(IRELAND) Ireland spent a record €1.2 billion in 2025 on housing and basic supports for people Seeker Accommodation“>seeking asylum, a bill driven by long stays in emergency settings and heavy use of private providers. For applicants, the same figure translates into day-to-day realities: where you sleep, how long you wait, and how stable life feels while your case moves.
This guide explains what the Irish International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) spending covers, why costs stay high even when new applications fall, and what government targets on faster decisions aim to change. It also walks through the main stages an applicant typically experiences, what authorities do at each point, and what families and communities feel on the ground.
What IPAS is, and what “accommodation and supports” usually mean
IPAS sits within Ireland’s reception system for international protection applicants. it is the State’s way of providing a bed and basic living supports while a person’s protection claim is examined under Irish and EU rules.
When officials speak about “accommodation and support services,” they are generally referring to a package that includes the accommodation itself and the contracted services that keep a centre running. That often means meals or catering arrangements, cleaning, security, transport arrangements in some locations, and site management. It can also include basic supports tied to running reception sites, rather than broader integration spending.
The headline figure matters because it signals how stretched the reception system has become, and how quickly costs rise when the Asylum Seeker and Ukrainian Housing Early 2025″>State relies on short-notice options like hotels. A hotel-heavy model tends to lock government into higher nightly rates and tighter terms. It also makes planning difficult for schools, health services, and local councils.
At the same time, it’s important to keep the figure in scope. It is about reception accommodation for protection applicants through IPAS, not every public cost linked to migration, and not a complete picture of housing pressures across Ireland’s private rental market.
What Irish officials said, and what they meant by “unsustainable”
Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan framed Ireland’s position as both a legal duty and a system under strain. On February 1, 2026, he said: “Providing reception conditions to people who are applying for international protection is part of EU and Irish law. [however] the current model is unsustainable.”
In practice, “unsustainable” is a warning about the way the system currently operates, not a denial of legal obligations. It points to three connected pressures: the price of emergency procurement, the lack of State-owned capacity, and the length of time people remain in accommodation while their cases are decided.
The Department of Justice Secretary General, Oonagh McPhillips, focused on cost control and contract management. Speaking on October 23, 2025, she said: “The total expected expenditure on IPAS for 2025 will be €1.2bn, an increase on the just under €1.1bn spent last year. We’re certainly getting better value now in the renegotiation of those contracts, and we’re exiting them if we’re not happy.”
Renegotiating contracts usually means pushing for lower per-night rates, tightening terms, and adjusting assumptions about occupancy. Exiting a contract can mean moving people to other sites, which is disruptive, but it also signals the State is trying to regain bargaining power in a tight market.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security statements that circulated in the same period use a different frame: enforcement and removal costs, and deterrence messaging. They are useful as context for how another country talks about migration spending, but they are not a direct match to Ireland’s reception-accommodation bill.
In the United States 🇺🇸, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said on December 22, 2025 that people who do not take temporary incentives would be “found,” “arrested” and “never return”. Ireland’s IPAS debate, by contrast, centres on reception capacity, procurement, and processing speed, rather than a detention-led model.
The main cost drivers in 2025, explained in everyday terms
The simplest way to understand IPAS spending is to break it into three parts: the price per bed per night, how many beds are filled, and how many nights people stay. When any one of those rises, annual spending rises. When all three rise together, the total jumps quickly.
A portfolio that relies on hotels tends to push up the unit price. Hotels are designed for short stays, and they price rooms around tourism demand, staffing costs, and commercial risk. Even when the State negotiates, it is still buying in a market where supply is limited and alternatives are scarce.
Another driver is “stock versus flow.” Even if fewer new people apply in a given year, costs stay high when people already in the system remain there for long periods. Ireland recorded a drop in new asylum applications in 2025, falling from 18,500 in 2024 to 13,160 in 2025, a decline of 29-30%. That drop helps at the front door. It does not cut costs quickly if the average stay remains long.
