporting no or reduced experiences of community stigma (e.g. “being treated as a failure”, “being blamed for the migration project”).

Target line: Reduction of self-reported stigma experiences by at least 20 percentage points between arrival and 12-month follow-up.

Share of beneficiaries with access to psychosocial support when needed (through ARRIVES, referrals or partner organizations).

Target line: At least 50% of those identified with psychosocial support receive at least one targeted intervention (individual counseling, group session, referral).

Here, the objective articulates a change from “isolated, shame-laden return” to “socially supported reintegration”, where families and communities become co-producers of reintegration rather than passive judges of success or failure. Measuring this requires ethically sensitive tools and an awareness that self-reported well-being is deeply shaped by social expectations and norms.

Objective 4: Consolidate cross-border cooperation and learning between German and Nigerian actors to institutionalize rights-based, development-sensitive return and reintegration pathways

Change logic.

As Section 4 has shown, ARRIVES operates at the intersection of European migration management, Nigerian development and labor-market policies, and international reintegration frameworks. Its fourth objective is to move beyond isolated project implementation and foster more durable cooperation structures, information flows and learning loops between actors in Germany and Nigeria (IOM 2019; OECD 2020; Vathi, King & Kalir 2023). The assumption is that if institutional relationships are strengthened and evidence on reintegration outcomes is systematically generated and shared, then policies and programs can gradually become more responsive to migrants’ realities and rights.

Indicative indicators and target lines.

Number of formal cooperation agreements, MOUs or working arrangements between ARRIVES partners and Nigerian institutions (e.g. NDE, SMEDAN, FMLE, local authorities).

Target line: ≥ 10 cooperation arrangements signed or renewed over the project period (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).

Frequency of structured coordination meetings between German and Nigerian partners (online or in person) focusing on case management, labor-market intelligence and policy feedback.

Target line: At least one trilateral coordination meeting (SI–IRARA–ITC plus key stakeholders) per quarter, with documented minutes and follow-up actions.

Production and use of knowledge products (e.g. labor-market briefs, case studies, policy notes) feeding back reintegration experience into counseling, outreach and policy discussions.

Target line: At least 6 substantive knowledge products produced and disseminated over three years; evidence that at least half of them are used in counseling materials or policy forum.

Inclusion of ARRIVES data and lessons in relevant German and Nigerian policy debates (e.g. AMIF programming, national migration policy reviews, diaspora and employment strategies).

Target line: At least 3 instances where ARRIVES findings are cited or presented in such forum, signaling a modest but real contribution to broader system learning.

Frequency of structured briefings and joint analysis sessions where partners share verified data, contextual insights and lessons with communicators / media actors (journalists, community media, influencers) to translate evidence into accessible narratives.

Target line: At least 2 briefings/joint sessions per year, documented with materials and follow-up actions.

Establishment or participation in a Media & Migration / influencer-community of practice that links institutional communication officers with content creators to reach youth audiences with factual, relatable content.

Target line: 1 network/community of practice operational, with ≥ 20 active participants and ≥ 4 joint outputs per year.

From a human-centered perspective, the value of this objective lies in whether institutional learning translates into more realistic counseling, better-tailored training offers, and more honest communication about the risks and opportunities of return not merely in the number of meetings held or documents produced.

5.3 Measuring progress: tools and ethical considerations

Across all objectives, ARRIVES combines quantitative and qualitative tools:

Administrative and project data (e.g. number of counseling sessions, business plans, training completions, grants disbursed) drawn from SI and IRARA case-management systems, including RIAT/JRS where relevant (IOM 2019; Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).
Tracer surveys at 3, 6 and 12 months after return, capturing economic status, employment, business survival, housing, access to services and subjective well-being (OECD 2020; OECD 2024).
Qualitative follow-up through semi-structured interviews and case studies, exploring decision-making processes, family dynamics, stigma, coping strategies and perceptions of the program’s usefulness.
Feedback mechanisms, such as satisfaction surveys or focus groups with beneficiaries and their families, allowing returnees to assess counseling quality, fairness of selection, adequacy of support and remaining gaps.

At the same time, a reflexive approach to measurement requires caution. Indicators can easily become a way of disciplining programs and beneficiaries into producing “success stories” for funders, rather than tools for genuine learning. For example, a narrow focus on business survival rates may obscure that some returnees consciously choose wage employment as a more stable path, or that closing a small business can be a rational decision in a volatile market. Similarly, measuring “non-re-migration” as a success indicator risks framing mobility itself as a failure, rather than interrogating the structural conditions that continue to push people to move (Wickramasekara 2011; Vathi, King & Kalir 2023). In addition, a human-centered approach requires “do-no-harm” communication: Beneficiary stories should be used only with informed consent, confidentiality safeguards, and clear separation from any form of pressure to return.
Monitoring should therefore include basic safeguards (consent tracking, anonymization rules, complaints channels) to ensure that narrative outreach does not reproduce stigma or coercion.

In this case study, we therefore read ARRIVES’ objectives and indicators as imperfect but necessary instruments: They make certain forms of change visible (income, jobs, enterprise creation, outreach reach), while leaving others (care work, emotional healing, shifting aspirations) at the margins. A human-centered monitoring approach would intentionally complement hard indicators with spaces where returnees can narrate, in their own terms, what “a good life after return” means and where their critiques of the program can be heard rather than filtered out.

