Research and analysis

VPRS and VCRS Qualitative Evaluation – Year 1 Report

Published 30 March 2023

Authors: Isabella Pereira, Charlotte Peel, Kimberley Rennick, Andrew McKeown and Lauren Porter (Ipsos)

Acknowledgements

The authors of this report are Isabella Pereira, Charlotte Peel, Andrew McKeown, Lauren Porter and Kimberley Rennick. All are researchers in Ipsos’s Social Research Institute.

Zara Regan, Ilya Cereso, Ed Allen, Lauren Elliot, Galini Pantelidou and Sally Abernethy, also Ipsos researchers, conducted fieldwork for the study alongside the core team. We are grateful to wider colleagues at Ipsos who have helped with the research including Kully Kaur-Ballagan, our research partners Heaven Crawley and Lisa Payne, and not least, to all the research participants, local authorities and community sponsorship groups who collaborated with us on this study.

The authors also acknowledge the invaluable support and advice of analysts in Home Office Analysis and Insight and policy officials in the Refugee Resettlement and Integration Unit in the development of this research programme and report.

This work was part-funded by the European Union’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they necessarily reflect government policy).

Executive Summary

Background

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos to evaluate the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS). VPRS resettles the most vulnerable refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict; and VCRS resettles vulnerable children and their families from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Local authorities offering placements for resettled refugees are responsible for their support and receive per capita funds to aid their integration during their first five years in the UK. The UK central government has set out the responsibilities of local authorities for the initial 12-month period of VPRS/VCRS in a Statement of Outcomes (Home Office et al., 2018).

In response to an increase in public interest in responding to the needs of refugees, the Home Office launched a community sponsorship scheme in July 2016. This community-based resettlement model enables community groups to directly welcome and support resettled refugees through VPRS/VCRS.

Research aims and methodology

This report summarises findings from the first year of a 3-year qualitative evaluation and explores the following overarching research questions:

• how are local authorities and community sponsors delivering the schemes?
• do the pre-departure and post-arrival activities meet their objectives, and the needs of refugees and communities?
• what local contextual or other factors influence the outcome of the schemes?

Ipsos conducted the research in 2018 using the following methods:

• interviews with 25 key stakeholders from central government, the third sector and the local government
• a survey of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, the Northern Ireland Executive (NIE) and community sponsors (150 responses)
• online forms with 15 refugee caseworkers
• qualitative case study research in 5 local authority areas across the UK (including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)^{[footnote 1]} and 2 community sponsorship groups; research included telephone and face-to-face interviews with 34 stakeholders, 31 research encounters (face-to-face interviews and focus groups) with resettled refugees, and 7 focus groups with the public

The research also drew on existing literature on resettlement and refugee integration, including the Home Office’s Indicators of Integration framework (Ager and Strang, 2004), as well as previously unpublished Home Office monitoring data collected from local authorities and community sponsorship groups, relating to a range of early integration outcomes for VPRS/VCRS refugees.

Key findings

Local governance and coordination

Overall, engagement and partnership working within local authorities was well developed. Most local authorities held regular strategic and operational group meetings on refugee resettlement, attended by key stakeholders. Resettlement leads drew on existing statutory and third sector relationships and building new relationships to deliver support to refugees. Benefits of partnership working included: facilitating shared learning and good practice; promoting understanding of rights and entitlements of resettled refugees; and avoiding gaps in support.

However, coordination was less developed in some local authorities, leading to less effective delivery of support. This manifested as a lack of clarity around partner responsibilities, inflexible regional approaches failing to take local variation into account, and confusion among refugees and delivery partners about which organisation would provide support.

Overall, strong partnership working was a key factor in successful delivery. Local authorities that were effectively delivering support provided a flexible model of support responsive to individual and household needs. This drew on the diverse expertise of partners, supported by central coordination by the local authority.

Pre-departure activities

Stakeholders reported that accurate, clear and detailed pre-departure information needed to be shared with local authorities, delivery partners and refugees. This was considered vital to ensuring a smooth process for refugees on arrival in the UK. Local authorities and stakeholders reported that the quality of information shared with local authorities and refugees was largely improving, in part through incorporating video or tele-conferencing interviews with refugees before departure to the UK.

Refugees were typically satisfied with the information they had received pre-departure, including through cultural orientation and from pre-departure partners (International Organization for Migration (IOM) / the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Home Office). They valued specific information about housing and the local area, routes to employment and learning English, and the school system.

Stakeholders noted that providing clear and accurate information to refugees was important for managing their expectations. Expectations about life after resettlement varied widely but were commonly shaped by information received through both formal channels and informal networks. On arrival, refugees did not understand the low likelihood of family reunification in the UK, particularly for non-dependent family members.

Housing and locality

Housing acquisition was a key challenge for many local authorities. Acquisition of suitable housing for resettled refugees was constrained by a range of factors, including low housing stock (a national issue), the perceived views of other local residents, the long-term affordability and availability of housing, and the appropriateness of the local area and housing.

Local authority survey respondents and stakeholders largely viewed the housing provided as appropriate and meeting the needs of refugees. Similarly, refugees were typically satisfied with their housing and felt safe in their local area (with some variation in satisfaction with housing quality, support received and local services). Stakeholders noted that managing refugee expectations required clear communication with refugees both pre-departure from IOM and the Home Office, and immediately post-arrival from caseworkers and local authority housing staff. Key facilitators to providing effective and tailored housing support and information were local authority in-house expertise in housing refugees and effective partnerships with housing providers.

Support to refugees from caseworkers

Caseworker support was a key facilitator of refugee integration. Local authorities provided refugees with caseworkers to aid their immediate orientation and longer-term integration. The support that local authorities provided in the early weeks following arrival was considered particularly important and viewed positively by stakeholders and refugees. Across the local authority case studies, support differed in terms of intensity (initially and over time), duration, and how other services and organisations were engaged. Local authorities typically linked the type of support to the specific needs of individual refugees, such as support to access physical or mental healthcare and volunteering or employment opportunities.

One evidently successful approach was the offer of more intensive and sustained caseworker support during the first few months, combined with linking refugees to additional support from other community organisations and services. Creating links to community organisations enabled refugees to build a support network and access further support, especially once caseworker support was reduced. Good practice in stepping-down support included ensuring clarity from the outset about how long support was likely to last and what refugees could expect as it came to the end, and offering flexibility as to when step-down would start, taking into account the needs of individual refugees. Communication was key; refugees who understood what support they would receive were generally more positive about their experiences.

Education and training

Local authority stakeholders felt that the registration of children in statutory education was working well, with high attendance rates across the UK. The level of support provided to help children integrate in school varied widely, and largely depended on the school or individual teachers. There was usually little direct involvement from local authority staff, though in some cases, local authority education teams and/or caseworkers provided additional support to schools, or directly to children and their families.

Good practice to support children’s integration in school included dedicated English as an Additional Language (EAL) resources and a ‘whole school’ approach to creating a welcoming environment, for example through the Schools of Sanctuary programme. After-school and extra-curricular activities helped refugee children to adjust, make friends and practice speaking English. Refugees and caseworkers raised concerns about resettled children being bullied by other pupils in school. In some cases, caseworkers felt that school staff were not adequately trained to recognise and deal with bullying related to a child’s refugee status, religion, or nationality. Caseworkers and refugee parents welcomed staff taking action against bullying early and communicating with families about the steps being taken.

Refugees also welcomed tailored approaches to providing support to older children and young adult refugees, including language support to access qualifications, or local authorities partnering with further education (FE) and higher education (HE) providers to arrange open days for refugees. Many older teenage children and young adult refugees interviewed felt frustrated and confused with a perceived lack of additional support to access education or training, reporting that they did not understand the options available to them.

Acquisition of English Language

Refugees believed strongly in the importance and value of learning English and were acutely aware of the difficulties created by lack of English language acquisition, as were their caseworkers. These difficulties were a key barrier to refugees gaining independence and successfully settling into their new lives. Some refugees said they would like to receive intensive English language provision on arrival in the UK, citing the experiences of refugees in other countries with intensive provision. However, there were challenges in providing suitable formal ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) tuition for those with low levels of literacy or little experience of formal learning environments. Additional barriers to learning included experiences of trauma and distress, older age and health issues, and childcare responsibilities. According to stakeholders and caseworkers, additional funding for childcare during ESOL classes was a useful resource to address barriers for parents.

The provision of ESOL and other English language support in case study areas were variable. Challenges arose due to oversubscription of courses in urban areas and a lack of existing infrastructure in rural areas (including classes and qualified ESOL teachers). Refugees valued English language teaching that prioritised everyday vocabulary to aid integration, and which was targeted and relevant to learners’ expectations and priorities (such as, finding employment or education aspirations). They also valued services that were tailored to their individual needs, taking into account issues such as, health, childcare responsibilities, and age. Refugees were also positive about less formal community-based and volunteer-led language learning initiatives, particularly to supplement formal ESOL provision. As refugees wanted more opportunities to speak English outside of the classroom, these initiatives were seen as an important resource for providing additional English language practice.

Benefits and employment

Positive relationships and good communication between local authority staff, caseworkers, and statutory welfare and employment support services were reported as vital to facilitating access to welfare support shortly after arrival. Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff who understood refugee needs and entitlements and responded flexibly to refugees were an important resource and source of support to resettled households. There was evidence, however, that frontline JCP staff had on occasion initially not accepted evidence or misinterpreted refugee entitlements, causing delays or inaccurate benefits assessments. Refugees’ understanding of welfare processes and entitlements varied considerably – some had a basic understanding, but others reported confusion. Caseworkers therefore considered that it was useful for caseworkers or JCP staff to run information sessions on managing finances and the benefits process. A lack of interpreter support at some JCP appointments was highlighted as a key barrier to refugees accessing benefits or understanding entitlements and processes.

Motivation to find paid work was generally high among refugees, who were typically keen to use their previous experiences and to build a self-supporting life in the UK. Local authorities said that helping refugees find employment was the most challenging area of support provision. This was due to a lack of tailored provision, as well as individual barriers outlined below. While stakeholders and caseworkers recognised employment as crucial to integration for many refugees, they often viewed it as a longer-term goal. However, caseworkers and stakeholders felt considering routes to employment from an early stage could produce positive outcomes. Examples included caseworkers incorporating employment into the support plan when families first arrived in the UK and resettled families seeing it as a part of the overall ‘journey’ to integration.

Barriers to employment included a lack of required English language ability, an inability to transfer previous skills or qualifications, and a lack of resources to set up businesses for those that wished to do so. A barrier highlighted by refugees in some rural areas was being unable to drive due to barriers to converting international driving licenses. This includes the requirement to undertake theory and practical tests in English to convert some foreign driving licences, and interpreters not being allowed (except in Northern Ireland). Key enablers on the journey to employment included third-sector expertise, employment-focused ESOL opportunities and language support to help refugees acquire qualifications.

Health and social care

Health and social care were primarily provided through statutory provision. Local authority staff said that sharing up-to-date and accurate information about health needs pre-arrival was vital to ensuring a smooth registration process with services once refugees arrived. On the whole, refugees were accessing the health and social care they required and felt supported to do so, although refugees’ understanding of the health system and levels of caseworker support varied.

Caseworkers saw facilitating access to health services as a key part of their role, including attending initial appointments with refugees and using Personal Independence Plans (PIPs) to facilitate trust and communication with refugees about their needs. Caseworkers also advocated on behalf of refugees to help them access services; for example, where health service providers were unaware of or disregarded the duty to provide interpreters. Unsurprisingly, in areas where caseworker support was sustained over multiple appointments, refugees appeared more confident and satisfied with their experience and more understanding of primary healthcare. A lack of interpreters was the main barrier to refugees accessing services. Issues with telephone interpreters also emerged, including on occasion a lack of adequate training to handle medical issues appropriately.

Examples of good practice included Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Public Health Boards (PHBs) commissioning refugee-specific services, or local third-sector organisations providing tailored support, particularly around mental health support and accessible services.

Social bridges and bonds

Positive social interactions between refugees and the wider community were reportedly an important foundation for longer-term integration, facilitating English language learning and fostering positive relationships. There were many examples of refugees building positive relationships with neighbours or other parents in schools, leading to more positive broader experiences of life in the UK. Where such relationships had not developed, refugees reported that they would value them. Developing positive relationships with other refugees also helped resettled families feel more comfortable and secure and, in some cases, integrate and forge links with the wider community. Local authorities facilitated community engagement activities through both formal and informal channels, either through funding internal roles or commissioning third-sector partners. Some areas relied on volunteer community groups. Where the involvement of refugees with social integration opportunities was organised formally and supported by the local authority, this helped ensure that refugees were aware of and attended activities relevant to their needs. The involvement of volunteer community groups was an important resource to supplement this provision and provide additional opportunities. This appeared to work particularly well when facilitated and coordinated with input from the local authority or at a district level.

Supporting refugees into volunteering and involvement in free activities (such as at local libraries) played a significant role in fostering engagement with their communities and a sense of attachment to the local area. Lack of English language was widely felt to be the key barrier to social integration, limiting refugees’ confidence and ability to interact with the wider community. Incidents of harassment and hate crime, while believed to be rare, were reported by a few of the refugees interviewed for this research. It is possible that hate crime incidents were under-reported, acknowledged as a wider issue (Zayed, 2019).

Funding and value for money

Overall, stakeholders and local authority staff felt that VPRS/VCRS funding was adequate and generally made available on time. Local authorities acknowledged that VPRS/VCRS funding was higher than for other UK resettlement programmes. Local authorities had used the funds flexibly to meet the needs of refugees in their area. Choices were being made at a local authority level and related to the local context. However, there was evidence of under use of additional funding available, particularly in the areas of health, ESOL and education. In-kind support from charities and volunteers was an important additional resource, particularly for community integration activities.

Community sponsorship

Evidence suggests that community sponsorship provides a holistic and flexible approach to supporting resettled refugees. The 2 community sponsorship groups included as case studies both provided comprehensive support through formal and informal structures. The barriers encountered in community sponsorship areas aligned strongly with those in the local authority case studies. However, the more significant role of committed volunteers in the community sponsorship model, and the smaller scale of the operation, meant that community sponsors could work flexibly to overcome barriers, drawing on the support and expertise of their diverse members and the wider community.

Given the intensive and sustained nature of support offered by community sponsorship groups, ensuring a balance between supporting refugees and engendering independence was a key challenge. Community sponsors typically provided resettled families with face-to-face, often daily, support during their first months in the UK, and volunteers often formed close relationships with family members. Community group members flagged the need to ensure that support reduced over time and that this was clearly communicated to the family. Community sponsorship represents value for money in that funds are raised through community donations and most groups have received in-kind support as the skills and time of group members, and donations of items (for example, clothes and toys).