A nationality breakdown also offers a snapshot of who is applying, not a full explanation of why costs rise. In 2025, the top four nationalities recorded were Somalia (2,021), Nigeria (1,940), Pakistan (1,680), and Afghanistan (1,290). These figures help agencies plan language supports and casework capacity. They do not, on their own, explain hotel reliance or processing delays.
For context only, the U.S. DHS described the average cost to arrest, detain, and remove an undocumented migrant as about $17,000 per person by mid-2025. That number sits in an enforcement system with detention capacity, court backlogs, and removal logistics, which differs from Ireland’s reception model.
The applicant journey through IPAS accommodation and the protection process
People experience the system as a sequence of waiting periods, moves, and appointments, not as a single “process.” The stages below describe what typically happens in practice, and why time matters so much to both cost and wellbeing.
Stage 1: Arrival, application, and first placement (first days to weeks)
After a person seeks international protection, authorities register the claim and arrange initial reception. The immediate priority is safety and a place to sleep. Early placements can be temporary, especially when demand is high.
Applicants often have limited control over location at this stage. Placement depends on capacity across the country, the type of available bed, and whether a site can take families. This is where a hotel placement may happen, particularly during surges or shortages.
What applicants usually do in this stage is respond to requests for basic information and attend initial appointments. For families, the pressure point is schooling and routine. For single adults, it is often transport access and medical care.
Stage 2: Living in reception while the case moves (months, often longer)
Once placed, applicants live under house rules that vary by site. The accommodation is meant to be temporary, but long waits turn “temporary” into a way of life. Stability depends on whether a person is moved, and how predictable services are where they live.
Long stays affect almost every life decision. Parents struggle to plan school placements. People with health needs face delays when transport is limited. Adults trying to prepare a claim may find it hard to gather documents or legal help from remote locations.
This stage also drives the public bill. A bed that stays occupied for months carries cumulative cost, even if nightly rates stay flat. When nightly rates are high, the cumulative effect becomes severe.
Stage 3: Interviews, evidence, and decisions (targeted reform area)
Ireland’s policy goal is to shorten how long claims take, because the biggest cost lever is time spent in accommodation. The government has set a target to cut average processing times from 24 months to 6 months by mid-2026. That target is meant to reduce the length of time people spend in reception, and to limit the use of emergency sites.
In practice, a faster timetable means more decision capacity: more caseworkers, more interviews completed on time, and fewer delays from scheduling gaps. It also requires consistent quality, because rushed decisions can lead to appeals and rework.
A shorter process changes daily life too. People can plan sooner, whether that means preparing to integrate after a positive decision or preparing for return options after a refusal, within the legal framework.
Stage 4: After a decision—moving out of IPAS (weeks to months)
A decision is not the end of the housing problem. People granted a status still need somewhere to live, and Ireland’s wider housing shortage makes exits difficult. Delayed move-on keeps reception beds full, which forces IPAS to keep buying expensive emergency capacity.
For people refused protection, legal steps may follow, including appeals where available. During that time, accommodation can continue. The longer those steps take, the longer beds remain occupied, and the harder it is for IPAS to reduce reliance on hotels.
This is why officials link sustainability to the whole chain. Faster decisions help, but move-on options and housing supply still shape how quickly beds free up.
Procurement, private providers, and why the State has limited pricing power
More than 90% of Ireland’s 2025 IPAS spending went to private commercial providers, primarily hotels. This structure matters because it shapes bargaining power. When government is a large buyer but has few alternatives, suppliers can command higher rates.
Procurement constraints also matter. The State cannot simply build or open facilities overnight. Even when a site is identified, it needs planning, staffing, and local service coordination. In the meantime, emergency placements fill the gap, and emergency placements are expensive.
