Executive Summary

On April 1, 2026, the Federal Council adopted a report on the private accommodation of Ukrainian refugees. Following the outbreak of war, many Ukrainians were housed with Swiss host families. The report shows that this form of accommodation has had a positive impact on integration into Swiss everyday life as well as on social, linguistic, cultural, and professional integration. Personal contact between refugees and host families also has a beneficial effect on social acceptance. However, the financial balance remains unclear.

Persons

  • Federal Council (collective body; federal decision-makers)

Topics

  • Refugee policy
  • Private accommodation
  • Integration
  • Ukraine crisis
  • Civil society engagement

Clarus Lead

The evaluation comes at a crucial time when cantons and the federal government must decide on sustainable accommodation models for refugees. The report legitimizes a model that not only improves integration outcomes but also strengthens social cohesion – a political argument that goes beyond mere efficiency questions. The Federal Council explicitly invites cantons to establish private accommodation as a complementary offering, but also signals limits: financial viability remains unclear, and expansion to other refugee groups depends on factors such as housing availability.

Detailed Summary

The evaluation is based on a motion by the National Council (23.3203) and systematically examines the effects of private host family accommodation, which emerged during the initial phase of Ukrainian refugee movements. The report documents that this form of accommodation has concretely helped refugees cope with Swiss everyday life – a finding that goes beyond abstract integration goals and aims at practical life management.

When measuring integration, a differentiated picture emerges: while positive trends were identified in the areas of social, linguistic, cultural, and professional integration, the report emphasizes that these could not be conclusively proven. This points to methodological limitations of the evaluation and leaves room for further research. A central added value lies in the social dimension: personal contact between refugees and Swiss host families is interpreted as a catalyst for social acceptance and cohesion – an effect that transcends individual integration outcomes.

The economic balance remains open. The report contrasts savings from faster labor market integration against considerable costs for recruiting and supporting host families, without drawing a clear conclusion. This ambiguity is politically relevant because it gives cantons room for decision-making but also creates uncertainty about scalability.

The report opens a perspective on expansion: private accommodation could also work for recognized refugees and provisionally admitted persons. Host families show basic willingness, but actual participation depends on structural factors such as housing availability – an indication that volunteer engagement is not infinitely scalable.

Key Findings

  • Private accommodation of Ukrainian refugees with Swiss host families has had a positive impact on integration and social cohesion
  • Positive effects are evident in social, linguistic, cultural, and professional integration, but are not conclusively proven
  • Financial viability for the public sector remains unclear; costs for host family support are substantial
  • Federal Council invites cantons to establish private accommodation as a complementary model, particularly for extraordinary situations
  • Expansion to other refugee groups is possible in principle but depends on structural prerequisites

Critical Questions

  1. Data Quality of Evaluation Results: The report mentions that positive integration effects were identified but not conclusively proven. What methodological limitations led to this ambiguity, and how robust are the documented trends actually?

  2. Comparability and Control Groups: Were refugees in private accommodation systematically compared with those in institutional facilities, or is the evaluation based only on self-reports from host families?

  3. Conflicts of Interest Among Volunteers: Host families have an interest in presenting their accommodation positively. Were independent indicators (e.g., labor market integration, language proficiency tests) used for validation?

  4. Overall Financial Balance: The report leaves the economic balance open. Which costs were included, and were opportunity costs (e.g., foregone institutional accommodation) calculated?

  5. Scaling Limits: The report suggests that housing availability is a limiting factor. In how many households in Switzerland would private accommodation even be possible?

  6. Model Sustainability: Are host families willing to accommodate refugees long-term, or is this a time-limited emergency solution?

  7. Transferability to Other Refugee Groups: What differences between Ukrainian refugees and other groups could affect the model's transferability?

  8. Social Cohesion – Measurement and Causality: How was the positive effect on social cohesion measured, and can causality between host family contact and increased acceptance be demonstrated?

Bibliography

Primary Source: Federal Council – Report on the Evaluation of Private Accommodation of Refugees from Ukraine (01.04.2026) https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/06uaHOIkFcNkkgUt5vGn9

References:

  • Motion National Council 23.3203

Verification Status: ✓ 01.04.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 01.04.2026