1. Introduction

1.1 Policy Background

The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS) are 2 of the 4 UK resettlement schemes. The other 2 are Gateway and Mandate (Home Office, 2018a). VPRS and VCRS aim to offer a safe and legal route to the UK for the most vulnerable refugees. The schemes purposefully target those considered to be in greatest need of assistance including, but not limited to, people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk. The Home Office works with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to identify those who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK. The resettlement schemes are not selective based on employability or integration potential. The approach is to take refugees directly from non-European countries where resettlement may be the only durable solution, often from the region bordering countries with conflicts. In this way, the schemes aim to provide refugees with a more direct, safe route to the UK.

The VPRS aimed to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict by 2020. The VCRS aimed to resettle up to 3,000 vulnerable children and their families from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. To increase the capacity to receive refugees under the VPRS/VCRS, and in response to an increase in public interest in helping Syrian and other refugees, the Home Office launched a community sponsorship scheme in 2016. This community-based resettlement model enables groups to directly welcome and support resettled refugees through the VPRS/VCRS. By the end of 2018, the schemes had resettled 15,633 people (14,945 under the VPRS and 688 under the VCRS). Of these, 219 were resettled through the community sponsorship scheme (Home Office, 2019a).

1.2 Delivery of the schemes

The VPRS was launched in January 2014 and was delivered by a cross government programme comprising the Home Office, the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Following consultations with local authorities, UNHCR, other international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the VCRS was announced in April 2016 and delivered in broadly the same way. In late 2018, DfID (now FCDO) ceased to have joint management responsibilities for the scheme but continues to help those most acutely in need by supporting the UN, NGOs and other partners to deliver life-saving assistance, including those who are internally displaced and those who live in hard-to-reach areas.

The schemes enable local authorities to sign up to accept refugees on a voluntary basis. Local authorities are asked to consider whether they have the adequate infrastructure and support networks needed to ensure the appropriate care and integration of refugees, and then inform the Home Office how many individuals they believe they can resettle.

Home Office staff work closely with UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to process cases for resettlement. UNHCR conducts refugee status determination and refers refugees for resettlement in the UK. The Home Office then conducts security checks. Before departure, IOM conducts medical checks and cultural orientation sessions.

Home Office staff conduct a pre-departure interview with refugees, via telephone or video-link, so that staff can ask refugees for additional information not recorded by IOM/UNHCR, and so that refugees can ask questions about the resettlement process. Local authorities can provide refugees with tailored written information about the local area they will move to.

Local authorities receive per capita ‘tariff’ funding to aid the integration of refugees resettled in their area during their first 5 years in the UK. The UK central government has set out the responsibilities of local authorities for the initial 12-month period following resettlement in the funding instructions and Statement of Outcomes (Home Office et al., 2018). During the first year following resettlement, the local authority meets the family at the airport, provides furnished accommodation with utilities installed and operational, arranges a local orientation, provides ongoing practical support from caseworkers, and supplies a cash/clothing allowance for refugees until benefits and other support is in place. Funding for exceptional costs based on individual needs is also available for local authorities^{[footnote 2]}. The amount of tariff funding reduces with each year the family is in the UK. The required use of funding in years 2 to 5 is more flexible.

Community sponsorship groups have, to date, resettled one family at a time, and some have then resettled a second family. Community sponsorship groups provide integration support to resettled refugees for one year and housing for 2 years (HM Government, 2018). Groups must either be a registered charity, an individual or body falling within section 10(2)(a) of the Charities Act 2011, or a Community Interest Company registered with Companies House. Community sponsorship groups must show evidence of a minimum of £9,000 available for support and create a plan, submitted to the Home Office for approval, of how they intend to provide support in accordance with a statement of requirements. They must also obtain consent from the local authority, demonstrate robust safeguarding processes and complete training before sponsoring a family.

1.3 Evaluation of the schemes

This qualitative process evaluation aims to examine the delivery of the VPRS/VCRS and consider how, and to what extent, the intended objectives of the schemes are being realised. The evaluation also aims to provide insight around how resources have been used and, as the evaluation progresses, evidence of good practice which can inform further development and improvement of the schemes and their delivery.

To meet these objectives, the evaluation seeks to answer the following overarching research questions:

• in which different ways are local authorities and community sponsors delivering the schemes?
• do the pre-departure and post-arrival activities meet their objectives, and the needs of refugees and communities?
• what local contextual or other factors are influencing the outcomes of the schemes?

This report is based on analysis of the evidence collected during the first year of the evaluation (October 2017 to November 2018). This evidence includes:

• a process and impact framework for the study based on familiarisation interviews and a review of existing literature on resettlement and refugee integration, including the Home Office’s Indicators of Integration framework
• 25 interviews with key stakeholders conducted in January to February 2018, including central government, third sector and local government stakeholders
• a survey of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, the Northern Ireland Executive (NIE) and community sponsors conducted in April to May 2018 (150 responses: 72% response rate)
• online forums with 15 refugee caseworkers, conducted in June and July 2018
• qualitative case study research in 5 local authority areas across the UK and with 2 community sponsorship groups, conducted September to November 2018. Research included telephone and face-to-face interviews with 34 stakeholders, face-to-face interviews and focus groups with 117 resettled refugees, and focus groups with 56 members of the public

The Home Office collects monitoring data from local authorities and community sponsors on integration outcomes for refugees in their first 3 to 15 months in the UK. The ‘monitoring data’ referred to in this report was collected in Spring 2018 and relates to 4,951 refugees who arrived during 2017. The analysis excludes cases with missing data; however, where data are missing for more than 10% of cases for a particular outcome, this is footnoted in the report. While it is assumed that data are missing at random, there is greater uncertainty around outcomes with higher levels of missing data, and these should be treated with caution.

The survey of local authorities aimed to explore approaches to service delivery across participating local authorities (see Appendix B). In the qualitative research, while slightly different techniques were used according to the audience and type of research encounter, all research materials covered similar key topics, reflecting the relevant areas of the process and impact frameworks. These frameworks were developed at the start of the evaluation and the report also draws upon key questions that emerged as the research progressed, which are incorporated into the relevant chapters. For more information on the methodology, see Appendix A.

2. Local governance and coordination

2.1 Programme governance

How are the schemes structured in local authorities?

According to the local authority survey, the most common departments for running the scheme were housing (25%), community safety/safer neighbourhood teams (12%) or adult social care/children’s services (10%). This may reflect internal local authority priorities in delivering the scheme. One local authority placed the resettlement coordinator in the housing team on the belief that the ability to source suitable housing was the most important factor in deciding how many refugees they could accept through VPRS/VCRS.

Half of local authorities surveyed were partnering with other local authorities nearby to coordinate delivery of the scheme. This was most common in England. In some cases, local authorities moved to a regional model once more local authorities joined the scheme so to increase cost effectiveness and consistency of support. Many survey respondents highlighted local authority partnerships as working well, providing a balance of consistency and flexibility in the support provided and facilitating shared learning.

Northern Ireland has a unique model where the VPRS is coordinated across all local councils by NIE. While partnership working across Northern Ireland was seen as broadly positive, challenges in providing consistency of support across diverse areas in Northern Ireland with varied infrastructure for support provision were also highlighted. While stakeholders were positive about the consistency of support afforded by a country-wide approach, they also recognised that the approach requires flexibility, with service delivery adapted to local infrastructure and the needs of refugees in each area.

Across local authorities, tariff funding was used flexibly to meet the needs of refugees. According to the local authority survey, the most common criteria in determining local authorities’ delivery models were: the ability to meet refugee needs (65%), geographic location of services (43%) and value for money/costs (40%). As a result of the focus on refugee needs, delivery across the Statement of Outcomes (Home Office et al., 2018) appeared to vary widely, with no clear delivery model types. Delivery was predominantly ‘in-house’ or in partnership with the third sector (statutory agencies or national/local charities).

Case study example 1: Successful joint delivery

One regional authority had a VPRS resettlement coordinator who sat within the county council, chaired county-wide steering group meetings and attended district-level, multi-agency forums. The district-level meetings were used to discuss local operational issues with local delivery services and were said to be key for planning arrivals at a local level and engaging with the third sector. The case study area was also an asylum-dispersal area, which appeared to have helped with joint working, as multi-agency forums and pre-existing links with relevant services and delivery partners were in place before the VPRS to discuss asylum-dispersal-related issues.

District resettlement leads also reported good working relationships between the county and district councils, including flexible and collaborative meetings between different agencies and delivery partners. While time and resourcing emerged as barriers to effective delivery, stakeholders said that all relevant delivery partners were engaging well.

2.2 Strategic oversight and partnership working

What oversight is provided for the schemes in local authorities?

According to the survey, most local authorities (86%) held strategic board meetings to provide oversight of the schemes from senior local authority officers and representatives. This figure was lower in London and the South East (67%). Local stakeholders in case studies described the benefits of strategic meetings as ensuring the right statutory partners were engaged (such as local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), Jobcentre Plus centres (JCP) and public health representatives), sharing best practice and learning, ensuring appropriate support was available before approving refugees for resettlement (particularly for identified specific needs) and budgeting. The attendees at strategic meetings reflected the range of partners involved in delivering the schemes, including representatives from housing, education, health, police, children’s services, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and JCP.

To oversee the operation and delivery of the scheme among partners, most local authorities (64%) set up operational planning groups. Most of those who did not made other arrangements, such as, ad hoc multi-agency meetings (often by telephone or email), or resettlement leads consulting with individual agencies depending on the needs of refugees.

How do local authorities work with partners?

Local authorities commonly reported that delivery had led to good partnership working and prompted formal joint working, with most strategic (98%) and operational (89%) groups created to deliver VPRS/VCRS. Local authority survey respondents highlighted the commitment of local and regional partners in ensuring the success of the schemes. Key partners included statutory organisations, the third sector, community groups, and other local authority departments such as adult education services and housing teams. Effective partnership working was widely cited as enabling all partners to clearly understand roles and responsibilities and to share information, enabling joint working and preventing gaps in the support provided. In case studies, interviewees reported that operational group working fostered positive relationships, good communication (including information sharing), prevented siloed working and ensured that responsibilities of different agencies were clear.

Stakeholders in case study areas were also aware of gaps in support where partnerships would be helpful. For example, one local authority housing team struggled to engage the education team, which had led to less direct involvement with schools that resettled children were attending. In case study areas with less experience of supporting refugee and asylum-seeking populations, stakeholders said that relationships were still embedding. Local authority staff reported that partnership working was challenging when the responsibilities of different organisations had not been defined clearly or communicated to stakeholders and refugees.

In another area, having many points of contact across delivery partners caused confusion among refugees about support available and who provided it. Striking the balance between sharing responsibilities across partners and simplifying communication to refugees appeared key to successful delivery. In one case study area, this was addressed with training programmes for all delivery staff to ensure consistency in approach.

Areas with more experience of supporting migrants often accessed support for VPRS/VCRS refugees through existing services. This included existing English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision or local charities working with asylum seekers, refugees, or other migrants (see Case study example 1). Stakeholders reported that this worked well in some areas. However, some resettlement staff felt this could lead to a lack of innovation and a reliance on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, with resettled refugees lacking support tailored to their individual needs. Conversely, some stakeholders felt that a ‘tailored’ approach could be unfair, if it led to VPRS/VCRS resettled refugees receiving more support than the wider refugee population.

3. Pre-departure activities

3.1 Pre-arrival planning for refugee arrivals

How appropriate is the information provided to local authorities prior to refugee arrival?

Local authority and stakeholders felt that pre-departure planning was essential to facilitating a smooth transition for refugees once they arrive in the UK. These planning activities often included contacting statutory agencies to arrange support for refugees on arrival, allocating and visiting properties to ensure that housing is appropriate for the needs of the family, and contacting ESOL providers to secure places on courses and school places.

To undertake these activities, stakeholders and local authorities highlighted the importance of receiving detailed, up-to-date information about refugees from partner organisations (UNHCR and IOM) and the Home Office before refugees arrived. Accurate information about refugees’ medical and social care needs was crucial to arrange suitable housing and support. Local authority staff reported that the amount and quality of information had generally improved since the start of the scheme due to the Home Office team responding to local authority requests for additional information^{[footnote 3]}. More recently, local authority staff receive a transcript of pre-departure interviews between the Home Office and refugees prior to resettlement (outlined in more detail below).

Stakeholders were positive about pre-departure interviews between Home Office staff and refugees, and the sharing of transcripts of the interviews with local authorities and community sponsorship groups. The interviews gave Home Office staff the opportunity to ask refugees for additional information not recorded by pre-departure partners, and for refugees to ask questions about the resettlement process. Stakeholders, including IOM and Home Office staff and refugees, gave positive feedback. However, there were still reports in the national stakeholder panel, and the case studies of pre-departure partners, sharing inaccurate and incomplete information with local authorities which could negatively affect the support provided to refugees, particularly related to health conditions. A mobility summary form has recently been introduced to help improve the quality of information about refugee mobility needs shared with local authorities.

Other areas where more information would be of interest included previous work experience, English language ability and any special educational needs (SEN) of children. Local authorities in the survey and case studies also stated that additional information about refugees’ level of English language and prior work experience would be helpful to ensure that they can put suitable ESOL or employment support for refugees in place. The RRF contains some information on English language ability, but this is now covered in more detail in the pre-departure video/telephone interview alongside previous employment. Local authorities considered SEN information about children important to ensure appropriate school places were available. An in-depth SEN assessment would not be possible during the pre-departure period due to resource constraints; however, the Home Office has recently provided IOM medics with additional information about SEN provision. This is to enable IOM medics to better describe SEN conditions and what kind of support children in the UK may require to help local authorities assess their needs.

Stakeholders and local authorities acknowledged the limitations to pre-departure partners or the Home Office collecting comprehensive and detailed information from refugees due to the cost, the time required to collect this information, and, sometimes, refugees being unwilling to disclose information that they believed may negatively impact or delay the resettlement process (such as pregnancy or mental health issues).

3.2 Pre-departure information provided to refugees

How appropriate is the pre-departure information provided to refugees?

Stakeholders emphasised the need for communication of clear, accurate and detailed information to refugees on what to expect from the resettlement process and on arrival in the UK. Good practice included this information being reinforced to refugees both verbally and in writing by overseas partners (IOM and UNHCR) and the Home Office. Local authority staff can also provide written information about the local area to refugees via IOM. Local authorities generally felt this had worked well to prepare new arrivals if the information provided was realistic. In one case study area, resettlement staff felt that the information provided initially was too positive and gave an unrealistic view of the area.

Across case study areas, refugees generally felt that they received the right amount and kind of information pre-departure, although responses varied. The information that refugees recalled as being useful was usually about the local area (including housing type, accent, weather, and the ability to practise their religion), the currency and the health system. Some refugees would have preferred more information, particularly about the support available to learn English, routes to employment, what they should bring with them to the UK, how to make friends and the education system (specifically the expectation for teenagers to sit exams). Refugees who had not received information about the local area where they would be resettled frequently mentioned they would have found this useful, including information about the weather and public transport. Conversely, a few refugees said that the amount of information they received about the local area was not important, as long as they knew they were going to be resettled somewhere safe.