5.4 Objectives as vectors of change

Taken together, the four objectives outlined above trace a pathway of potential change that links structural conditions, institutional arrangements and individual biographies:

From legal limbo to more informed choice: Objective 1 seeks to move return decisions away from last-minute crisis responses towards earlier, better-informed and family-negotiated processes even if structural coercion in the migration regime cannot be fully eliminated.
From precarious livelihoods to relative economic security: Objective 2 translates the program’s core promise integrated vocational and entrepreneurship support into concrete targets for employment, business survival and income stability, while recognizing the risks of over-promising in a structurally constrained economy.
From stigma and isolation to social anchoring and psychosocial support: Objective 3 acknowledges that successful reintegration is not only about money, but about being able to “show one’s face” in the community without shame, rebuild disrupted relationships and access support when needed.
From fragmented interventions to a more coherent cross-border system: Objective 4 embodies the aspiration that ARRIVES is more than a time-limited project; it is a laboratory for ways of organizing return and reintegration that could, over time, reshape policies and practices in Germany and Nigeria.
From reactive/sensational narratives to evidence-based, human-centered information flows: complementing counseling with verified, accessible communication that reduces misinformation, centers migrant voices beyond trauma frames and supports realistic expectations about reintegration pathways.

In our dual role as practitioner and critical observer, we see these objectives not as a checklist to be ticked off, but as normative commitments against which the program should continuously be held accountable by funders, partners, communities and, above all, by the returnees themselves. The next section examines how ARRIVES’ strategies and measures attempt to operationalize these commitments in everyday practice.

6. Strategies and Measures

Building on the objectives outlined above, this section describes the main strategies and measures of ARRIVES 2 and makes explicit the underlying assumptions of change, as well as potential sites of resistance, deviation and risk. In line with the overall human-centered perspective of the case study, strategies are not treated as neutral technical instruments, but as situated interventions that shape – and are shaped by – migrants’ biographies, institutional logics and structural constraints. Given the dominance of “new media” in shaping migration perceptions and the prevalence of reactive, often sensationalized coverage, ARRIVES’ strategies must also be read as interventions in an information ecosystem (not only a service-delivery chain).

6.1 Strategy 1: Early, trusted outreach and pre-departure counseling in Germany

Measures.

ARRIVES 2 deploys a proactive outreach strategy in Germany that combines:

Networking with return counseling centers, refugee support organizations, shelters and accommodation centers with high Nigerian populations.
Cooperation with Nigerian diaspora associations, churches and community groups.
Information events and “dialogue tours” at state and municipal level, and
Individual counseling sessions in which legal options, reintegration prospects and available support are discussed in detail (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).
Low-threshold, mobile-first information formats (e.g., WhatsApp/Facebook shareables and short “explainers”) that counter misinformation peaks and translate counseling content into everyday decision environments.

Counseling is designed to be iterative rather than one-off: Beneficiaries can return several times, involve family members (in Germany or Nigeria) via phone or video calls, and gradually build a reintegration plan that includes economic, social and psychosocial elements (IRARA 2023).

Underlying assumptions of change.

This strategy rests on the assumption that:

Earlier and better information leads to less crisis-driven decisions, allowing migrants to weigh options more calmly and to avoid last-minute “voluntary” returns under acute enforcement pressure (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; BAMF Research Centre 2023).
Trust in the messenger matters as much as the content: People are more likely to engage with reintegration offers if information is channeled through actors they perceive as credible (community organizations, counselors with similar backgrounds, peers).
Family involvement in Germany and Nigeria increases the realism and ownership of reintegration plans, reducing intra-household conflicts after return (IOM 2019).
Information channels matter: With most news consumed on mobile and strong reliance on social networks, pre-departure counseling is more likely to shape decisions when it is reinforced through the same “new media” pathways that already influence migration aspirations and expectations.

Potential resistance, deviation and risks.

Several frictions can undermine this strategy:

Perceived alignment with enforcement: Migrants may see counselors as extensions of the migration control apparatus, particularly when they are embedded in asylum centers or cooperate closely with authorities. This can generate resistance, partial disclosure or strategic compliance.
Time pressures: Even with early outreach, decisions often crystallize when legal options are nearly exhausted. In such situations, counseling risks becoming an instrument to “manage” departure rather than a space for genuine choice.
Asymmetrical information: Counselors may, despite good intentions, present reintegration prospects in an overly optimistic way, especially when under pressure to meet return targets. This can lead to disillusionment and a sense of betrayal after arrival in Nigeria.

“Infodemic” dynamics: Rumors, sensational content and peer-to-peer messaging can outpace institutional communication, especially during moments of crisis (e.g., deportation waves), undermining trust and uptake.

Framing risks: If counseling language reproduces alarmist or stigmatizing frames common in migration reporting, it can unintentionally reinforce fear/shame rather than agency (e.g., imprecise labels such as “illegal migrants”).

From a human-centered perspective, the key challenge is to ensure that counseling remains a space where migrants can articulate ambivalence, fear and hope, rather than feeling compelled to perform “readiness to return” in order to access support.

6.2 Strategy 2: Tailored economic reintegration through entrepreneurship and employment pathways

Measures.

The economic core of ARRIVES consists of two interconnected pathways:

Entrepreneurship support – intensive business coaching (needs assessment, business model development, financial planning), provision of seed capital or in-kind grants, linkage to entrepreneurship schemes and incubation services, and follow-up mentoring to stabilize micro- and small enterprises (IRARA 2023; ITC involvement in sector analysis).
Employment and skills development – vocational training or skills upgrading, recognition of competences acquired in Germany, job-search coaching, matching with local employers and support in negotiating contracts and basic labor rights (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022).

Measures are embedded in individual reintegration plans that also address housing, documentation, health and childcare, with staged disbursement of financial support linked to agreed milestones.

Underlying assumptions of change.

This strategy assumes that:

Economic security is a precondition for sustainable reintegration: If returnees can generate stable income, they are better able to cope with social expectations, service debts and invest in family futures (IOM 2019; Kuschminder 2019; OECD 2020).
Tailoring to local markets – via labor-market intelligence and sector studies – increases the likelihood that enterprises and training choices are viable rather than based on generic “success stories” (OECD 2024; ITC inputs).
Coaching plus capital is more effective than capital alone: Ongoing accompaniment helps beneficiaries adapt business and job strategies to changing circumstances, rather than “burning” a one-off grant.

Potential resistance, deviation and risks.

