Migrant centres should be established upon request of hosting Governments, pursuant to national migration management strategy, part of existing government systems and processes. State authorities shall therefore have the lead in the implementation of migrant centres programmes, while IOM shall ensure its support in the provision of protection and assistance. In cases where direct government management is not possible, an handover strategy shall be envisioned in the longer term. 

Depending on the context and on the level of engagement of central governments and local authorities, four models for the management of migrant centres may be foreseen:

In this model, centres are set up by IOM and eventually transferred to state authorities after these have progressively engaged in the management of the premises through the deployment of caseworkers and/or through trainings and capacity building initiatives. The advantage of this model is that this structure can be set up relatively fast and in full compliance with international standards of assistance and minimum requirements. However, since this model does not ensure high levels of ownership by state authorities, the handover to state authorities may be difficult to implement.

In this model, centres are not managed directly by IOM but fully or partially run through IPs, i.e. a non-profit organisation with inherent capabilities that allow IOM to be more effective and efficient in fulfilling its mandate. This model may be chosen because of programmatic or security reasons. Implementing partners shall be selected through IOM standard procurement procedures and detailed terms of reference shall define the scope of the facilities, the minimum standards they shall respect as well as confidentiality/data protection clauses. For further information, please consult these entries. Depending on their level of engagement, national authorities may take part in the selection of the IPs through a steering committee. This model may relieve IOM of daily facilities management task and it can be fully budgeted under operational costs. Challenges related to this model include time consuming internal administrative and financial procedures for the selection and monitoring of the IPs, as well risks related to government engagement which may impact the sustainability of IPs’ interventions beyond IOM’s support.

Government-managed centres are embedded within government structures since the beginning of the interventions (see also this entry). Depending on the context, IOM’s role can be twofold. If national authorities are technically and financially able to run the facilities, IOM may provide complementary services to improve the quality of assistance and to ensure compliance with international standards. Another option is that a facility is run by a governmental agency with IOM financial and technical support. In order to be sustainable, this model implies a strong ownership and engagement by state authorities, which shall include the facility in its national/regional budgeting and planning. In this model, quality control, budgetary allocations, transparency and cost-efficiency may be difficult to monitor for IOM. In this model, governments shall ensure the financial sustainability of the centre, including its human resources. Nevertheless,  if the coverage of government staff salary is foreseen in deviation of Internal Instruction (IN) 92 on the Policy on Non-payment of Bonuses to Government Officials when IOM and governments are jointly implementing capacity building or other projects, clearance shall be granted by both IOM Legal Department (LEG) and the donor entity supporting the activities (see also this entry).