“[The cultural orientation] helped us a lot. For example, they told us about the country, what is prohibited here, what is the system, how to deal with other people, how to respect other people, how to respect their religion.”
Refugee interview, local authority case study

Caseworkers and third-sector stakeholders felt it was helpful for cultural orientation to include content on gender equality in the workplace and UK laws concerning domestic violence and religious freedom. Local authorities and stakeholders also suggested that English language classes prior to resettlement would be useful, particularly where this took more than a few months. This was not discussed in interviews with refugees.

Stakeholders acknowledged the need to balance the quantity of information imparted to refugees at the pre-departure stage against the ability of individual refugees to process this information during the busy and stressful period prior to resettlement. Stakeholders mentioned the need to reinforce information frequently, and from different sources ideally before refugees’ arrival in the UK and continuing immediately post-arrival. In response to this, refugees are now given ‘Welcome to the UK’ information booklets and pre-departure cultural orientation has been extended.

3.3 Managing refugee expectations of support and life in the UK

What role does pre-departure information play in managing expectations?

In interviews with caseworkers, stakeholders and local authority staff, it emerged that many refugees arrived in the UK with expectations that the support available could not meet. Examples provided by refugees, caseworkers and local authorities included misconceptions resulting in confusion and disappointment for refugees on arrival, particularly around:

• the local area, including not being housed close to family or friends in the UK
• the amount of support available to learn English or gain employment
• the size and quality of housing
• the process for family reunification

Participants considered family reunion to be a particular issue. They highlighted cases where refugees had arrived thinking the process would be quick and simple and, where this was not the case (particularly regarding the eligibility of adult children or siblings), this had caused distress and negatively affected their mental health and ability to integrate. Caseworkers and some local authorities also felt that completing the UNHCR ‘Family Links’ form prior to departure had led some families to believe that family reunification was guaranteed to happen^{[footnote 4]}.

Stakeholders and caseworkers felt that various factors shaped refugees’ expectations, including individual circumstances and background (for example, previous education or work experience), the amount and accuracy of information received pre-arrival through different sources (explored above), and whether individual refugees had understood this information.

Sharing of resettlement experiences worldwide using social media was also influential. Some stakeholders felt social media had resulted in the dissemination of inaccurate information about the support available, for example regarding the size and quality of housing or what the local authority would provide (such as money or electronic goods). Stakeholders felt that this was due to the variation in the support provided to refugees in different UK local authorities and in different countries. However, social media could also play a positive role. One stakeholder highlighted how these informal refugee networks facilitated better understanding among refugees about what to expect on arrival and could be an important resource for refugees, for example regarding benefits they may be eligible for (although as benefits assessments are dependent on individual need, it is important to ensure refugees understand that assessments are made on a case-by-case basis).

Most of all, stakeholders considered the disruption caused by the resettlement process would shape refugees’ responses to service provision during their first weeks and months in the UK. Caseworkers said that families that had received and understood information about life in the UK before arrival were often more optimistic regarding their experience of resettlement. Caseworkers saw managing these expectations as a key part of their role.

While local authorities and caseworkers were aware of pre-departure cultural orientation, local authority survey responses and some stakeholder interviews revealed some local authority staff had limited knowledge of the content of these sessions. Some local authority staff had also formed the view that refugees had been given incorrect information by pre-departure partners. For example, some felt that refugees were being provided with information about England rather than the devolved administrations they were resettled to, or refugees being told that their family could join them. Some local authorities are taking an active role in mitigating misperceptions early in the arrival process (see Chapter 5). Sharing the information provided to refugees with local authorities where possible may help support staff in managing expectations.

4. Housing and locality

4.1 Housing provision and allocation

What are they key challenges in providing housing for refugees?

Housing acquisition was one of the greatest challenges in delivering the schemes, according to local authorities and stakeholders. The shortage of affordable housing and social housing in the UK (UK Parliament, 2015) limited local authorities’ ability to make resettlement offers.

“Using the private rented sector] poses risks around costs, especially in relation to benefit cap and rent levels. […] concerns that if families are not in work [or] not exempt from [the] benefit cap, [the] Council will either have to underwrite rent or deal with homelessness… is making us cautious in terms of numbers we resettle.”
Local authority survey respondent, England

Stakeholders and local authorities raised concerns that once VPRS/VCRS-funded support ended, some refugees would be unable to find affordable accommodation in their area where they had been resettled. This would require them to move, which might impact their integration. Contributing factors included the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates and the benefit cap, which limit the amount individuals can claim in benefits, including housing benefit, thereby limiting the properties they can rent. Home Office monitoring data for 2017 arrivals indicate that almost a third (29%) of households had the cap applied.

The larger than average size of refugee families – average 4.1 members among 2017 VPRS/VCRS arrivals compared to 2.4 across the UK (ONS, 2017) – compounded these concerns around the sustainability of the housing costs. Larger households require properties with additional bedrooms, which have higher rents that are more likely to be affected by the benefit cap.

The lack of longer-term sustainability of arrangements was evidenced by the topping up of refugee finances to help sustain housing. Home Office monitoring data show that a quarter (25%) of refugee households resettled in 2017 received Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) from the local authority for additional financial assistance^{[footnote 5]}. Stakeholders told us that local authorities had also used VPRS/VCRS tariff funds to top up housing benefit payments. In some case study areas, stakeholders were concerned that refugees would not be able to sustain housing costs should their eligibility for welfare support change.

How do local authorities allocate housing to refugees?

Across case study areas, local authorities were weighing up various factors when deciding where to house refugees. Some local authority staff mentioned prioritising social connections, for example, resettling refugees in clusters (also considered to be cost effective, as support could be commissioned locally). In other areas, proximity to local cultural amenities (such as mosques or halal shops) in more urban areas was balanced against housing size and quality (considered by staff in one area to be more readily available in rural areas). While some families initially described feeling isolated in rural areas and without access to cultural amenities, this had decreased as more families moved to the area, and families no longer expressed a desire to move. Where personal safety was a key concern, local authorities consulted with the police or local neighbourhood policing groups about the suitability of local areas and to help manage resident concerns. Concerns about wider resident perceptions also played a role in the type of housing provided. In one area, a local housing stakeholder said the local authority made a conscious decision not to give refugees preferential treatment in housing to avoid resentment towards refugees from the wider community. Therefore, refugees were initially allocated privately rented sector (PRS) housing, while they awaited a social housing property.

Stakeholders noted that the use of PRS housing for refugees was prevalent. The monitoring data reflects this – among the 2017 VPRS/VCRS cohort, households were most often housed in the PRS (39%) and housing association properties (35%); fewer were housed by the local authority (24%). Stakeholders said that this was partly due to the shortage of suitable social housing and the need to house homeless families, as well as the issue of resentment against refugees as stated above. However, as PRS housing was commonly reported to be expensive and above the LHA rates, local authorities were concerned about the stability of PRS tenures. A few local authorities using the PRS highlighted instances where private landlords had actively offered properties “because they wanted to help refugees”.

Local authorities highlighted being able to draw on in-house housing team expertise and experience of rehousing refugees as a key facilitator for sourcing suitable housing. In asylum-dispersal areas, some local authority survey respondents and stakeholders felt their local authority had developed effective processes through housing asylum seekers.

Strong relationships and good partnerships working were also key, for example, with local housing associations and private landlords. Some stakeholders and survey respondents suggested financial incentives and awareness-raising activities might encourage more sympathetic landlords and housing associations to offer accommodation. Other examples of good partnership working from case studies included:

• in a rural case study area, the local council managed refugee housing through a social lettings agency; local authority staff considered this approach to represent value for money as rent was limited to LHA rates, as well as consistent management and housing quality; the refugee resettlement lead in this area highlighted a close working relationship and close proximity to the social letting team as key facilitators to this relationship
• one community sponsorship group felt that contacting senior housing association staff was key; a local authority had given the group contact details for local senior housing authority staff; when contacted, they were eager to assist, and the family was positive about the accommodation found for them; other local housing association staff had no awareness of the scheme and had responded negatively when approached previously

Despite the challenges to sourcing suitable properties, some local authorities mentioned in open survey responses that the VPRS/VCRS benefitted local authority mainstream housing provision by improving their staff’s understanding of the local housing sector and encouraging new relationships with private landlords.

4.2 Suitability of housing and tenancy support

Is housing provided to refugees suitable?

Responses from case study stakeholders, caseworkers and refugees suggest wide variation within and across local authorities in the size and quality of housing provided, and in the support provided to refugees to manage their tenancies and deal with issues (see Chapter 5).

Panel stakeholders and local authorities mostly felt that the housing allocated was appropriate to the needs of the refugees. In case studies, processes were in place for local authorities to inspect housing before arrival and to provide housing support after arrival. Receiving adequate pre-departure information also affected housing suitability (see Chapter 3).

Most refugees were satisfied with their housing. Satisfaction with housing and local area was influenced by proximity to family or friends in the UK, size and quality of housing, and their experience in the local area, such as ease of accessing services and interacting with the local community (according to refugees and caseworkers).

A small number of refugees raised concerns about housing quality. Damp and structural issues were a concern for one family, and across case study areas some housing was not appropriate due to mobility issues.

Interviews with refugees and caseworkers also demonstrated that refugee expectations around housing varied considerably. As explored in Chapter 3, a range of factors influenced these expectations, including previous housing situation (many refugees compared their current situation favourably to their situation prior to resettlement), and communication with other families (often through social media) resulting in comparison of housing size and quality.

Low levels of understanding of the housing system and housing support had resulted in confusion and disappointment for some families. Refugee interviews revealed a need for more support in understanding payments for utilities and rent, the process for rental payment in private tenancies, the access that other local people have to quality social housing, and support available to access housing, or move property, if subsequently joined by family members through family reunion.

How do caseworkers support refugees with housing?

Clear and early communication between caseworkers and refugees was critical to housing satisfaction and expectation management. Refugees considered it helpful when caseworkers explained processes in person shortly after arrival and could be called upon when issues arose (see Chapter 5). However, in some case study areas, the ‘step-down’ of support and lighter-touch caseworker approach meant that refugees did not feel supported with housing issues in a timely manner.

Communication activities conducted by local authorities varied. In one case study area, housing officers held information sessions early on to explain the housing system and tenancy management. This had helped manage expectations, increase satisfaction with housing and increase refugee knowledge of rental processes. In another area, the housing officer visited all families in the first few weeks to inspect housing suitability and address refugees’ concerns.

4.3 Views of locality

Are there any differences in satisfaction between urban and rural areas?

Some refugees in more rural areas were dissatisfied by a lack of local services (such as, halal shops, mosques, and support services) and social networks (particularly teenage and young adult refugees). This was exacerbated by the cost of transport and being unable to drive to services due to not having a licence at all, or not being able to transfer a licence to a UK licence due to language barriers. In these cases, refugees suggested that subsidised travel, free bus passes, or interpreter assistance to pass driving tests would be helpful. Refugees in one case study area received a 2-week bus pass on arrival, which they found helpful.

Refugees also reported benefits of rural areas: friendliness, safety, peace, and relaxation, and having access to green space. A local stakeholder highlighted that private tenancies were more secure in rural areas, as landlords favoured longer-term tenancies.

“If the transport cost was cheaper that would never have bothered me, I prefer to be in a quieter place.”
Refugee interview, local authority case study area

Monitoring data suggests that most families are content with their local area and housing. Only 3% of refugees resettled in 2017 had moved property because they were unhappy with the area or accommodation. The case studies reflect this, with stakeholders noting only small numbers of families had moved property, usually due to housing having structural issues or being inappropriate due to family members’ health conditions. That said, local authority staff and caseworkers said the scale of desire to move may be higher; some families had asked to move, but alternative accommodation was not available.

5. Support to refugees from caseworkers

5.1 Overview of caseworker support

Stakeholders and resettlement staff felt that caseworker support was vital to successful integration and refugee wellbeing. Caseworker support mostly included: coordinating access to relevant services; helping refugees understand their rights and entitlements in the UK; and providing ongoing emotional and practical support (according to caseworkers in the online forum and in case studies). A table outlining different models of caseworker support across the local authority case study areas is in Appendix B.

According to the local authority survey, caseworker support was often the biggest outgoing cost in the delivery of the scheme and mostly subcontracted to the third sector, either in part (31%) or entirely (39%). A table summarising the key characteristics of caseworker support in each local authority case study area is in Appendix B.

Many caseworkers had sizeable caseloads. In the caseworker online forum, caseworkers supported 2 to 3 families if part-time and 5 to 15 families if full-time. Caseloads depended on the type of support provided, which varied considerably. Some caseworkers provided support on all aspects of resettlement, while others provided specialist support. For example, one caseworker worked as a part-time employment advisor and focused on supporting refugees into employment. In almost all case study areas, caseworkers’ capacity seemed stretched. In one area, stakeholders reported that caseworker resource had not increased in line with the number of refugees. In another area, stakeholders reported difficulty recruiting caseworkers.

Some caseworkers said they required more support. For example, some caseworkers carrying out an intensive role mentioned the immense pressure this put on them and noted that they would benefit from more emotional support, as well as additional staff to help manage caseloads. Some caseworkers reported difficulties in coordinating support across different services, especially if there was a lack of local provision (such as for ESOL and mental health).

5.2 Immediate post-arrival support

How are refugees supported in the immediate post-arrival period?

In all local authority case study areas, there was a clear distinction between the initial, more intensive support period and the later, ongoing support period. The initial support period was based around supporting the family and introducing them to life in the UK. This lasted approximately two weeks. During this period, families would receive face-to-face, sometimes daily, support from caseworkers. Refugees and stakeholders were generally positive about the initial support period. Refugees mentioned appreciating a warm, friendly welcome and support with day-to-day practicalities.

Good practice for ensuring the best use of time included:

• having the high quality, culturally sensitive interpreters available on arrival and during the first days to answer immediate questions and keep refugees informed
• providing a warm welcome, for example meeting refugees at the airport, providing a meal on arrival, or ensuring the house is stocked with culturally appropriate food
• providing translated written information explaining aspects of the home (such as bills and heating) and external services (such as visiting the GP) to reinforce verbal information

In some cases, refugees had pre-conceived ideas of the support they would receive, which could result in disappointment or confusion on arrival, for example, around housing, healthcare, employment, or English language (see Chapter 3). Caseworkers found that, in some cases, this inhibited their ability to establish a trusting relationship with refugees during the initial period, as they spent a lot of time managing expectations around support. Caseworkers reported that this could impact longer-term integration where refugees desired to move to other areas as a result.