Market saturation and macro-economic shocks. Even well-prepared business plans can fail in the face of inflation, currency devaluation, insecurity or sudden market shifts – factors outside the control of both returnees and implementers. This may translate into frustration and renewed migration aspirations.
Hidden conditionalities. Staged disbursement and performance criteria can be experienced as surveillance or conditionality, especially if returnees feel that their agency is subordinated to externally defined milestones.
Selection bias. Under pressure to demonstrate positive indicators (business survival, job placement), staff may – consciously or unconsciously – prioritize “strong” profiles, sidelining those with lower literacy, health problems or complex care responsibilities (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Kuschminder 2019).
Gendered constraints. Women, single parents or people with disabilities may find it harder to participate in training or run businesses that require mobility and long hours, unless specific adaptations are made.

A critical reading therefore suggests that while economic measures are necessary, they are not sufficient and must be constantly checked against the risk of reproducing inequalities within the target group.

6.3 Strategy 3: Social anchoring, psychosocial support and community engagement

Measures.

Beyond economic support, ARRIVES include:

Family coaching to work through expectations, conflicts over resource use, and role reconfigurations after return.
Referrals to psychosocial services and, where possible, group-based support or peer networks for returnees with trauma histories or mental health needs.
Community-level activities, such as meetings with local leaders, awareness sessions, dialogue on “stay factors” and the use of positive returnee narratives to counter stigma.
Alumni and peer-mentor approaches, where former beneficiaries accompany newcomers as role models and critical friends (IRARA 2023; IOM 2019).

Narrative and stigma work that goes beyond “success stories”: Facilitated spaces where returnees can speak as informed perspectives (not only as “emotional testimonies”), and community dialogues that explicitly address the dominant “failure” label often attached to returnees in public discourse.

Underlying assumptions of change.

This strategy is grounded in the belief that:

Families and communities are key co-producers of reintegration: Without at least minimal support from close networks, even economically successful returnees can feel isolated and vulnerable (Koser & Kuschminder 2015; Schuster & Majidi 2015).
Acknowledging psychosocial dimensions like shame, grief, fear, trauma, is essential for people to re-orient their lives after the disruption of migration and forced return (IOM 2019).
Peer support from other returnees can provide forms of empathy and practical advice that institutional actors cannot easily offer.

Potential resistance, deviation and risks.

Persistent stigma and debt relations. Families or communities that invested heavily in the migration project may continue to express disappointment or pressure, even when support is offered. In such contexts, “success stories” risk feeling alienating to those whose realities are more fraught.
Cultural and gender norms. Norms around masculinity, femininity or sexuality may make it difficult to speak openly about failure, violence or mental health, especially in group settings.
Instrumentalization of narratives. The use of “positive stories” in communication campaigns can unintentionally pressure returnees to present themselves as grateful and successful, even when they struggle – reinforcing silences around hardship and ambivalence.
Limited psychosocial infrastructure. In many Nigerian locations, specialized mental-health services are scarce or overburdened. Referrals may therefore remain largely symbolic if no affordable, accessible services exist.

Media-driven stereotyping: When migration coverage is predominantly negative/sensational, returnees may be socially read through crisis frames (“deportation”, “failure”), which can intensify shame and make community engagement harder unless the program actively counters these frames.

For the target group, the central challenge is whether ARRIVES can create spaces where vulnerability can be articulated without jeopardizing access to support or being turned into marketing material.

6.4 Strategy 4: Cross-border coordination, data systems and learning loops

Measures.

To move beyond fragmented interventions, ARRIVES invests in:

Joint case management systems, including the use of RIAT/JRS and shared tools between SI, IRARA and ITC for tracking beneficiaries from pre-departure to post-return.
Regular coordination meetings across Germany and Nigeria to discuss individual cases, labor-market developments and implementation challenges.
Development of knowledge products, such as sector briefs, good-practice guidelines and case studies.
Engagement in policy forum in Germany and Nigeria to feed empirical insights from ARRIVES at wider debates on AVRR, reintegration and diaspora engagement (Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ 2022; IOM 2019; OECD 2020).

Structured collaboration with journalists/content creators and diaspora communicators to translate evidence into accessible, non-sensational “explainers” (e.g., what reintegration actually entails 6–12 months after return).
A rapid-response “myth-busting / fact-check” mechanism (lightweight) during misinformation spikes, and a community of practice approach to connect institutions with trusted media/influencer actors without duplicating efforts.

Underlying assumptions of change.

This strategy assumes that:

Better data and communication between Germany and Nigeria will reduce information gaps, avoid duplication, and allow for more realistic counseling and planning.
Institutionalized cooperation (MOUs, joint events, working groups) can outlive individual projects and gradually shift policy practices towards more development-sensitive and rights-aware approaches (Vathi, King & Kalir 2023; Odermatt 2023).
Learning from evidence – both successes and failures – will make future programs more responsive to migrants’ realities.

Potential resistance, deviation and risks.

Competing mandates and priorities. German, EU and Nigerian actors operate under different political incentives; data may be used to justify tighter controls rather than more generous support.
Data protection and trust issues. Beneficiaries may fear that information they provide in counseling or case management will be used against them (e.g. in future visa applications or enforcement decisions), which can limit honest disclosure.
Short project cycles. Funding horizons and staff turnover can undermine the continuity required for genuine institutional learning. Activities risk becoming “projectized” without lasting policy impact.
Political/communication capture risks: The information produced for learning can be selectively used to justify tighter control narratives; this calls for careful governance of messaging, transparency on purpose, and strict separation between counseling support and enforcement uses.

In human terms, the value of this strategy will be judged by whether improved coordination actually translates into more coherent, predictable and respectful experiences for migrants – or whether it mainly streamlines administrative processes for institutions.

