Municipalities have increasingly adjusted their policies in order to better respond to the problematic social and economic participation of permit holders. The core elements within the chosen policies seem to consist of an early activation, combining language and professional training, and providing customization in the support of these newcomers. In this article, this policy change has been studied in the municipalities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. It becomes clear that a more successful approach only succeeds when permit holders are offered additional and tailored support. For all three municipalities, this means that more permit holders are reached by the available support measures and that local policy makers can better respond to individual needs and possibilities. In addition, these municipalities pay more attention for sustainable labour market participation. At the same time, it is evident that no rapid successes are being made with this new course. In particular, more vulnerable permit holders, including those with low levels of education and women, are not always reached by municipalities. We also see that many of these newcomers must be supported for a long time, even if after have found a place on the labour market. Therefore, evidence suggests that without additional measures there is a good chance that the perspective on social and economic participation for many permit holders in the Netherlands will be extremely limited.

In line with international and national legislation, the Netherlands offers certain services, including a temporary residence permit, to third country nationals who have fallen prey to human traffickers. Over the years, concerns have been often expressed about the perceived misuse of this regulation by foreigners who aim at legalising their stay. Based on interviews and file analysis the present article seeks to provide insight into to what extent it is possible to measure this misuse and the policy implications of the findings. In addition, the authors take into account non-use of the programme. The article confirms existing worries about misuse, provides indicators for misuse, but also concludes that at the level of individual cases practitioners cannot discern misuse from rightful use. At the same time, there are also groups that fall outside the reach of the programme. The article concludes with some policy recommendations on the basis of the findings.