Providing clear and consistent messages to refugees post-arrival about the support they would receive was key to managing these expectations. Some caseworkers held information sessions for families within the first weeks of arrival. These ‘local orientation workshops’ or ‘welcome sessions’ focused on explaining life in the UK, the different services and systems in the UK, and the rights and entitlements that refugees could expect. A multi-agency approach was commonly taken, with representatives from various services present. Caseworkers valued this approach; one caseworker noted how having an NHS health officer talk about accessing health services added more credibility to the message delivered. The involvement of housing officers meant that refugees felt that their concerns had been heard.

Caseworkers also used practical measures, such as Personal Integration Plans (PIPs), to communicate with refugees about the support provided, their rights and entitlements^{[footnote 6]}. Caseworkers in the online forum said PIPs provided an opportunity to have an individual discussion with refugees and understand their support needs. Caseworkers considered PIPs a valuable resource to support refugees in taking ownership of their lives and ensuring they had an opportunity to air potentially uncomfortable issues (such as domestic violence, family separation or mental health). Caseworkers also viewed PIPs as a structured approach to help them to build a trusting, professional relationship with refugees.

Northern Ireland had a unique approach to delivering initial support. Upon arrival, refugees are brought to a welcome centre for a programme of events that lasts at least 5 days and is delivered by a consortium of partners and caseworkers. Refugees are interviewed about their needs to ensure allocation of appropriate housing and registration with relevant services. Partners also run sessions on caseworkers’ roles and responsibilities, housing, health, education, longer-term integration, Northern Ireland culture, and refugee rights and entitlements. The refugees interviewed were satisfied with the support received at the welcome centre and stakeholders reported that the model worked well, although it was more expensive than other approaches to immediate post-arrival support.

5.3 Ongoing support

Refugees generally appreciated ongoing support but did not always understand when caseworkers would reduce or end, which sometimes caused confusion when caseworkers reduced support. This emphasises the importance of clear communication. Caseworker support seemed key to refugees’ satisfaction; most families said that caseworkers were responsive to issues identified and did their best to address them. Although some issues were not or could not be fixed, refugees were tolerant because they felt caseworkers were doing all they could.

The provision of caseworker support varied between case study areas, in terms of intensity and duration, as well as the extent to which other services and organisations were involved in the delivery of support. Good practice included more intense and sustained support during the first few months, combined with linking refugees to other organisations and services in the community to access additional support and allow for a gradual step-down and a route to increased independence. Clear communication throughout this process was key.

How are refugees supported during the main caseworker support period?

Across case studies, the main support period varied from a few months to a year. As support stepped down, some local authorities aimed to cease support completely, while others continued to provide a lower level of support into the second year and beyond (for example, a phone number to contact a caseworker, or a weekly drop-in clinic).

The intensity of ongoing support varied across case studies and within each of the case study areas. In some areas, daily face-to-face visits continued for weeks or months before a gradual reduction, while other areas reduced visits more abruptly, for example, with caseworkers not responding to calls after a certain date. Variation within case study areas was driven by caseworkers’ perceptions of individual need, caseworker capacity and caseload, and local priorities. For example, in some case study areas, the key early aim was to build strong levels of trust and understanding. This was achieved through a gradual reduction in support to encourage independence. This could involve caseworkers encouraging refugees to try to do most things themselves and only providing support when families requested it, rather than as a matter of course. Caseworkers noted that as refugees may distrust public services or be unwilling to reveal support needs (particularly around mental health or torture), this gradual approach was more appropriate.

Caseworkers and wider stakeholders also highlighted a risk of creating dependency among refugees where intensive support continued beyond the first few months. They felt this could impact independence and make it more difficult for refugees to do things themselves or know who else they could turn to for support once this reduced.

Did refugees feel supported?

Refugees and caseworkers largely viewed the more intensive support period as positive, as it created trust at a time when refugees may feel particularly vulnerable and have a lot of new information to take in. Caseworkers also felt that by building trust early on, they could ensure that refugees received appropriate support from other agencies, and therefore settled into their surroundings more quickly. In areas where support was more intensive and sustained, refugees also tended to better understand and appreciate the support they were getting.

In one case study area, resettlement leads recruited Arabic-speaking caseworkers to support refugees intensively for the first months. This area also recruited 2 English-speaking caseworkers to provide longer-term support as individuals got used to English and the support system, and to eventually transition to mainstream services. Refugees valued an Arabic speaker greeting them at the airport, and noted the close relationship formed with their caseworkers (with some viewing caseworkers as “family”). However, as Arabic-speaking caseworkers were closely involved in all aspects of refugee’s lives, and acted as interpreters as well as caseworkers, some stakeholders felt that this could increase refugees’ dependency on support, as well as increasing the emotional and practical burden on caseworkers.

Conversely, refugees interviews showed that a more hands-off approach tended to leave them unsure of where to access support and of what support was available. There were also examples of refugees not finding caseworkers responsive when approached. Refugees would then struggle to know who to turn to for support. Some refugees had sought assistance from neighbours or other support providers in these instances. This approach could impact their integration: refugees in one area had sought support from their ESOL tutors to attend medical appointments and explain letters or other documents (for example, from healthcare providers or the Jobcentre). An ESOL stakeholder reported that this had reduced their ESOL lesson time.

What is the role of other support organisations?

Involving other services encouraged a smoother transition from caseworker support to independence. Some caseworkers also considered introducing refugees to wider services as key to reducing dependency on caseworker support. Refugees were also positive about intensive caseworker support being supplemented with support from other organisations. This might be encouraged by caseworkers identifying volunteering opportunities, supporting refugees to volunteer, and introducing refugees to relevant faith networks. In one area, caseworkers ran a weekly meeting to tell families about activities and events. This meeting also acted as a drop-in clinic for support. However, some caseworker forum participants did not see community integration as part of their role.

Lower engagement with external services was sometimes a decision on the part of the local authority. A local authority in a dispersal area had chosen not to publicise the schemes or engage local organisations in providing support due to concerns about tensions arising between VPRS/VCRS refugees and the wider refugee and asylum-seeking population.

The extent to which local authorities engaged other support organisations also depended on the availability and presence of suitable organisations. For example, evidence provided by refugees and caseworkers showed that availability was lower in some rural or suburban areas.

5.4 Longer term and step-down of support

What are they key factors facilitating transition from case worker support?

A smooth transition during the step-down process depended on clear communication to refugees on what to expect. If this communication was not present, step-down was often confusing for refugees. Step-down could be challenging as, when it took place, most refugees did not yet have a solid grasp of English and still felt that they needed a high level of support. Some refugees reported that their caseworker had just stopped coming to see them and they did not know why. This seemed to relate to a ‘light touch’ approach, where support was less intensive and tapered off more quickly in the first few months. For instance, in some cases step-down started before refugees had begun their ESOL classes.

Where refugees had received one-to-one caseworker support beyond their first weeks in the UK (up to 6 months or longer), they were often better able to deal with step-down, as they were more integrated into the community and had more confidence and understanding of public services and their rights and responsibilities.

The approach to communicating the step-down to refugees impacted their understanding of and satisfaction with the support provided. For example, in 2 areas, a charter setting out what refugees could expect in terms of support appeared to be useful. The charter outlined the role of the caseworker and refugees’ responsibilities, and it was provided to refugees in their own language and explained by their caseworker. Refugees sign the charter to demonstrate that they understand and agree to it. Refugees in these areas appeared to understand the support on offer, including its duration.

Good practice for step-down included:

• providing clarity from the outset about how long support might last, and what to expect as it came to the end
• being flexible on when to start step-down, depending on the needs of individual families
• providing more intensive support at the start so that by the time step-down takes place, refugees have a good grasp of their rights and responsibilities and of public services
• engaging other support organisations and services during the main support period to help refugees build a support network
• providing access to further support after step-down if needed, such as drop-in clinics or the opportunity to contact their caseworker

6. Education and training

6.1 Access to pre-16 education

To what extent does support offered facilitate access to pre-16 education?

Home Office monitoring data shows that 96% of refugees aged 6 to 16 years who arrived in 2017 were attending school^{[footnote 7]}. All respondent groups recognised school attendance as one of the most important immediate outcomes of resettlement. It was considered integral for children, of course, but also for parents. Children’s enrolment in school provided socialising opportunities for parents and enabled them to attend other integration activities during the day, such as ESOL lessons. Some resettled parents reported having made friends with other parents they had met at school drop-off and pick-up. For many parents, children’s school attendance was a priority following resettlement, particularly for children who had missed significant periods of schooling. Local authority survey data confirm that most local authorities were sensitive to this and allocated school places prior to arrival (65%), although this was less common in Scotland (43%). According to local authority survey respondents, some local authorities preferred to allocate school places after arrival, once they had assessed the children, to ensure the school fitted each child’s individual needs. In particular, these local authorities noted that children cannot take SEN assessments pre-arrival. Respondents often reported that access to pre-16 education was the least challenging area of support to deliver overall.

Several barriers to enrolment were identified, particularly for children with SEN. This included long or inflexible enrolment processes, for example, when a board of governors had to approve new pupils. Arriving during the summer holidays delayed registration and attendance in school, according to stakeholders and caseworkers. Some local authority staff mentioned in survey responses and case studies that they had found it challenging to provide appropriate support and allocate school places for SEN children, due to the limited places available and lengthy assessment requirements (which require input from parents, the school and specialists). In one case study area, a stakeholder mentioned that the process of assessing SEN needs could sometimes lead to ‘friction’ between support workers, Education and Welfare Service Officers and families. A refugee family said in their interview that their teenage son had not attended school for 6 months due to a lack of SEN provision.

How effective is the support offered in ensuring children feel included and welcome in school?

Overall, after some adaptation time, children had integrated well in their schools, feeling more settled than when they first arrived. Parents and children said that after-school and extra-curricular activities (such as, sports clubs, dancing and music) had aided the integration of children into school, suggesting this is a key opportunity to help refugee children adjust, make friends and practice speaking English.

The provision of support to children within schools varied widely. While some local authorities had drawn on in-house expertise (for example, from education teams), caseworkers and stakeholders felt in many cases that additional support was dependent on individual schools or teachers.

Where provided, EAL support at school appears to be valuable, with some children mentioning having benefitted from extra support. Parents also noted that their children’s performance at school had improved since accessing specialist EAL support. Caseworkers and school staff also felt that school provision of EAL support was crucial to children’s integration. This was particularly true for older children entering school after Key Stage 4, who had often missed a significant amount of education, had low levels of literacy, and faced additional challenges adapting to the school environment. One caseworker considered dual-language teaching assistants made a big difference in meeting children’s needs.

Local authorities reported that delays in receiving exceptional educational funding^{[footnote 8]} were a barrier to the provision of additional support to children. As the process for applying for additional funding can only begin once a child has enrolled in a school, one caseworker suggested additional funding should be provided once the school placement has been confirmed, to ensure suitable support could be put in place for children earlier.

Difficulties mentioned by refugee children included communicating with teachers and other pupils where they had low English language abilities, adjusting to the school environment (some children had had long periods out of school, and others had never attended) and learning English.

Children and young people also reported not receiving information about the type of schooling they would attend once resettled, which in some cases led to stress and pressure upon arrival. For example, a teenager who attended college 3 days a week said that no one at her college knew that she had not been to school before, which meant that she was expected to take GCSE exams.

“I was traumatised already in the war, and then I came here to find this shocking reality I’m in, that despite all of that, all of a sudden I need to do GCSEs. It’s not easy at all.”
Refugees focus groups, local authority case study area

Caseworkers and delivery staff suggested that partnerships and information sharing between stakeholders (school staff, caseworkers, staff and support organisations) helped staff to understand refugees’ needs and therefore support integration into schools. Examples included:

• resettlement teams coordinating with a network of schools to share knowledge and training (notably on supporting children with trauma)
• schools participating in the Schools of Sanctuary programme, which provides refugee awareness training for staff
• casework support organisations using their volunteer networks to provide after-school tutoring

Some local authorities were jointly pooling resources, training and learning to promote best practice across schools. This work was led by resettlement coordinators, the local authority resettlement team, or third-sector partners. For example, the Education Toolkit for Syrian Refugee Children in Wales is available for schools to download online (WLGA, 2018). It was developed in collaboration with the Welsh Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) and the Ethnic Minority Achievement Service.

Where delivery partners did not have close or existing relationships with schools, they mentioned struggling to build and maintain engagement. They felt that rigid divisions of labour across delivery partners or local authority departments reduced opportunities for synergy working. For example, in one case study area, housing team staff responsible for delivery of support to resettled refugees felt that they could not provide guidance to schools on supporting refugee children due to a lack of engagement from the education team.

Caseworkers reported cases of bullying and racism towards refugee pupils. Local authority staff raised concerns that some institutions lacked the resources to train school staff to handle these issues. This could have a profound effect on resettled children.

“For 9 months I was bullied, and I just said to [teacher] if that happened again, I’m not going to live here, because I’m not coming from Egypt, from the place I was bullied in, to come again to bullying here. If I knew I was coming again to bullying here, I [would have] never left Egypt.”
Refugee interview, case study

Case study example 2: Working with schools to counter bullying and racism and encourage understanding about refugees

In one case study area, a teenager experienced severe bullying in school, which continued even though he reported it to the school. The police got involved and the accused pupils were excluded for a few days. At one point, the pupils threatened him with knives at school and the school recommended he stay at home as they could not ensure his safety. He left the school and eventually enrolled in another school.

The family’s caseworker felt the bullying was because of the child’s refugee background and was concerned that local schools lacked the resources to address this type of bullying or to help with integration. The caseworker is encouraging schools with resettled pupils to join the Schools of Sanctuary programme. Several schools had already started the process, including the boy’s new school. By becoming a School of Sanctuary, schools undertake an audit and commit to being: “A safe and welcoming place for all, especially those seeking sanctuary…” (Schools of Sanctuary website). The caseworker felt these schools’ commitment to welcoming refugee children and activities they undertook (such as, teacher training on refugee child needs, guest speakers, role plays, discussions and assemblies on refugee issues) had improved understanding and aided resettled children’s integration.

6.2 Access to education and training post-16

How do the schemes facilitate access to education and training post-16?

To support resettled children and young adults to access education and training, most local authorities refer or signpost young people to further education (FE) institutions and local charities, but do not provide tailored or refugee-specific provision. The lack of a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide such support and, linked to this, a lack of existing infrastructure in some areas for young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs), were cited to have contributed to this approach, as well as some local authorities’ limited experience in providing such support to refugees.

Refugees’ experience of accessing FE varied. Barriers reported by local authority staff, caseworkers and refugees included young people having low levels of education, being out of school for long periods of time, their experience of fleeing trauma, and low English language proficiency. In addition to this, young people felt there was little support to help them integrate in colleges, and few course options aside from ESOL. For example, one 20-year-old refugee explained that he struggled at college due to being illiterate in Arabic, and he said that he felt it might be more helpful to learn to read and write in Arabic before doing so in English.