6.5 Cross-cutting reflections on assumptions, resistance and risk

Across all four strategies, several cross-cutting assumptions and risks emerge:

Assumption of manageable risk. ARRIVES presumes that with the right combination of information, coaching and support, returnees can build viable futures in Nigeria. While this is empirically true for some, it may understate deep structural constraints (unemployment, insecurity, inequality) that no project can fully offset. There is a risk of individualizing responsibility for outcomes that are heavily shaped by macro-level factors.
Assumption of voluntariness. The program framework presupposes that participants have chosen to return. Yet, as discussed earlier, “choice” is often exercised within narrow margins. Strategies that rely on voluntariness must therefore remain attentive to the structural coercion embedded in migration regimes and avoid moralizing outcomes (Black & Gent 2006; Wickramasekara 2011).
Risk of narrative simplification. To secure funding and legitimacy, projects like ARRIVES are under pressure to narrate their work through “success stories” and neat indicators. This can obscure messy realities: Business failures, re-migration, family conflict, ambivalence about return. A reflexive strategy acknowledges these complexities and treats them as central learning points rather than as anomalies.
Potential for migrant agency and resistance. Migrants are not passive recipients of these strategies. They appropriately bend or resist them: some use counseling to gain information while still hoping for regularization; others strategically adapt business plans to access grants; others refuse to participate in communication activities. These forms of agency may appear as “deviation” from planned measures, but they can also be read as legitimate attempts to navigate power-laden structures.

Information-environment risk: When migration reporting is reactive and sensational, and migrant voices are marginal or framed narrowly, programs can be pressured (implicitly) to “perform” success. A reflexive risk mitigation is to adopt communication principles: Precise, non-stigmatizing language; inclusion of diverse voices (returnees, women, youth, diaspora, civil society organizations); and an explicit commitment to portraying reintegration as an everyday, complex process rather than a one-off event.

Ultimately, the strategies and measures of ARRIVES 2 can be seen as vectors of negotiated change rather than as linear instruments of policy delivery. Their success will depend not only on technical quality, but on the program’s willingness to remain open to critique from returnees, communities and practitioners themselves and to adjust course when the lived realities of migrants expose the limits of its underlying assumptions.

7. Monitoring and Evaluation

Building on the objectives and indicator framework outlined in Section 5, this section describes how ARRIVES 2 monitors progress and evaluates whether it is contributing to sustainable, dignified reintegration. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are understood not only as accountability tools towards funders, but as practices that can either reinforce or challenge existing power relations in the Germany–Nigeria migration nexus. In line with the human-centered perspective of this case study, M&E is therefore conceived as a mixed-methods, participatory and reflexive process in which Nigerian returnees are not merely “data sources”, but key interpreters of change.

7.1 Overall approach and accountability relationships

ARRIVES 2 adopts a multi-layered M&E architecture that mirrors its actor constellation. At its core, day-to-day monitoring is carried out by the implementing partners Social Impact (SI) in Germany and IRARA in Nigeria with technical input from ITC on entrepreneurship and market-related indicators. These organizations are responsible for:

Collecting and validating data at case level (counseling sessions, coaching progress, business plans, grants, training participation, employment status, family support measures).
Feeding this information into joint case-management and reporting systems and
Conducting first-line analysis of trends, challenges and outliers.

Upwards, SI as lead partner is formally accountable to BAMF as managing authority for AMIF, and indirectly to the European Commission, for achieving contracted outputs and outcomes, respecting financial and procedural rules, and reporting on agreed indicators. IRARA is also accountable to Frontex under the Joint Reintegration Services (JRS) framework for the use of reintegration funds and case-management standards in Nigeria.

Horizontally, ARRIVES partners are accountable to Nigerian public institutions and local actors with whom they cooperate (e.g. NDE, SMEDAN, local authorities) for aligning reintegration support with national priorities, avoiding duplication and contributing to existing schemes.

Crucially, there is also an ethical and professional accountability “downwards” and “outwards” towards returnees, their families and communities. This dimension is less formalized in contracts but central to the human-centered reading of the program. It implies an obligation to:

Be transparent about what ARRIVES can and cannot offer
Avoid instrumentalizing beneficiaries’ experiences merely for reporting or communication purposes
Use M&E findings to improve support rather than only to demonstrate success.

A further, operationally relevant accountability layer concerns the “information environment” around migration and return. Given that a large share of news consumption occurs via mobile-based social media channels (notably WhatsApp and Facebook), with heightened risks of misinformation, ARRIVES’ counseling and communication outputs should be held accountable for accuracy, balance and non-sensational framing. This includes avoiding one-sided “failure/success” narratives and ensuring that any public-facing beneficiary stories are used only with informed consent, with a clear opt-out, and without linking participation in communication activities to access to support.

In this sense, M&E in ARRIVES is situated at the intersection of contractual accountability to funders and normative accountability to those whose lives are directly affected by the program.

7.2 Operationalizing indicators and data flows

The indicative indicators and target lines formulated in Section 5.2 are translated into a concrete monitoring framework through several operational steps:

Indicator specification and disaggregation.

Each indicator is defined in precise terms, including numerator, denominator, unit of measurement, time frame and disaggregation. For example, “share of returnees who have established a micro-enterprise or secured wage employment 6–12 months after return” is operationalized as:

Numerator: number of ARRIVES-supported returnees who, at 6–12 months post-return, report either running a business with regular turnover or having been in wage employment for at least three consecutive months.
Denominator: all ARRIVES-supported returnees who have reached the 6–12 months follow-up points and could be contacted.
Disaggregation: by gender, age group, region of return, type of economic pathway (entrepreneurship/employment), and, where feasible, by key vulnerability markers (e.g. single parenthood, disability).

Disaggregation (where feasible): by primary information channel (e.g., WhatsApp/Facebook/community leaders), and by perceived stigma intensity at baseline.