Policy has therefore shifted toward building predictable capacity. Ireland is transitioning toward “State-owned and operated IPAS accommodation,” with a goal to house 14,000 people in such facilities by 2028. The logic is straightforward: state-owned capacity improves planning, reduces exposure to peak hotel pricing, and creates more consistent standards.
This does not remove controversy. Communities often worry about rapid site openings, pressure on local services, and lack of consultation. Applicants worry about remote locations and isolation. Those concerns coexist with the fiscal reality that the current model carries high and volatile costs.
For readers tracking U.S. policy references that circulate online, it helps to separate systems. U.S. legislation like the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1) and enforcement-focused spending shifts primarily affect border and interior enforcement, including detention infrastructure. That is not the same category as reception accommodation under IPAS, even when both are described as “migration costs.”
What the spending means for applicants and for host communities
High spending does not automatically mean high quality. In emergency accommodation, families often live in one room with limited cooking facilities and little privacy. That environment becomes harder as months pass. Children may face longer commutes, irregular study space, and frequent moves that disrupt schooling.
Ireland reported an average stay of 24.8 months in emergency accommodation. That length of time shapes mental health, family stability, and a person’s ability to prepare their legal case. It also raises tensions inside centres, because long waits can create frustration and conflict.
Communities feel the impact in different ways. When hotels are used for reception, local tourism capacity changes overnight. Local housing markets can tighten further if staff housing and services become strained. Schools and clinics may see sudden demand increases, especially in smaller towns.
None of this is uniform. Some areas absorb changes smoothly, with clear communication and strong local coordination. Others face sharper friction, especially when site openings are sudden or when local services were already stretched.
Separate from IPAS, Ireland has also relied on the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme, which encourages households to host people displaced from Ukraine. In 2025, €187 million was paid to 17,500 hosts accommodating 42,000 people, largely Ukrainians. Schemes like ARP aim to create capacity fast, spread arrivals across communities, and reduce pressure on hotels.
It is important not to merge categories. ARP mostly relates to temporary protection for Ukrainians, while IPAS covers international protection applicants. The budgets can sit near each other in public debate, but the legal routes and practical needs differ.
U.S. “voluntary departure” and “self-deportation” references also sit in a different policy space. DHS described a framework offering a $3,000 stipend and free airfare for those departing by the end of 2025, and it reported that over 1.9 million people used voluntary self-deportation programs in 2025. Those claims are about U.S. enforcement choices, not a template for Ireland’s reception model.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, public debates about asylum costs often miss the main driver: the number of nights people remain in accommodation, not only the number of new arrivals.
Where to check official figures, and how to read them responsibly
For Irish figures and official statements, the starting point is the Department of Justice website at Ireland’s Department of Justice. Department publications and appearances before committees are where spending expectations, contract strategies, and policy targets are most often set out.
A second key source is the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which publishes materials on integration supports and related accommodation measures. Its official site is Ireland’s DCEDIY. When public discussion mixes IPAS costs with other integration measures, checking which department is responsible helps keep categories straight.
For U.S. context, DHS provides budget summaries and documents through its own portal. The core reference point is the U.S. DHS FY 2025 Budget in Brief. Budget documents change by fiscal year and by version, so dates and document headers matter.
U.S. congressional bill pages also provide authoritative text for appropriations and related measures. One example referenced in public discussion is the House Appropriations bill page at U.S. House Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 8752). Reading the bill page alongside agency summaries helps separate enacted funding from proposals.
When verifying numbers, focus on three checks. First, confirm the publication date, because spending figures can be estimates before final outturn. Second, confirm the year, because Ireland’s calendar-year reporting differs from U.S. fiscal-year budgets. Third, confirm what the figure includes, because “accommodation and supports” does not always include the same line items across documents.
Finally, be careful with comparisons across countries. Ireland’s IPAS spending measures reception accommodation and related contracted supports for protection applicants. U.S. DHS figures often describe enforcement, detention, and removal activity. Both involve public money, but they describe different systems with different legal duties and different cost drivers.