Overall, young people and their families appeared to have a limited understanding of FE, HE and training opportunities, including costs, and eligibility criteria, making it difficult for them to plan for the future. College-age students often reported not having information about what to expect in relation to college provision and not having support, advice, or guidance around FE.

There was also a sense among young refugees that they could not fully pursue education or training until they had a better level of written and spoken English. Even young people who were attending FE courses felt this caused them to have to put their aspirations on hold. Stakeholders mentioned that some training providers set a minimum level of English language ability for entry (for example, GCSE level). These barriers had caused frustration for some young adults, especially if their education had already been disrupted due to displacement, and if they had previously worked.

To facilitate access to training and education, caseworkers in some areas worked closely with colleges, universities, and local councils to help with applications, scholarships or finding apprenticeships for young people. Examples included:

• local HE and FE institutions holding open days and taster courses for refugees at the request of local authorities (local authority survey)
• local authorities funding courses and certification schemes where mainstream provision was unavailable or not appropriate (survey and case studies); for example, providing bespoke driving test training in Arabic, or providing bilingual staff for training courses
• tailored college courses - in one case study area, young refugees attending sixth-form college would typically have a foundation year set up for them, which was primarily designed to improve their English; in another local authority, a college had provided a special FE course on maths, sports, music and ESOL for resettled college-age students

In one case study area, caseworkers worked together with local council education staff to secure additional VPRS/VCRS funding to support refugee children and young people to access education and training opportunities. This included funding for transport to attend colleges in a different town or city to where they were resettled. The local education authority also developed a Vocational Enhancement Programme with a local college to provide additional support to students who may not achieve 5 GCSEs. It provides students with extra-curricular support, as well as mentoring and vocational training schemes to complete alongside school studies.

7. Acquisition of English language

7.1 Value attached to learning English and understanding of its uses

Home Office monitoring data information indicates that attendance at ESOL classes is high. Of 2017 arrivals aged 16 and over 83% attended some form of ESOL (with 67% attending accredited (formal) ESOL classes, and 40% attending non-accredited (informal) ESOL lessons. ESOL proficiency levels were generally low; 51% were at the pre-entry or below, and only 8% had ‘job-market ready’ levels of ESOL^{[footnote 9]}.

To what extent do refugees value learning English?

Refugees valued learning English and mentioned several difficulties created by not being able to speak or understand it. Refugees and caseworkers identified lack of language acquisition as a key barrier to refugees gaining independence and successfully settling into their new lives.

“I like to chat with other people and laugh with them and share their nice moments but I’m unable to do so now because of the language barrier, so once I have the knowledge of the language, that’s it, I will knock on any door and chat with them!”
Refugee interview, local authority case study

Refugees reported that not being able to speak English made them feel vulnerable and isolated. In some cases, this discouraged them from venturing outside, as they did not feel that they would be able to seek help or interpret road signs if they became lost.

Refugees who were unable to communicate independently were most reliant on caseworkers or interpreters for day-to-day issues or accessing services. Refugees mentioned that being less independent made it harder to acquire English, as they were less exposed to it.

“Our language will not improve. We need to mix with the people directly. It is better for us if we mix at work, improve our language.”
Refugee interview, case study

Refugees were also aware of the need to learn English to gain employment, particularly employment in line with their previous skills or experience. English language was also required to convert or undertake many qualifications (see Chapter 8).

While refugees showed motivation, local authority staff and caseworkers described how some learners became frustrated with a lack of progress in English, lost confidence and disengaged with the learning process. To overcome this, some refugees were supportive of having more intensive initial language support, or an immersion course on arrival.

7.2 Barriers to accessing and progressing in ESOL

What are the key barriers to accessing and progressing in ESOL?

Both individual-level and structural barriers emerged to refugees accessing and progressing with English language acquisition. The key individual-level barriers included:

• low levels of literacy or prior education in refugees’ first language, which refugees cited as a barrier to learning, particularly in a formal classroom environment
• experiences of displacement and trauma, impacting ability to concentrate in lessons
• poor physical and/or mental health
• older age – caseworkers said that older refugees faced additional barriers, including low motivation due to feeling that they are “too old” to learn a new language
• childcare responsibilities, particularly for mothers (reported by stakeholders and refugees)

Childcare responsibilities had several implications for parents’ ability to learn English. These limited their time and energy for learning English. Some were unable to attend ESOL classes due to a lack of childcare and where childcare was available, some parents did not feel comfortable leaving their children there, especially if very young. However, as young children acquired the language faster, they could also help parents to learn.

“When she gets back from nursery, everything she learns I have to learn as well.”
Refugee focus group, local authority case study

A key structural barrier to learning English was a lack of classes suitable for individual refugees’ level of understanding (raised in all strands of the evaluation). Stakeholders and local authority survey respondents said this was due to oversubscription in ESOL classes, particularly at pre-entry and entry-level. In rural areas, stakeholders linked this to a lack of existing infrastructure necessary for ESOL provision, and a lack of ESOL teachers.

Another structural barrier was the variation in teaching approach between areas and providers. Few areas were able to provide classes in a flexible format and mode of learning based on individual learning needs. For example, refugees stated that they would prefer bilingual tuition with a balance between both languages.

Benefits conditions could sometimes be a barrier to providing refugees with additional hours. Caseworkers and stakeholders noted that Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) entitlement was conditional on claimants being available for employment, and therefore not in full-time education (considered more than 16 hours, although there is discretion to grant permission) (DWP, 2014).

7.3 Approaches facilitating ESOL learning

What approaches are facilitating English language learning?

Refugees valued English language classes that focused on how they could progress and integrate in their new community. This included a focus on quickly acquiring language for daily interactions such as talking with neighbours, teachers or other parents at school or having conversations in shops and on public transport.

Stakeholders and caseworkers also emphasised the need for flexible approaches based on the different circumstances of refugees, for example due to age, language ability, child-caring responsibilities, or literacy. Examples include arranging classes that provide childcare or a crèche (using additional VPRS/VCRS funding) and delivering refugee-specific employability training on the language required for employment (for example, food hygiene).

Case study example 3: Targeted ESOL classes to support life in the UK

In one case study area, a local FE college offered a 12-week Family Learning course to adult resettled refugees twice a week for 2 hours. This included an introduction to life in the UK and pre-entry ESOL assessment. Refugees and tutors saw the content as ‘basic survival’ knowledge. Children aged under 8 could be cared for in an on-site crèche with an Arabic-speaking caseworker to support communication between children and staff. Refugees valued the Family Learning course, saying it provided them with the key basics during their first months. Refugees mentioned they would value this course being longer. The Family Learning tutor assessed ESOL level and motivation to identify an appropriate college class, which refugees viewed positively.

Informal opportunities and volunteer-led language practice were key to overcoming barriers to formal ESOL learning, particularly for illiterate or older refugees. Some areas had developed community-based and volunteer-led options (such as English language café sessions). These options were an important resource for providing additional English language practice, complementing formal ESOL provision, and enabling learning outside of the classroom, which refugees valued. Volunteer-run language summer schools organised by the third sector were also well-attended and helped adults maintain their English learning outside of term times, according to local authority resettlement staff. As informal ESOL is largely provided by volunteer and third-sector partners, provision and content varied widely. Some local authorities had a dedicated coordinator to manage volunteer support for refugees, while in others this work was carried out by the casework provider or an external group. In other areas, volunteer support was less formal and external to the delivery of the scheme. Stakeholders said less centrally coordinated approaches could make ensuring quality of provision challenging.

Adequate funding and effective spending were also key to facilitating ESOL learning. Stakeholders highlighted additional VPRS/VCRS funding for childcare as a positive enabler for more mothers to attend classes. In some cases, classes have been held where parents can bring their children with them. Some rural local authorities, where ESOL resources were lower, had pooled their funding to create ESOL opportunities, such as funding for new teachers and courses. Once case study area arranged voluntary sector ‘informal’ ESOL classes by tapping into an existing network of voluntary organisations. Resettlement staff said this had provided a fast and efficient solution to the shortage of qualified ESOL teachers in the area. Central funding had paid for a dedicated bus to transport refugee learners to and from classes.

Some refugees had also undertaken, self-directed learning. This required considerable motivation and initial knowledge of what might aid learning but, for those who undertook it, was very important to successful language acquisition. Refugees used online resources such as YouTube and watching English TV. Programmes aimed at young children were noted for their clear and accessible use of language. Families also helped each other, and children who tended to pick up language more quickly helped their parents learn the language. Caseworkers and stakeholders associated accessing multiple learning opportunities – formal, informal, and self-directed – with refugees making the most significant progress in English language acquisition.

8. Benefits and employment

8.1 Access to and understanding of benefits

How are refugees supported to access benefits?

Local authority survey respondents said that facilitating access to benefits for refugees (including setting up initial Jobcentre Plus (JCP) appointments and assisting with form-filling and evidence requirements) was the role of the caseworker or local authority in-house welfare and benefits teams. Key facilitators for accessing benefits included: in-house teams and/or third-sector organisations building close relationships with the DWP and JCP staff; and staff having experience of advocating on behalf of refugees, and knowledge of refugee rights and entitlements.

Several examples emerged of joint working to facilitate access to benefits:

• resettlement staff working closely with their in-house Welfare Reform team, which set up families’ benefit payments and helped families understand job-seeking
• caseworkers informing DWP when families are due to arrive, and therefore when they will need to complete benefit applications
• in Northern Ireland, all benefit claims were processed from the welcome centre within the first 5 days of the families’ arrival
• building strong relationships between the district council, JCP staff and caseworkers to facilitate access to benefits, which included having JCP representatives deliver a session on the benefits system for families in the post-arrival orientation sessions

Where these relationships did not exist or understanding among JCP staff of refugee entitlements was poor, administrative issues in registering for and processing benefit payments emerged. This included refugees not being allowed to count their ESOL hours towards their Universal Credit (UC) claimant commitment and JCP not providing interpreters. This also included JCP staff misunderstanding refugee eligibility for benefits; and JCP staff not supporting refugees to fill out benefit claim forms. Stakeholders correspondingly felt that the overall approach could be more flexible and should consider each family’s case more holistically.

Caseworker support to understand and navigate the benefits system varied. Some caseworkers provided support to manage personal finances and explain processes, while in other areas refugees felt that they had not received support beyond the initial benefits application or booking a JCP appointment. Some refugees reported that they had experienced issues as a result of insufficient caseworker support.

Do refugees understand benefits and entitlements?

Refugee understanding of the benefits process varied. While some refugees understood how employment would affect their benefits payments, others had a more limited understanding. Refugees mentioned instances where they did not understand documents they had to sign and were confused around how bills and rent should be paid. Some refugees were also confused and anxious about the transfer to UC. Stakeholders suggested that information sessions for refugees on UC might help manage this. In the case study area where such sessions had been implemented, stakeholders felt JCP staff had a good understanding of refugee needs and entitlements.

8.2 Access to meaningful and sustainable employment

What expectations do local authorities and refugees have around employment?

Stakeholders, caseworkers and local authority survey respondents all said that access to meaningful and sustainable employment was a longer-term goal for refugees and key to longer-term integration. Survey respondents also indicated that they had shifted their delivery model to focus on refugee-specific employment support after the first year.

Local authorities acknowledged that getting refugees into employment was one of the most challenging areas of support provision. Stakeholders highlighted the need to start conversations early. Caseworkers recognised that delays to facilitating a pathway to employment had resulted in families becoming long-term unemployed and losing confidence and motivation to gain employment, suggesting that support should begin earlier in the resettlement process. At the same time, stakeholders and local authority survey respondents stressed the importance of not “rushing” refugees into employment. They felt it was more important that refugees’ immediate needs, including mental health needs, were met and that they felt settled in their new communities. However, caseworkers and stakeholders felt that positive outcomes could be achieved where routes to employment were considered from an early stage. Examples included:

• caseworkers incorporating employment into the support plan when families first arrived in the UK
• resettled families seeing it as a part of the overall ‘journey’ to integration

Motivation to gain employment was generally high among many refugees interviewed, although this varied based on individual circumstances (most notably, caregiving). Some refugees wanted to find employment as soon as possible, with little consideration of the type of job, while others wanted to improve their English language first, particularly to use previous skills and experience (for example, to work as nurses, graphic designers or teachers). Home Office monitoring data confirms this motivation to work, while reflecting the difficulty of finding employment. Amongst 2017 arrivals (aged 18 to 64) who had spent around a year in the UK, 52% were reported as unemployed and looking for work, 21% were looking after home and family, 11% were studying or training, and 10% were sick or disabled. Only 5% of them were in paid employment. Men were more likely than women to be in paid work (8.5% compared to 0.7%), while women were much more likely than men to be looking after the home and family (39% compared to 2%)^{[footnote 10]}.

Refugees who faced barriers to employment missed out on the added opportunities for integration that employment can provide, such as English language acquisition and social contact. Stakeholders noted that for some, employment was not currently suitable due to their physical or mental health. Some older female refugees expressed low motivation to find work due to their age, health, and lack of previous experience.

What are the key barriers to refugee employment?

The main individual-level barrier to employment was low English language proficiency. Stakeholders said that this limited refugees to lower-skilled jobs that did not require a high level of English (often zero-hours contracts in occupations such as fast food delivery), which in turn limited progress in learning English. This was also a source of frustration for some refugees, who lamented being unable to utilise their existing skills and pre-arrival experience for employment. In the local authority survey, a respondent highlighted that this meant some refugees could be worse off financially if they went into work.

Other barriers to employment were structural, such as regional variation in employment support and employment opportunities. Stakeholders mentioned how tailored support into employment was limited in many areas. They stressed a need for more comprehensive national coverage, to avoid an employment support ‘lottery’. Refugees in more rural areas felt there was a lack of job opportunities compared to more urban areas.

How are local authorities helping to support refugees into employment?

Support into employment worked well when an individualised, goal-oriented approach was taken early on in the resettlement process. This involved caseworkers or third-sector delivery partners discussing and managing refugee expectations around employment, developing a plan together with refugees, and identifying appropriate support to help them achieve their goals. Goals included:

• reaching the required level of English for a desired job
• volunteering or getting work experience
• accessing educational courses or retraining and learning new skills

Stakeholders highlighted the employment and skills project Specialist Training and Employment Programme (STEP) – operating across Yorkshire and Humber and in Coventry – as a good example of helping refugees achieve positive employment outcomes (World Jewish Relief, 2016).

Stakeholders and local authority survey respondents felt that employment-focused ESOL provision facilitated the move into employment, but was not widely available. Given the importance of English language to employment, stakeholders felt that the Home Office could “play a more central role” in coordinating this and raising local authorities’ awareness of good practice.