Similar operationalization is applied to indicators on informed decision-making, family involvement, stigma, psychosocial support and institutional cooperation. In addition, ARRIVES should operationalize a small set of “information integrity / trust” indicators, capturing whether beneficiaries perceive counseling as credible and non-coercive, and whether they encountered or believed misinformation about return and reintegration. Examples: (i) % of beneficiaries reporting high trust in counseling sources; (ii) % reporting exposure to (or reliance on) unverified information about reintegration support; (iii) % reporting that communication materials provided a balanced view of risks/opportunities and included migrants’ voices/testimonies.

Baselines and milestones.

For many indicators, arrival in Nigeria functions as a natural baseline: Initial assessments during intake (housing situation, income sources, debt levels, family support, perceived stigma, psychosocial state) provide a starting point against which change at 3, 6 and 12 months can be assessed. For outreach and counseling indicators, baseline is zero and milestones are defined per project year (e.g. cumulative numbers of people reached, cases with family-oriented counseling).

Data sources and responsibilities.

Administrative data are mainly recorded in SI and IRARA case-management systems (including RIAT/JRS where applicable). Staff responsibilities are clearly assigned: Coaches and case managers enter data after each relevant interaction; M&E officers in both organizations conduct periodic consistency checks, extract anonymized datasets and prepare internal dashboards. ITC contributes specifically to indicators related to business development (e.g. sectoral distribution of enterprises, turnover brackets, survival rates).

Data protection and ethics.

Given the sensitivity of information (legal status histories, trauma, debt, family conflicts), strict data-protection protocols are essential. Informed consent procedures explicitly cover the use of data for monitoring, evaluation and learning. Personal identifiers are separated from analytical datasets; only aggregated results are shared with external actors. Beneficiaries are informed that refusing to participate in surveys will not affect their access to support.

Purpose limitation and “firewall” principle: Individual-level M&E data collected in counseling and reintegration support are used strictly for program delivery, learning and aggregated reporting, and are not shared for immigration enforcement decisions. This is communicated in plain language during consent, to reduce fear-driven underreporting and strategic compliance.

Through these steps, the rather abstract indicator framework becomes a practical instrument that guides everyday documentation and allows for regular reflection on progress, while seeking to protect the dignity and privacy of those whose lives are being monitored.

7.3 Methods for measuring change and (limited) impact

ARRIVES 2 combines several methods to assess whether its objectives are being approached, while remaining cautious about claiming linear “impact” in a complex migration system.

Routine monitoring.

Ongoing monitoring draws on:

Case files documenting counseling, coaching, training and financial support.
Attendance lists from outreach events and community meetings.
Records of cooperation activities with institutions (e.g. MOUs, joint events, working groups).

Light-touch monitoring of migration/return narratives in key channels (community WhatsApp groups, diaspora pages, selected mainstream outlets), tracking misinformation spikes and stigma-amplifying frames that may affect returnees’ psychosocial outcomes and program uptake. Findings feed into outreach messaging and counseling FAQs (“myth-busting”).

These data feed into quarterly and annual reports that track progress towards numeric targets (e.g. number of returnees accompanied, businesses launched, families counselled).

Tracer surveys.

Structured tracer surveys are conducted at approximately 3, 6 and 12 months after return with ARRIVES-supported returnees. They cover:

Economic situation (income sources, stability, employment status, business turnover).
Housing and access to basic services.
Family relations and perceived support.
Experiences of community stigma or acceptance.
Subjective well-being and future intentions (including migration aspirations).

Surveys use a combination of closed questions (Likert scales, multiple choice) and short open questions to capture nuance. Where feasible, telephone or online formats are complemented by in-person interviews in selected locations.

Qualitative case studies and interviews.

To move beyond aggregate indicators, ARRIVES commissions or conducts qualitative case studies with a diverse sample of beneficiaries (gender, age, location, type of pathway, success and non-success cases). Semi-structured interviews explore:

How return decisions were made and negotiated.
How business and employment trajectories unfolded over time.
How family dynamics and community relations evolved.
How participants experienced ARRIVES itself (supportive, pressuring, insufficient, empowering).

These narratives help to interpret quantitative trends and to surface unintended effects, blind spots and forms of resistance that numbers alone would miss.

Participatory feedback tools.

Short satisfaction surveys, suggestion boxes, and feedback rounds in group activities (e.g. entrepreneurship or psychosocial sessions) provide more immediate assessments of program components. Where appropriate, “most significant change” stories are collected, with care taken not to select only highly positive examples.

External or semi-external evaluation.

Given its transnational scope and funding framework, ARRIVES is likely to be subject to an external or at least externally validated evaluation towards the end of the project cycle. From a human-centered perspective, such an evaluation is most meaningful when it not only examines log frame indicators, but explicitly engages with questions of voluntariness, selection bias and structural constraints i.e. when it interrogates the program’s theory of change rather than presuming it.

It is important to acknowledge that, even with this mixed-methods design, ARRIVES can only make cautious claims about “impact”. Many factors affecting reintegration outcomes (macro-economic shocks, changes in German migration law, security developments in Nigeria, family events) lie beyond its control. Rather than proving causality, M&E seeks to document plausible contribution pathways, identify patterns and refine hypotheses about what works, for whom and under which conditions.

7.4 Participation of target groups in the evaluation process

In line with the systemic and reflexive understanding of the target group developed in Section 3, ARRIVES 2 aims to involve returnees, families and, to a lesser extent, communities in its M&E processes.

Co-defining what matters.

Where feasible, small consultative workshops are held with current and former beneficiaries to discuss what “a good life after return” means in their context and which dimensions of change they consider most relevant (e.g. ability to support children’s education, reduction in debt, being treated with respect in the community). Insights from these discussions inform the refinement of survey questions and the interpretation of results. This co-definition should also test communication materials for clarity, tone and perceived pressure, ensuring they do not unintentionally reproduce stigma or one-sided portrayals of returnees.

Returnee involvement in data collection and interpretation.

Former beneficiaries or peer mentors can be trained as co-researchers, assisting in conducting interviews or facilitating focus groups. Their involvement can:

Reduce social distance between interviewers and interviewees.
Foster trust and more open conversations.
Allow returnees to shape the questions being asked.

At the same time, care must be taken not to overburden them or to place them in uncomfortable intermediary positions between peers and institutions.

Feedback and validation of findings.

Preliminary evaluation findings are shared back with small groups of beneficiaries and local stakeholders in Nigeria, using accessible formats (visual summaries, story-based presentations). Participants are invited to comment, contest interpretations and highlight missing aspects. This “validation” process serves as a check against overly technocratic or institution-centered readings of the data.

Complaints and grievance channels.

An important, if often overlooked, participatory element of M&E is the existence of clear, confidential channels through which beneficiaries can raise concerns about counseling, eligibility decisions, use of their data or perceived unfairness. Documenting and analyzing such complaints provide a powerful, if uncomfortable, source of learning about how the program is perceived from below.

Participation is, inevitably, partial and uneven; not all beneficiaries will want or be able to engage in these ways. Nonetheless, a deliberate effort to treat them as interlocutors rather than mere respondents is central to aligning evaluation practice with the human-centered ethos of ARRIVES.

7.5 Using evaluation results: Learning, adaptation and reflexive practice

How evaluation results are handled is as important as the tools used to generate them. ARRIVES 2 seeks to avoid two opposite pitfalls: On the one hand, treating M&E primarily as a compliance exercise to satisfy funders; on the other, romanticizing “learning” while glossing over politically sensitive findings.

In practical terms, this implies several commitments:

Internal learning and adaptive management.

Monitoring data and interim evaluation findings are regularly discussed in joint SI–IRARA–ITC meetings. Where patterns of concern emerge e.g. lower business survival rates among women, high levels of reported stigma in certain regions, or unexpectedly low family involvement partners are expected to:

Interrogate underlying causes (program-internal, structural, both).
Adjust strategies or measures where feasible (e.g. additional mentoring for specific groups, closer collaboration with local women’s organizations, adaptation of outreach messages).
Document these adaptations and their rationale.

This form of adaptive management treats evaluation not as an ex-post judgment, but as an ongoing process of course-correction.

Transparent upward reporting.

Reports to BAMF, the European Commission and other institutional stakeholders strive to present a balanced picture, including limitations and negative findings (e.g. business failures, re-migration, dissatisfaction with aspects of support). While there are obvious incentives to highlight successes, a reflexive stance recognizes that credible programs must also speak about what does not work as intended.

Communication back to communities.

Summarized results e.g. on overall reintegration patterns, common challenges, examples of promising practices can be shared in Nigeria through community meetings, radio programs or collaboration with local organizations. This closes, at least partially, the feedback loop and recognizes communities as stakeholders in reintegration outcomes.

Where results are communicated publicly, ARRIVES should apply a “do no harm” narrative protocol: Avoid sensational framing, triangulate claims, and include contextual explanations (economic/social drivers) that returnees themselves report as missing in dominant media portrayals.

Revisiting The Theory of Change.

Finally, evaluation results are used to critically revisit the program’s theory of change as articulated in this case study. For instance:

If tracer data and narratives suggest that economic gains are short-lived in certain sectors, the hypothesis that entrepreneurship is a central “stay factor” may need to be nuanced.
If many returnees report feeling that they had “no real choice” but to participate in ARRIVES, the program’s reliance on voluntariness must be re-examined.
If stigma persists despite community activities, assumptions about the transformative power of “success stories” may require revision.

In this sense, M&E becomes a site where the tensions and contradictions discussed throughout the case study between control and care, voluntariness and coercion, individual agency and structural constraint are made explicit rather than hidden.

For the authors, this reflexive use of evaluation results is central to the ethical ambition of ARRIVES: Not only to document change, but to remain open to the possibility that the program’s own practices need to change in light of what returnees and their communities tell us.

8. Logical Framework and Logic model

ARRIVES
	Project Summary	Indicators	Means of Verification	Risks / Assumptions
Objective (Impact)	To contribute to the sustainable and dignified reintegration of Nigerian returnees by enabling resilient livelihoods and psychosocial well-being.	Returnees reach levels of economic self-sufficiency and social stability comparable to non-migrants in their communities.	12-month post-return tracer surveys measuring long-term stability and re-migration intentions.	Assumption: Returnees can rebuild a socially credible life that overcomes the «stigma of failure».
Outcome	Returnees establish decent livelihoods through entrepreneurship or employment and achieve social anchoring.	More than 65% of beneficiaries in stable employment or running a business 12 months after return and 20% reduction in self-reported stigma.	Project databases from Social Impact and IRARA; qualitative case studies on family dynamics.	Risk: Macroeconomic shocks in Nigeria (inflation, currency devaluation) may undermine business viability.
Output	Provision of tailored holistic coaching, vocational training, family counseling, and institutional cooperation.	375 accompanied returns. More than 300 completed business/employment plans. More than 10 formal cooperation agreements.	Signed Cooperation Agreements; training completion certificates; administrative records in the RIAT/JRS system.	Assumption: Coaching combined with seed capital is more effective than one-off financial grants.
Activities	Pre-departure counseling in Germany, «Dialogue Tours,» community outreach, and cross-border coordination.	Around 1.000–1.200 people reached through outreach. At least one trilateral coordination meeting per quarter.	Outreach attendance lists; minutes of coordination meetings; digital media reach logs.	Risk: Migrants may lack trust in counselors if they perceive them as extensions of enforcement.