Case study areas varied in how much they encouraged refugees to volunteer. This may partly explain regional variation in Home Office monitoring data: among 2017 arrivals, the percentage of those aged 16 and over who had volunteered varied by region, from 31% to 11%. In comparison, refugees resettled by community sponsor groups were far more likely to have been involved in volunteering (58%). In a case study area where volunteering was a focus, caseworkers encouraged refugees to take up volunteering by helping them identify suitable opportunities based on their longer-term goals. Caseworkers also highlighted to refugees the benefits of volunteering as a route to learn English, gain skills and make social connections. In this case study area, refugees generally said that they understood these benefits, although their priority was to find paid employment in the longer term. Other case study areas took a less structured approach, either signposting refugees to third-sector organisations that could identify suitable employment opportunities or supporting refugees on a case-by-case basis.

Many refugees struggled to have existing qualifications or driving licences recognised, which caused frustration and was a barrier to employment. In one case study area, the local authority used VPRS/VCRS tariff funding to provide a drop-in for refugees, to assist them in having their qualifications recognised by the international qualification comparison service, National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC). NARIC can help convert qualifications or help confirm an equivalent British qualification. Some local authorities and caseworkers had also identified training courses for qualifications where interpreter support was available, for example, in construction. Refugees were often unable to convert their driving licence due to the requirement to pass the driving theory and practical tests in English without interpreter support. This was often cited as a key barrier to getting work (for example, as mini-cab drivers, carpenters, plumbers), particularly in more rural areas with less public transport.

Some local authorities and third-sector organisations had built relationships with employers, which had helped refugees find work. A local authority survey respondent suggested that these relationships could be facilitated by grants for employers to encourage work placements with appropriate interpreter support. Employers willing to employ refugees and provide additional support, particularly with English, had played a role in supporting refugees into employment.

“I’m a barber and found a job in [city], the place where I went to cut my hair. I said I’m looking for a job, and barber said come, I’ll give you a job.”
Refugee focus group participant, local authority case study

9. Health and social care

9.1 Access to, awareness of, and trust in health and social care services

To facilitate access to health and social care for resettled refugees, local authorities require accurate and up-to-date information about refugee health needs before they arrive. Stakeholders and local authority survey respondents considered this information vital, in order to plan support in advance and ensure that adequate support was available on arrival (see Chapter 3).

Stakeholders, local authorities and caseworkers felt that refugees often lacked awareness and understanding of the UK health and social care system. In some cases, this led to disappointment, particularly where refugees waited longer than they expected for prescriptions, appointments and referrals. Stakeholders and caseworkers felt that, among Syrian refugees in particular, this was due to comparison with the advanced healthcare system in Syria and an expectation that the UK health system would be more advanced. A national stakeholder and a caseworker said that informal refugee networks had spread stories of social services taking children away from the family, leading to a fear of engaging with social services.

What are the key barriers to understanding and accessing healthcare?

The main challenge to accessing and understanding healthcare appeared to be low levels of English language ability, which hindered refugees’ communication with healthcare providers. This was compounded by difficulties in securing telephone interpretation for interactions with health and dental care providers (including GPs, hospitals and dentists). Caseworkers and local authority staff reported that these services were often unaware of their responsibility to provide interpreters and had been reluctant to do so.

Across case study areas, the local authority survey and the caseworker forum, examples emerged of refugees having to cancel medical appointments due to the lack of available interpreters, refugees missing appointments due to communication issues, and local authorities and community sponsors having to provide private interpreters (at a cost). The lack of interpreter provision had also limited independence and caused over-reliance on caseworkers. These issues were particularly problematic for people with more complex medical problems requiring multiple referrals and appointments. Some caseworkers found that giving refugees an information sheet that they could take to appointments, which outlined their rights to access healthcare and interpreters, had facilitated understanding and empowered refugees to request interpreters independently (for example, see NHS Inform (2018)).

Case study example 4: A refugee perspective: difficulties navigating the health system

A family who had recently arrived explained that they had had a positive opinion of the UK health system before arriving, and they were hopeful that their child would be able to access treatment for a serious health condition. While their GP was helpful, the parents found it difficult to navigate the wider health system. They were currently waiting for information about the date for surgery and other referrals. Due to their level of English, the parents felt unable to communicate directly with medical staff. They had not heard from their caseworker in 3 months.

Where interpreters were available, caseworkers highlighted further barriers, including a lack of adequate training, especially in mental health. Caseworkers gave examples of interpreters not having knowledge of specific medical terms or not delivering sensitive information in an appropriate manner. Telephone interpreters could also be difficult to use due to differences in dialect. This had resulted in missed appointments due to families not understanding the information they had been given.

How are local authorities facilitating access to healthcare?

Caseworkers considered their role to be central in managing expectations and informing refugees about the health and social care system. Caseworkers in the online forum and case study areas highlighted PIPs as key to building trust and facilitating discussion with refugees about their health needs, particularly around mental health (see Chapter 5). Caseworkers helped refugees to register with GPs and attended at least the first appointment. Refugees mentioned attending an initial GP appointment during the first few weeks in the UK, and Home Office monitoring information shows nearly all refugees resettled in 2017 were registered with a GP. In areas where caseworker support was sustained over multiple appointments, refugees appeared more confident and satisfied with their experience and understanding of primary healthcare.

Regions and local authorities varied in how they sought to improve understanding of and access to healthcare among refugees. In one case study area, refugees received information sessions on the healthcare system shortly after arriving in the UK, including how to contact emergency services. In another area, a caseworker arranged tailored workshops to counter low levels of awareness among refugees of smoking cessation, dental care and women’s health. In one area, a local GP had provided refugees with information packs in Arabic on containing guidance around the UK health system, which caseworkers said was helpful to reinforce verbal messages. In another area, refugees said the system and processes had not been adequately explained to them, leading to frustration and confusion when trying to access healthcare.

Case study example 5: Information sessions on social care and cultural practices

In one case study area, third-sector delivery partners took a ‘preventative approach’ to working with families to address any issues relating to harmful cultural practices (such as, forced marriage) and parenting approaches. Caseworkers ran parenting skills sessions for refugee parents and sessions for social workers on Syrian parenting norms. These sessions aimed to educate both parents and social workers about different approaches to parenting and avoid interpreting behaviour as neglectful. Caseworkers reported that feedback from refugees had been positive, and these sessions had reassured refugees who had heard rumours about social services involvement in their family life’.

Stakeholders and caseworkers highlighted good practice where local services had been commissioned or adapted to respond to refugee-specific needs. This mostly involved mental health services aimed at refugee needs (such as, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and experience of torture), or services adapted to facilitate access for new patients with low English language skills and low understanding of the healthcare system. Examples of tailored and expert support highlighted by stakeholders and local authorities included:

• refugee-specific health clinics
• open mornings to register resettled refugees at a GP surgery
• therapeutic services offered by the Refugee Council

According to local authority survey responses, few (15 out of 150) local authorities in England and Wales were also jointly commissioning health services with other local authorities. This was more common in asylum-dispersal areas, suggesting that these areas may have commissioned these services for the wider refugee and asylum-seeking population before the start of VPRS/VCRS.

Stakeholders also felt that areas that had undertaken focused work to build relationships with CCGs and the third sector had more examples of good practice in service commissioning. A local authority survey respondent flagged that, in their area, there was a CCG-funded specialist health centre for refugees, asylum seekers and trafficked people. One case study area ran a CCG-funded GP clinic specifically for asylum seekers and refugees. The clinic provided full primary healthcare services and specialist mental health support. The clinic also referred patients to local partner agencies for non-medical support. Caseworkers worked closely with clinic staff to arrange appointments for refugees. After 3 months, the specialist GP clinic supported refugees to move to a mainstream GP.

9.2 Availability of mental health support

Access to mental health treatment and therapeutic support for refugees was variable (in line with reports for the UK population more broadly; for example, see NHS Inform (2018)). Local authorities across case study areas identified mental health support provision as a key challenge, particularly early intervention and preventative mental health support. This was despite stakeholders highlighting mental health support as key to refugee wellbeing and longer-term integration. Stakeholders highlighted that some CCGs provided only limited crisis support or support for mild depression.

Stakeholders, caseworkers, and refugees highlighted challenges to discussing mental health, namely stigma, cultural barriers, and a lack of caseworker training on understanding and discussing refugee mental health. One case study area was planning to hire a regional health officer to facilitate access to refugee-specific health services and upskill staff. In another area, caseworkers received training on identifying early signs of mental health needs.

In the Home Office monitoring information on 2017 arrivals, 7% of refugees had a mental health need (as identified by or reported to caseworkers)^{[footnote 11]}. This is likely an underestimate, given the barriers to refugees and caseworkers discussing mental health needs discussed above. Of those with identified mental health needs, 81% had accessed support.

Barriers to accessing services included a lack of specialist provision to effectively support individuals with PTSD and trauma, and long waiting lists where mental health support was available. In one case study area, staff had found frequent misdiagnoses of refugees’ mental health needs. This was due to cultural stigma and poor English levels among refugees, as well as the lack of specialist support available.

The lack of existing infrastructure in some areas was a barrier to setting up additional services, as the cost would exceed the VPRS/VCRS tariff funding for healthcare for individual refugees. Some case study local authorities were funding such support, for example by:

• funding a regional health officer position to focus on refugee health
• looking to jointly commission services with other local authorities
• providing free gym membership
• encouraging library membership (which local authority staff said had a positive impact on refugee mental health)

10. Social bridges and bonds

10.1 Social bonds and contact with other resettled refugees

How is refugee contact with other refugees facilitated by local authorities?

Refugees valued meeting other resettled families, which helped them build social bonds and feel more settled and less isolated. To facilitate mixing with other refugees, one local authority added all new arrivals to a WhatsApp group. Refugees could access this using SIM cards donated by a local mosque. Refugees also reported caseworkers or the local authority arranging welcome sessions with other resettled families. Local authorities and stakeholders recognised that peer mentorship between recently arrived refugees and those who had been in the UK for longer provided an opportunity to share information and learning about the local area and build links in the community. Caseworkers described how peer mentoring ensured that recently arrived refugees had alternative sources of support, particularly outside of caseworkers’ working hours.

Case study example 6: Resettled refugees organising events

In one case study area, a few resettled families had organised a weekly sports event at a nearby sports facility. Attendance was growing and the families were optimistic it would grow to include the wider community. This had been a positive experience.

“This is how it is supposed to be, to integrate with others. We are not here to be isolated.”
Refugee interview, case study

Local authorities had put in place measures to prevent refugees from feeling isolated from other recently arrived families, such as trying to place refugees in geographic proximity to other resettled families. In one area with regional coordination of resettlement across multiple local authorities, delivery of the scheme was based around creating ‘clusters’ of around 5 families. The Gateway resettlement programme informed this model, which aimed to prevent social isolation by resettling families close together. Stakeholders said this had enabled more effective and efficient planning of services and finances across districts. For example, it had facilitated smaller ESOL class sizes, which the resettlement coordinator identified through their own research as optimum for learning, and it had enabled more effective allocation of interpreters across the local authority. In some areas where refugees were not close to other families, they expressed feeling isolated. Refugees relocated to areas far from friends or family members also expressed frustration.

Some refugees experienced distress due to having family members living in dangerous conditions abroad and were confused about the inability to apply to be reunited with extended family members under the existing Immigration Rules. Refugees, local authority staff and caseworkers mentioned that this sometimes hampered longer-term integration. The case studies uncovered some limited instances of caseworkers helping with applications, but not necessarily having the expertise to advise refugees as to their legal entitlements.

10.2 Social contact with the wider local community

How are refugees perceived by wider local communities?

Public focus group participants demonstrated generally low awareness of refugee resettlement in their area, and in the UK in general. In one case study area, resettlement staff had explicitly avoided telling other agencies or the public about their involvement with VPRS/VCRS. This was due to concerns that refugees would not be welcomed, and that public knowledge of the schemes would put resettled refugees at greater risk.

Overall, focus group participants expressed sympathy towards refugees, particularly those fleeing war and persecution in Syria, and had some awareness of the situation refugees faced. This is in line with polling on public attitudes towards refugees, which suggests that 72% of people in Britain support the right to seek refuge to escape war and persecution (higher than the global average of 61%) (Ipsos, 2019). However, focus group participants raised concerns around the potential for new arrivals to their area to cause pressure on over-stretched public services, which they felt were unable to meet the needs of the current resident population. Concerns about the ability of refugees to integrate were also raised, with importance given to refugees learning English for mixing socially and finding employment. Some participants raised doubts about refugees’ willingness to integrate, based on media reporting or anecdotes from acquaintances. Others felt that there should be more opportunities locally for refugees to learn English or integrate. Polling suggests that people in Britain are divided about whether refugees will integrate successfully (45% agree and 38% disagree) (Ipsos, 2019).

The general public focus group participants suggested that people were more likely to be sympathetic towards refugees living in their communities if they had more understanding about them, and they felt that refugees were keen to integrate into the community, for example, through learning English and finding employment. In some local authority areas identified in the survey, and by stakeholders, third-sector organisations had held awareness-raising sessions with the wider community to prepare people for the arrival of refugees. These sessions were an opportunity for the local community to find out more about the background of refugees and considerations to make refugees feel more welcome (such as, appropriate greetings and awareness of cultural practice around dress and hygiene when visiting people at home), as well as to manage expectations about how they could support resettled refugees.

Stakeholders in another area also raised concerns about potential tensions arising between refugees resettled through VPRS/VCRS and other refugees and asylum seekers who did not have the same entitlements and support.

What are the key barriers to social interaction with the wider local community?

Refugees perceived language as the greatest barrier to social interaction with the wider local community. Even where other enablers were in place and refugees felt welcomed and met friendly neighbours, they found it difficult to build relationships beyond a superficial friendliness without adequate language skills. This could be very frustrating.

Finding social opportunities and interacting with the local community was harder for refugees living in areas lacking in amenities and/or activities. This was particularly the case in rural areas, but also in more deprived or suburban areas that lacked community centres or places for young people to play or socialise. Refugees sometimes had to travel considerable distances to access amenities such as halal shops or places of worship. Refugees said the cost of transport was prohibitive in these instances and discouraged them from going out more often. As noted previously, refugees mentioned that subsidised travel or bus passes helped. In one case study area, refugees were provided with a 2-week bus pass on arrival.

Refugees’ individual personal circumstances also affected social integration. For example, caseworkers said that some refugees with young children and some extended families who resettled together were less likely to socialise outside of the family.

The case studies also identified instances of refugees struggling to build social bridges in their communities due to anti-migrant feeling or being made to feel unwelcome. There were examples of older children being bullied in their local neighbourhoods and at school. Issues had persisted even where the police had become involved, leading to children feeling that they could not go out or play in their local area. Some of the general public focus group participants expressed anti-migrant feelings or acknowledged that refugees may encounter hostility and may not be welcome. Refugees and stakeholders mentioned instances of harassment or anti-social behaviour; although noted as rare, examples arose across local authority case study areas. For example, in one local authority area, a stranger had shouted through a resettled family’s letterbox and a stone thrown through their window, which the family felt was due to their ethnicity. The experience shook the family, especially as it had taken place at their home.