9. Conclusion

This case study has shown that ARRIVES 2 represents a serious attempt to translate the oft-repeated claim that “return is a process, not an event” into a concrete cross-border architecture linking early outreach and counseling in Germany with structured economic, social and psychosocial support in Nigeria. By reconstructing its theory of change, we have argued that the program moves beyond purely administrative understandings of return and seeks to enable phased, human-centered reintegration pathways for Nigerian nationals whose biographies have been marked by legal limbo, interrupted life courses and complex transnational obligations. At the same time, ARRIVES operates within a migration regime in which “voluntariness” is normatively central but empirically fragile: Many beneficiaries decide to return under conditions of constrained choice, shaped by low recognition rates, enforcement pressure and family expectations. Importantly, these decisions and their aftermath are also shaped by Nigeria’s contemporary information environment: News and migration narratives are largely consumed via mobile-based platforms (notably WhatsApp, Tik Tok and Facebook), a context that accelerates one-sided framings and misinformation risks, and that can amplify both migration aspirations and stigma around return.

A central tension identified throughout the analysis concerns the role of economic reintegration as a “stay factor”. ARRIVES is built on the empirically grounded assumption that economic insecurity is a key driver of unsuccessful reintegration and re-migration, and it responds with an integrated package of entrepreneurship and employment support. Yet the case study highlights how far individualized measures can go in structurally constrained contexts marked by unemployment, informality and macro-economic volatility. There is a latent risk that responsibility for outcomes is shifted onto returnees’ motivation, business skills or “resilience”, while the structural determinants of precarity recede into the background. The same dynamic appears in target-group definition and selection: Although ARRIVES explicitly avoids a narrow profile of the “ideal entrepreneurial returnee”, performance-oriented funding and indicator logics create incentives to prioritize “strong” cases and to marginalize those with intersecting vulnerabilities, thus reproducing hierarchies of deservingness within an already precarious population.

The program’s dense multi-level actor constellation generates both added value and persistent asymmetries. On the enabling side, the triangular partnership between Social Impact, IRARA and ITC, situated within EU and Nigerian policy frameworks, permits a degree of cross-border coordination and learning that goes beyond many conventional return projects. On the constraining side, European actors retain decisive control over resources, problem framings and success metrics, while Nigerian institutions and local actors are expected to deliver “sustainability” under structural conditions they do not control. Monitoring and evaluation practices are a key site where these dynamics crystallize: Indicators, success stories and tracer surveys can support accountability and learning, but they also risk sanitizing messy realities business failures, re-migration, enduring stigma if they are primarily oriented upwards towards funders rather than horizontally and downwards towards returnees and communities. This risk is heightened in a media landscape where migration is often reported through crisis- and event-driven frames (returns, deportations, trafficking) with high levels of sensationalism, and where returnees are frequently portrayed as “failures” and stigmatized dynamics that can pressure programs into curating “successful” narratives rather than learning from ambivalence, conflict and setback.

From a decolonial standpoint, ARRIVES 2 must also be read within the longer afterlives of coloniality that continue to organize mobility regimes, knowledge hierarchies, and the externalization of responsibility across the Germany–Nigeria corridor. Even when articulated through dignity and “sustainable reintegration”, the program risks reproducing an indicator regime in which European funders and governance architectures retain epistemic authority to define what counts as success, while Nigerian institutions and communities are positioned primarily as implementation and absorption sites rather than co-authors of criteria, narratives, and horizons. A decolonial corrective implies epistemic disobedience and border thinking: Treating returnees’ situated knowledges, moral economies, and forms of survival as primary evidence for program design and evaluation, not as curated “beneficiary stories” to service log frames and refusing the implicit framing of mobility as a problem to be corrected. In Mbembe’s terms, the blurred boundary between “voluntary” and constrained return points to a wider necropolitical distribution of risk, insecurity, and stigma across bodies and territories, where “choice” is often exercised under structurally tightened margins. The question, then, is not only whether ARRIVES improves outputs and outcomes, but whether it can redistribute voice and definitional power so that reintegration is not governed as a technocratic endpoint of externalized control, but re-imagined as a rights-bearing, plural horizon shaped with those who return.

For Nigeria–Germany cooperation on circular and return migration, ARRIVES thus offers both an example and a warning. It demonstrates the potential of more coherent reintegration corridors, informed by labor-market intelligence and joint case management, while reminding us that credible “sustainable return” cannot be reduced to increased return numbers and short-term income gains. A rights-based, development-sensitive approach would require greater honesty about structural constraints, explicit attention to decent work, safety and social inclusion, and a recognition that future legal mobility may form part of a dignified life after return rather than being framed as failure. It would also require taking seriously the politics of representation: Supporting more balanced, evidence-based narratives around migration and return (including migrants’ voices and contextual explanation), and avoiding the instrumentalization of beneficiaries’ stories especially in environments where verification remains thinner than the volume of sensational claims.

For our own professional practice, the case underscores the need to treat Theory of Change as a living, contested document; to understand indicator design as a political rather than purely technical act; and to take seriously the participation of returnees as co-interpreters rather than merely as data sources of what counts as “successful” reintegration. Ultimately, working on programs such as ARRIVES demands not only technical competence but also sustained reflexivity and humility in the face of the structural inequalities that shape the Germany–Nigeria migration nexus.

10. References

Adhikari, S. (2021) Of Roads Less Travelled: Assessing the Potential of Economic Migration to Provide Overseas Jobs for Nigeria’s Youth. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Adelakun, O.J. et al. (2025) Economic and Geopolitical Push Factors, and Migration Tendencies in Nigeria: The Intervening Role of Institutional Quality, Scientific African, 30, e02955.

Aliyu, S.U.R., Salisu, A.A. & Kale, O. (2024) Migration and Youth Unemployment in Africa: Implications for the African Continental Free Trade Area. Afreximbank Policy Research Working Paper Series No. APRPWPS/2024/10. Cairo: African Export–Import Bank.

BAMF – Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2024) Asylgeschäftsstatistik 2023 [Asylum Statistics 2023]. Nuremberg: BAMF.

BAMF Research Centre (2023) Das Leben nach der Rückkehr: Langfristige Reintegration nach der geförderten Ausreise aus Deutschland. Begleitstudie II zum Bundesprogramm StarthilfePlus (Forschungsbericht 42). Nuremberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.

BAMF/EMN – Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge / European Migration Network (2017) Migration, Integration, Asylum: Political Developments in Germany 2016. Annual Policy Report of the German National Contact Point for the European Migration Network (EMN). Nuremberg: BAMF.

Black, R. & Gent, S. (2006) Sustainable Return in Post-Conflict Contexts, International Migration, 44(3), pp. 15–38.

European Commission (2024) Nigeria and the EU: Exploring Opportunities for Youth Employment and Legal Migration. Knowledge for Policy – Migration and Demography. Brussels: European Commission.

EUAA – European Union Agency for Asylum (2025) Recognition Rates. In: Latest Asylum Trends 2025. Brussels: EUAA.

ILO – International Labour Organization (2020) Reintegrating Migrant Workers: Guide to Good Practice in Return and Reintegration. Geneva: ILO.

IOM – International Organization for Migration (2019) Reintegration Handbook: Practical Guidance on the Design, Implementation and Monitoring of Reintegration Assistance. Geneva: IOM.

IOM – International Organization for Migration (2021) Return and Reintegration Key Highlights 2020. Geneva: IOM.

IRARA (2023) ARRIVES Nigeria: Integrated Reintegration Tool and Case Management Manual. Internal program manual. Abuja: IRARA.

Kelong, N.N. (2025) The Impact of Youth Unemployment on Migration and Development in Nigeria, International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 8(5), pp. 297–322.

Koser, K. & Kuschminder, K. (2015) Comparative Research on the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration of Migrants. Geneva: International Organization for Migration.

Kuschminder, K. (2019) Return and Reintegration: A Conceptual Framework. Expertise for the German Expert Council on Integration and Migration (SVR). Berlin: SVR.

Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics. Duke University Press.

Nwoha, R.; Obiezu, E.; Nwankwo, P.; Diagboya, P.; Nouicer, M.; & Bouillon, S. (2025). Media Coverage of Migration in Nigeria: A Baseline Assessment. Report (RELAM – Reporting Labour Migration). Produced by Story Mi Academy, with support from TellThat-Story and International Returns and Reintegration Assistance (IRARA). Commissioned by GIZ – Centres for Migration and Development (GIZ-ZME). October.

OECD (2020) Sustainable Reintegration of Returning Migrants: A Better Homecoming. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2024) Return, Reintegration and Re-migration: Understanding Return Dynamics and the Role of Families and Communities. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Odermatt, E. (ed.) (2023) Return Migration and Reintegration: Discourses, Policies and Practices. London: Routledge.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Schuster, L. & Majidi, N. (2015) Deportation Stigma and Re-migration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(4), pp. 635–652.

Social Impact, IRARA, ITC & GIZ (2022) ARRIVES – Assisting the Reintegration of Returnees through Integrated Vocational and Entrepreneurship Support in Nigeria. Project Application to BAMF (Aktenzeichen 9168-2023-0342). Potsdam: Social Impact.

Social Impact (2025) ARRIVES 2: Indicator Matrix (“Indikatoren ARR2”). Internal document, Potsdam: Social Impact.

Unegbu, C.P., Ako, I.B., Onwuegbuna, G.N. & Oyedeji, O. (2025) Globalization and Drivers of Migration in Nigeria, Global Journal of Applied, Management and Social Sciences (GOJAMSS), 32.

Vathi, Z., King, R. & Kalir, B. (2023) The Shifting Geopolitics of Return Migration and Reintegration, Journal of International Migration and Integration, 24(S2), pp. 369–389.

Weiss, C.H. (1995) Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, en Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., Schorr, L.B. & Weiss, C.H. (eds.) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Wickramasekara, P. (2011) Circular Migration: A Triple Win or a Dead End? Discussion Paper No. 15. Geneva: Global Union Research Network (GURN).

1. Introduction

2. Background and Problem Analysis

2.1 Situation prior to departure and motives to emigrate/flee

2.2 Situation in the country of temporary residence (Germany) and motives to return

2.3 Situation in the country of return (Nigeria) at present

2.4 Potential impact of returning migrants

2.5 Problem definition and rationale for ARRIVES

3. Definition of Target Group(s)

3.1 Primary target group: Nigerian returnees from Germany

3.2 Indirect target groups and a systemic perspective on beneficiaries

3.3 Numbers and socio-economic characteristics

3.4 Gender and diversity dimensions

3.5 Critical and reflexive considerations on inclusion, exclusion and deservingness

4. Framework and Actors

4.1 Multi-level actor constellation

4.2 Guiding policies and global frameworks

4.3 Complementarities and tensions between actors and policies

4.4 Implications for target groups: A human-centered reading

5. Objectives

5.1 Overall goal

5.2 Underlying objectives and indicative indicators

5.3 Measuring progress: tools and ethical considerations

5.4 Objectives as vectors of change

6. Strategies and Measures

6.1 Strategy 1: Early, trusted outreach and pre-departure counseling in Germany

6.2 Strategy 2: Tailored economic reintegration through entrepreneurship and employment pathways

6.3 Strategy 3: Social anchoring, psychosocial support and community engagement

6.4 Strategy 4: Cross-border coordination, data systems and learning loops

6.5 Cross-cutting reflections on assumptions, resistance and risk

7. Monitoring and Evaluation

7.1 Overall approach and accountability relationships

7.2 Operationalizing indicators and data flows

7.3 Methods for measuring change and (limited) impact

7.4 Participation of target groups in the evaluation process

7.5 Using evaluation results: Learning, adaptation and reflexive practice

8. Logical Framework and Logic model

9. Conclusion

10. References

1 comentario en “CASE STUDY: ARRIVES (Assisting the Reintegration of Returnees through Integrated Vocational and Entrepreneurship Support in Nigeria): Cross-border Reintegration for Nigerian Returnees from Germany”

Deja un comentario Cancelar respuesta