Police home visits to address concerns about safety and security were helpful, according to stakeholders. Following an anti-social incident towards one resettled refugee family, local authority resettlement staff arranged for police officers to visit resettled families to explain safety and security measures in the area. Resettlement staff felt that this had worked well to provide reassurance to families.

What are the key enablers of social contact with the wider local community?

In Home Office monitoring data on 2017 arrivals, most resettled refugees (94%) stated that people from different backgrounds got on well together in their area^{[footnote 12]}. Refugees interviewed had frequently mentioned finding their neighbours friendly and welcoming. The impact of such interactions was powerful, resonating through refugees’ broader experience of resettlement.

The case studies and caseworker forum found examples of refugees becoming involved in activities in their communities, including football clubs and school events, and attending local celebrations such as firework displays. Caseworkers, ESOL colleges or children’s schools had often encouraged this. A few refugees mentioned that members of the wider community, such as, local churchgoers or neighbours, had spontaneously initiated social contact.

What is the role of volunteering in facilitating social interaction?

Refugees, caseworkers, and local authority survey respondents highlighted volunteering as a positive enabler of community engagement and socialisation for refugees and for facilitating English language learning and skills into employment for some. The extent to which refugees were introduced to and encouraged to engage in volunteering varied considerably across case studies areas. Some local authorities saw this as their responsibility and helped refugees to find opportunities, while others expected refugees to access opportunities independently or through third-sector organisations.

Refugees with low levels of English had taken up volunteering opportunities such as gardening and cooking projects. Caseworkers and stakeholders also highlighted that a small number of refugees had attained enough English to take on volunteering roles related to previous skilled employment, or in charity shops. Refugees said that volunteering had helped them gain confidence. Some refugees stated that while their priority was to find paid employment, volunteering had helped them get to know others.

11. Funding and value for money

11.1 Adequacy of tariff funding

Local authorities and stakeholders generally said that central government funding for the schemes was fair and adequate, particularly in the first year of resettlement. According to the local authority survey, local authorities spent the largest proportion of their tariff funding on ‘orientation and caseworker support’ (selected by 57%), followed by housing (32%).

Local authorities felt that the fact that funding was not ‘ring-fenced’ for specific activities had enabled a flexible approach to resource allocation depending on individual refugees’ needs, and that it had encouraged local authorities to participate in the scheme. Local authority survey respondents suggested that this allowed them to develop tailored services to fit the local infrastructure or political context. For example, one area was using the private rental sector while resettled refugees waited for social housing, at an additional cost, to avoid resentment in the wider community about refugees being given preferential treatment (through being allocated social housing before local residents). In another area, due to the low diversity of the population, the council used VPRS/VCRS funding to run some integration and support services that were open to all recent migrants, rather than exclusively for resettled refugees.

Stakeholders frequently compared the level and flexibility of VPRS/VCRS funding to programmes for similar populations, such as, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, victims of trafficking, and other refugees. Stakeholders felt these groups received less support due to a lack of equivalent central government funding. Stakeholders and local authority staff expressed concerns that this could cause resentment towards VPRS/VCRS refugees. As above, some local authorities had addressed this by commissioning services that benefitted both VPRS/VCRS resettled refugees and the wider refugee and migrant population.

Stakeholders raised concerns that the funding formula, calculated per capita, discouraged local authorities from accepting single-person households, which could include greater numbers of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer plus (LGBTQ+) individuals.

11.2. In-kind support

In-kind support from charities and volunteers was an important additional resource, particularly for supporting community integration and language acquisition. Charities contributed to the schemes’ success by providing additional resources including:

• training and online resources (such as toolkits and guides)
• running projects for resettled refugees (independently or in partnership with the local authority) on ESOL
• employment support

Local volunteers and ‘welcome groups’ were another key resource for integrating refugees into the local area. These were generally organised in a more formal manner around community sponsorship. Throughout the case studies, in-kind support from charities and volunteers appeared to work particularly well when centrally coordinated at a local authority or district level. This included local authority ‘volunteer coordinators’ who signposted refugees to relevant local services and worked with volunteer groups. For example, in one local authority, welcome packs for resettled refugees were organised by a local refugee charity and provided by local authority caseworkers.

11.3. Effect of participation on budgets

In the local authority survey, a third of local authorities (32%) said that participating in the scheme had a positive effect on their budgets. Many suggested that the flexibility of the funding meant they had been able to invest in existing services and expand their capacity to deliver support. Local authorities that had experienced funding costs were more likely to use this funding to invest in existing services, such as adult services and libraries.

A similar proportion (31%) of local authorities said that participating in the schemes had a negative effect on their budget, resulting in a stretch in other services, particularly education, social services, and housing. Several local authorities mentioned that complex cases were particularly challenging, for example, children with SEN or those requiring social services input. These are both areas where local authorities can claim additional funding, which suggests that this funding may be under-used due to a lack of awareness. Some local authorities also mentioned pressure on local housing and homelessness services.

Finally, 29% of local authority respondents did not know whether the schemes had had a positive or negative effect on their overall budget.

11.4. Access and timelines of funding

Local authorities and stakeholders said that local authorities were mostly receiving resources in a timely manner. This was considered particularly important for local authorities with low levels of existing infrastructure to support the integration of refugees (such as ESOL classes or refugee support organisations), as they required funding to commission new services or extend existing ones.

Interviewees identified healthcare funding as challenging, with one stakeholder reporting that significant amounts of money were unclaimed by CCGs, despite efforts by the Home Office to increase the number of claims. The low number of claims for healthcare tariff funding was viewed as more of a problem in England. A possible reason for the low number of claims could be patient confidentiality, as identifiable data cannot normally be shared for non-clinical purposes. Home Office criteria for claiming additional funding have since changed, so that aggregate level data is provided instead of data on individual refugees. Another challenge was CCGs not being able to track costs for the purpose of claiming funding.

Local authority staff and wider stakeholders were not always clear about what expenditure was allowed under core or additional funding. For example, there was confusion around whether funding could be used to subsidise rents. In one area, resettlement staff noted that schools were often not aware of the support that they could claim through the exceptional cases fund. This was a barrier to them claiming funding for additional support for SEN children.

11.5. Incorporation of value for money

Home Office stakeholders and contracted organisations delivering support viewed the process for tendering pre-departure activities with refugees as adequately incorporating value for money considerations and processes.

The flexibility of funding for post-arrival support had allowed local authorities to make their own decisions relating to value for money. For example, in one case study area, ESOL provision and interpreters were commissioned centrally to ensure both value for money and a consistent service. In another area, temporary private rental sector properties were reused for newly arrived families where possible to reduce the cost of sourcing appropriate homes.

11.6. Transparency

Stakeholders and local authority staff were concerned about a lack of transparency both locally and nationally regarding how VPRS/VCRS funding was being spent.

“The problem with the accounting system that the Home Office runs, is that it doesn’t really provide reports in sufficient detail for internal management”
Stakeholder interview, stakeholder panel

Local authority survey responses highlighted this lack of clarity. As mentioned earlier, 29% of local authority respondents did not know whether the schemes had had a positive or negative effect on their budget. This may reflect the complexity of local authority budgets or distance from budgetary decisions by local authority leads.

12. Community sponsorship

12.1 Group management and governance

The governance and structure of community sponsorship groups was significantly different to that of local authorities involved in refugee resettlement. Both groups included in the case studies developed because a small group of people (or an individual) brought together a core group of between 8 and 12 people to coordinate the application process. Members in both case studies said that roles and responsibilities had developed organically through a motivation to provide support to a refugee family. As recommended by the Home Office, individual members had taken ownership of various areas of support (such as, housing, finances, ESOL, safeguarding and education). Having members with a range of experience and expertise was helpful, for example, in education (including former ESOL teachers), health, or financial management. Within both community sponsorship groups, there was a key point of contact or coordinator who took responsibility for ensuring that deadlines were met, relevant stakeholders identified, and support put in place (drawing on other members where required). One group had initially had 2 people in this role, but this was no longer necessary as the support the family needed had reduced over time.

Nine of the 15 community sponsor groups who responded to the survey held regular meetings with the local authority and/or other partners. Most commonly, attendees were representatives from housing, education, and local police services.

Case study groups communicated using both formal and informal meeting structures, and they had relationships with national charities who helped guide or train group members. This was sometimes the lead sponsorship organisation (such as, the charity or community interest group registered as the sponsoring body for the family).

One group highlighted changes to their governance as a result of learning from the first family they had supported. The group had decided they would not have group meetings without the family present. This was important for 2 reasons:

• to empower the family in decision-making
• to ensure clear communication between the family and the group, avoiding duplication of effort and ensuring transparency

The second group also found it important to give the family options, to ensure they were happy with the support proposed before proceeding.

12.2 Community sponsor application process

The application process to become a community sponsor involves gaining the support of the local authority and putting together a resettlement support plan for approval by the Home Office. Issues with the application process were the most frequently mentioned challenge, highlighted by 5 groups in open survey responses. Specifically, respondents mentioned the length of time for groups to be granted permission to sponsor a refugee and the changing requirements for sponsorship, particularly for smaller groups with no experience of large applications.

“Pre-arrival, the process to get permission to sponsor is painfully slow and we are put into a moral predicament taking people’s money, large sums of it, with no certainty that a family will arrive.”
Community sponsor, survey response

Respondents mentioned several facilitators for getting through the application process. One case study group mentioned that members’ previous experience with large funding applications was a key facilitator in putting together the application. Existing relationships with the local council, ESOL providers and local refugee support organisations were also considered vital in putting together the support plan for the family. Support from local authority staff, facilitated through existing relationships, was also key. This included:

• reviewing the application and providing input around existing services that could support the family
• organising approval from the child safeguarding board
• reviewing safeguarding procedures
• providing referrals to internal staff with expertise in specific areas (for example, housing)
• providing safeguarding training for group members

Stakeholders in both community sponsor case study areas suggested they had either received support from or were supporting other community sponsorship groups. In one case, while writing the application, group members reached out to existing groups for advice on how best to support a family and navigate the resettlement plan process, which group members said had helped to make a successful application.

12.3 Pre-departure processes and arrival in the UK

Both case study groups said they received little information about the families before they arrived, aside from medical records and family composition (names, ages, date of birth and photographs to identify the family at the airport). Additional pre-departure information they considered desirable included sizing for clothes and shoes, and more information around dietary requirements, to ensure that items were ready for the family on arrival. In one case, an incorrect date of birth had been recorded on official documentation for one family member. The group spotted this and raised it with the Home Office team, who ensured this was corrected. However, the group was concerned that the error could have resulted in problems and delays, for example, when registering for benefits. In one case study area, group members considered the method for securely sharing Home Office information with the groups problematic, as the group did not have access to the specialised software required. While an agreement was subsequently reached that the local authority would receive and pass on relevant information in hard copy, group members raised concerns that the online information sharing process was not suited to ‘ordinary individuals’ who made up most community sponsorship groups.

12.4 Housing and locality

According to the local authority survey, most groups delivered housing support without relying on other delivery partners or the local authority, including for housing acquisition, property set-up and ongoing tenancy support. A few groups drew on third-sector support. In both case studies, housing was secured at reduced rates, through a philanthropic landlord and through a local housing association, at LHA rates and with a 3-year fixed tenancy.

A few groups in the survey mentioned the long-term challenge of providing suitable accommodation, highlighting the requirement that housing must be available to the family for 2 years. Some members also raised sustainability of housing for refugees beyond the 2 years of housing support. In both case studies, reduced rates were secured because private rents were considered prohibitively expensive.

In one case study group, members felt other groups could benefit if more activity was undertaken centrally (for example, by the Home Office) to build relationships with housing associations. This would also encourage housing associations to actively support the resettlement schemes, as they had found senior housing association staff to be enthusiastic to help once the local authority facilitated contact. Home Office monitoring information suggests that housing associations may be an under-used resource. Among families who arrived during 2017 and were supported by community sponsorship groups, almost all were renting privately.

The family in the urban case study reported feeling safe in the local area and found the orientation provided by the group helpful. They were aware of how to access services and local amenities, including a library and leisure centre, place of worship, and the children’s school, which were all close by. However, they were still getting used to navigating the wider area and hoped that this would become easier over time, as they had been in the UK for just under a year. In the more rural context, accessing amenities without the ability to drive was challenging. The group had supported the family by providing lifts to appointments. There were challenges in taking the driving theory and practical tests, as the tests must be undertaken in English and interpreter support is not allowed in most of the UK (excluding Northern Ireland).

12.5 Support from community sponsorship groups

Community sponsor groups described the support they gave refugees as “flexible”, “holistic”, “individualised” and “responsive”. They said that the skills, knowledge and dedication of volunteers, and partnerships formed with delivery partners, facilitated this approach. Both families said they were happy with and grateful for the support provided.

“The kids are happy. We are happy. Everybody’s helping us. People are nice to us, so we are okay.”
Refugee interview, case study

Both community sponsorship case study groups had similar approaches to providing support during the first few weeks. During this period, a rota of visits and support ensured that the family was accompanied to appointments, with care taken that the family was not overwhelmed by the support or number of people visiting. One family fed back that they would have liked to have been taken around their local area sooner.

The balance between providing support and encouraging independence was a key theme in the case studies and survey responses. One group said that following the initial period after resettlement, group members had balanced the support provided to the family with encouraging independence, considering it important that the parents were confident to decline support and say when it was too much. While support was never refused, the family was encouraged to undertake activities by themselves. For example, taking the bus independently, after being accompanied a few times. In the other case study, members and refugees indicated that sometimes support had engendered dependency. The family noted that they would not feel comfortable explaining that they did not require support in one area, because in other areas they felt reliant on the group.

Both groups stressed the importance of developing a trusting and friendly relationship between the family and key group members. They thought it important to seek the family’s views and input on decisions, such as, which GP or school to register with.

One group had support from 2 local volunteer interpreters, which was invaluable, particularly during the first few months. Interpreters attended initial appointments with the family and a local orientation to ensure the family could navigate the local area. One volunteer interpreter also provided her phone number so that the family could call when required. The volunteer interpreters were identified through existing contacts within the group, which members acknowledged may not have been possible in less diverse areas. This was borne out in the other (rural) case study area, where the group had found only one person who spoke the same language as the family. While this was helpful, having access to only one person, who was not directly involved in the group, was limiting as they were not always available.

12.6 Education and training: children and young people

Both case study community sponsors used connections within the group to help refugees access education. In both cases, at least one group member either worked or had worked in an education setting. Members said this had resulted in a smooth transition and successful integration of children into school.

In the urban area, school staff had facilitated families making social connections through the school. During an orientation visit to the school, staff introduced the parents to a family who spoke their first language and had children at the school, with whom they formed a relationship, and to teachers of the same faith. This was the school’s initiative to make the family feel welcome. In the rural context, the children were attending after-school clubs and felt they were enjoying school and had made friends there.

12.7 English language acquisition

All survey respondents provided a combination of support for ESOL provision. The most common model was through working with the local authority to identify suitable support (for example, from local colleges or additional provision put in place by local authorities using VPRS/VCRS funding), supplemented by volunteer English language support. In some groups, members delivered English language provision, while other groups engaged supplementary volunteer support for English language provision. One group had received funding from the Syria Grant Fund to provide one-to-one ESOL tuition. Groups highlighted that accessing existing ESOL provision in rural areas was harder due to the lack of transport options.

In both case studies, there was a focus on both formal and informal ESOL. Some family members noted they would like more formal ESOL, although one family member thought the amount received was enough, despite being offered more. In one group, private tuition/volunteer tuition was arranged as the family arrived at a time of year when the college was not providing classes. Group members saw this as important in filling an initial gap in provision. The other group had worked on developing a ‘community ESOL’ package for the family. As well as language sessions led by a qualified ESOL tutor, non-qualified voluntary language tutors supported the family by going shopping and attending events with them, and by encouraging them to use and apply language learnt in the classroom setting.

12.8 Employment, volunteering, and access to benefits

12.8.1 Access to benefits

According to survey respondents, access to benefits was largely provided by group members, drawing on existing DWP provision. Group members typically attended Jobcentre appointments with refugees and helped with form-filling.

Both case study groups had experienced challenges in accessing benefits, causing confusion and delays. Barriers included:

• interpreters being unavailable, or JCP staff being unaware of the requirement to provide interpreters at appointments
• JCP staff not understanding refugees’ eligibility for benefits
• group members being unclear about how to apply for benefits; this included confusion around which benefits had to be claimed before other benefits, the evidence required, and what forms to use
• the perceived unsuitability of questions on benefits forms to the situation of refugees (including online forms not accepting previous addresses outside the UK)
• variation across different services (for example, banks, insurance companies and the DWP) in the procedure for obtaining authorisation to apply on behalf of those with limited English language skills

Group members said that it would have been helpful to receive more guidance on benefits, including:

• information on how to gain authorisation to apply on behalf of the family
• general information about eligibility for different benefits
• guidance from the Home Office on the various reference numbers it provides for the family and when they are required; the Home Office has published further guidance (Home Office, 2018b).

12.8.2 Support into employment

In the survey, supporting refugees into employment was the most frequently anticipated challenge. Groups relied either on third-sector or private-sector support or on existing provision (such as the local JCP) to deliver employment support. Some groups sought employment opportunities for refugees through personal contacts (such as, friends or family) or group members.

The case studies illustrate the challenges of finding suitable employment. In one case study, the main barrier to employment was English language ability. The father said his current level of English meant he could only get a job involving low levels of communication and interaction in English. This type of job would limit his language acquisition and would not make use of his previous skills and experience. Group members had identified the UK qualifications he needed to work in his previous profession, but the courses did not allow interpreter assistance, creating an additional barrier to employment. In one case study area, the benefit cap had made working a necessity and so a role was found in the local community. This role was not ideal as it involved working late hours, but it had helped with finances.

“This job is difficult for me because I can’t see much of the children. I work late, but I’m hoping for a better job later on.”
Refugee interview, case study

12.9 Health and social care

Generally, both case study families could access healthcare. In the urban case study, an Arabic-speaking GP had helped the family to access healthcare and understand the health system. All family members had accessed healthcare through this GP. The family said the healthcare system had exceeded their expectations, although they noted referrals had been slow. An interpreter had helped with booking initial appointments, but the parents now felt confident to do this themselves. Group members had encouraged this, though they still provided support when required. In the rural group, one member being a doctor had facilitated access to healthcare. The family members had no serious health issues, so had required little contact with healthcare services.

Both case study families had struggled to get access to dental care. In the rural area, it took some time to negotiate with the dentist to provide an interpreter. In the urban area, registering for a dentist was challenging, as many surgeries were closed for NHS referrals. Members said it was difficult to explain what dental treatment was covered by the NHS and what must be paid for privately, and that they would value further guidance from the Home Office on this.

12.10 Social bridges and bonds

Community sponsorship groups were using group members and volunteers to encourage community engagement and socialisation. According to Home Office monitoring data on 2017 arrivals, most community sponsor-supported refugees had volunteered in the last 6 months (58%).

Group members facilitated contact with neighbours in both case studies, with one member speaking to neighbours before the family arrived and encouraging the family to make further contact. In the urban community sponsorship area, the family had formed social connections through group members and the children’s primary school. The local orientation provided by group members had included signing up to the children’s centre and local library. The mother attended a weekly group at the local library and mentioned attending local community events. The family also attended a local place of worship. Although in the more rural setting contact between the family and the wider community was frequent, there was still a clear sense of isolation. The group saw engagement in education as a key facilitator to making friends in the community. One family member attended a course at a local college through which they hoped to make friends. Both families acknowledged that their English language skills limited their ability to make social connections beyond the group.

“I love to have friends, to talk to people. I feel lonely on my own. So, yes, it will be great if I make friends and get a job at the end of [the training course].”
Refugee interview, case study

Families mentioned their desire to reunite with, and concern for, family members who remained in the country of origin. In one case, a community group member had used a Home Office-provided information sheet to explain the family reunion process and how it was difficult and unlikely to succeed, which the family stated they had understood. However, both families mentioned they would like additional support to reunite with wider family members.

Public focus groups in both areas raised concerns about the pressure new arrivals might place on public services, in the context of restricted local authority budgets and existing shortages and pressure^{[footnote 13]}. Some public focus group participants were aware of fundraising activities conducted to raise money to sponsor a refugee family and found this activity positive for raising awareness and fostering support towards the family.

Public focus groups mentioned the importance of integration. Key aspects of integration raised included speaking English and cultural understanding (both of refugees of the local culture and the wider community of the culture of refugees). Urban public focus group participants said that even in a diverse area, refugees might face racism and abuse. Public focus group in both areas highlighted a lack of local integration activities and services for refugees and migrants. Ideas for existing services that might aid integration included libraries, school events, women’s centres, and free local events on public holidays (such as firework displays). Both areas also suggested that a mentoring or ‘buddy system’ between refugees and local people could help refugees to integrate and meet people.

12.11 Funding and value for money

Both groups felt that value for money considerations were incorporated through the appointment of a treasurer and that there was sufficient oversight on how funds were spent to ensure adequate support for the family.

Community sponsorship groups raise financial support through donations. Both sponsors had a treasurer with previous experience to manage group finances. Both groups had found raising money simple and relatively straightforward and felt that the wider community had been largely receptive to community sponsorship (for example, donating toys and household items). In one case, difficulty in setting up a bank account for the group delayed fundraising. One member stated that advice and experience from other groups on setting up an account would have been helpful.

Volunteers provided crucial support to families, including informal ESOL lessons and initial private ESOL lessons. Group members coordinated volunteer assistance to ensure structure. One group said that volunteer interpreters were an incredibly valuable resource that had saved them a large amount of money.

Appendix A: Methodology

Overview of methodology

Inception phase

Ipsos carried out an inception phase from October to December 2017. In this phase, a number of activities were carried out.

Firstly, a literature review of existing evidence was conducted, including on resettlement schemes delivered elsewhere (particularly Australia, Canada, and the US) with information on barriers and enablers to success. The existing literature on relevant indicators of integration was also reviewed. This included the Home Office Indicators of Integration framework (Ager and Strang, 2004; Home Office, 2019b), an evidence-based tool for conceptualising and measuring integration across a range of different domains, which fed into development of the research materials. In addition, an account of the schemes’ activities was developed through the analysis of Home Office documents and other official literature. And finally, familiarisation interviews were conducted with key policy officials from the Home Office; Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG); Department for International Development (DfID); and Strategic Migration Partnership (SMPs).

The outputs of the inception phase were a Theory of Change model (Figure 1) for the VPRS and VCRS and a scheme-level evaluation framework. Figure 1 shows the rationale behind the schemes, and their inputs, activities, as well as anticipated intermediate outcomes, longer-term outcomes, and impacts.

Figure 1: VPRS/VCRS Theory of Change Model

Local authority and community sponsor survey

Ipsos undertook a survey with local authority resettlement leads in March to May 2018 to help understand how local authorities and community sponsors are delivering the schemes across the UK. The survey explored the following areas:

• local governance and planning arrangements
• how the scheme is being delivered across the Statement of Outcomes (Home Office, 2018b)
• influencing factors in choosing delivery models
• what is working well and challenges in delivering support
• value for money considerations

The online survey was open from 13 March until 13 May using an online approach to allow participants the time and flexibility to gather the relevant information, and to discuss their responses with colleagues. To ensure that the questions applied to individual respondents, Ipsos sent 3 separate versions of the survey to local authorities, Northern Ireland Executive (NIE), and community sponsors, with several questions overlapping for all respondents. The survey included multiple-choice questions and open-ended responses.

Ipsos sent 206 links to 17 community sponsorship groups, 188 local authority staff and one NIE staff member^{[footnote 14]}. The survey achieved a 72% response rate with 150 respondents. Eighteen respondents stated they oversee the delivery of the scheme in multiple local authorities. Therefore, the survey data represents 186 local authorities.

Table A1: Response rate by region

Name	Sample	Completes	% completes
East Midlands	7	4	57
East of England	17	9	53
London	22	8	36
North East	8	7	88
North West	12	8	67
Northern Ireland	1	1	100
Scotland	31	28	90
South East	29	23	79
Wales	20	15	75
South West	14	13	93
West Midlands	13	7	54
Yorkshire and The Humber	15	12	80
Community Sponsors	17	15	88

Stakeholder panel interviews

A stakeholder interview panel collected further qualitative data on the operation of the schemes between January and February 2018. There were 25 in-depth telephone interviews with stakeholders from central and local government and third-sector organisations closely involved with overseeing and/or delivering the VPRS/VCRS. Possible interviewees were identified through the inception phase and from suggestions from Home Office staff and other panel participants.

The interview discussion guide included questions related to the schemes’ operation in each area of the evaluation framework, and barriers and enablers to achieving outcomes. Questions also related to the background and role of the stakeholder in relation to the scheme. The interviewer tailored questions depending on the area of expertise of each interviewee.

Members of the core research team conducted each interview, which lasted 60 to 90 minutes. In some cases, up to 3 members of staff from an organisation gave group telephone interviews where considered appropriate, based on the area of expertise of each staff member. Interviews in Year 1 included:

• 7 interviews with Resettlement, Asylum Support and Integration (RASI)/UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) staff
• 4 with UNHCR/IOM representatives involved primarily in pre-departure activities
• 7 with delivery partner leads in the third sector
• 7 with SMP staff and local government representatives

Ipsos coded the interview data in NVivo to identify key themes. Ipsos will undertake panel interviews each year to capture change and progression over time and seek replacements should key personnel change. The team will review the sampling approach, which may be revised in Years 2 and 3 of the study as the scheme develops.

Caseworker online forum

Three online forums were conducted in June and July 2018, each lasting a week. In total, 15 caseworkers working on the VPRS/VCRS participated. Participants were recruited via local authorities and relevant charities. The sample achieved included a mix of gender, nations within the UK (including England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), caseworkers employed by both local authorities and charities, and from a range of professional backgrounds. All participants had spent between 2 and 4 years in their roles.

Caseworkers responded to questions drawn from a semi-structured discussion guide over the course of a week. Using anonymised usernames, they were able to log into the forum at their convenience to participate and answer questions. Moderators contributed regularly during the day to probe and explore participants’ responses. Participants were also encouraged to respond to each other’s comments and share views. The forums provided an opportunity for caseworkers to share their own experience and comment on each other’s approaches to supporting resettled refugees. Home Office researchers were able to observe the forum when live and download the anonymised dataset as transcripts for analysis.

Case study research

Based on the survey results and through discussion with Home Office research and policy staff, Ipsos selected 5 local authority and 2 community sponsorship case study areas. Analysis of the local authority survey provided a ‘roadmap’ to judge the typicality of a local authority in terms of service delivery on the VPRS/VCRS.

The sampling approach included consideration of delivery models of interest, while also ensuring that we covered the following key criteria:

• coverage of urban and rural geographies
• coverage of both VPRS and VCRS
• areas with a relatively high volume of resettled refugees (to ensure a large enough sample)
• coverage of both those with and without previous experience of refugee resettlement
• coverage of both single and combined local authority models (with one coordinator for multiple local authorities)

Each case study comprised a range of research elements, listed below, designed to capture the views of diverse stakeholders, and maximise insight from a range of perspectives. The exact format of the research was tailored to reflect local delivery models. Each case study involved 4 days of face-to-face fieldwork time, excluding desk research:

• desk research of contextual/economic data and local operational documents
• 6 face-to-face-in-depth interviews with a range of key local authority stakeholders with statutory posts and delivery partners and caseworkers
• 1.5 days of interviews, family interviews or small group discussions with refugee beneficiaries (for example, up to 5 family in-depth interviews or 3 small group discussions)
• one focus group with members of the general public within the specific local host community

Research with key stakeholders and deliver partners/lead caseworkers

Case study research leads liaised with key local authority stakeholders to secure access to relevant operational documents for the desk research and to identify participants for interviews. The research leads approached relevant individuals by letter and email explaining the research activities.

Research with refugees

Refugees were invited to participate in case study research through gatekeepers (caseworkers working locally to support resettled refugees). These gatekeepers had the opportunity to discuss any questions or concerns regarding participation in the research, before enabling Ipsos to approach refugees directly. Ipsos developed information leaflets for potential participants, translated into relevant languages. Gatekeepers shared these with refugees to support their full understanding of participating in the research and address ethical issues (such as participants’ informed consent and their right to withdraw at any time). These leaflets explained the content of the interview, its predicted length of time, the nature of involvement expected from family members, how to participate, and how to follow up any question or concerns they might have. An interpreter read out the leaflet for refugees unable to read.

To ensure the comfort of refugee participants, they were given about a choice about how they could be interviewed. Researchers worked closely with gatekeepers and refugees to establish whether in-depth interviews, family interviews, or group discussions would be most suitable. Researchers developed materials and stimulus for family interviews, individual and paired interviews, focus groups and interviews with children.

Ipsos researchers designed the sampling for the refugee interviews to capture a diverse range of experiences and shed light on how various characteristics might affect these experiences. Interviewees included male and female refugees of a wide range of ages (including children and young people, mainly interviewed in a family setting), disabilities and health conditions. Refugees had been resettled in the UK for a range of time periods, from under 6 months to over 2 years. Most had been resettled for between one and 2 years. Table A2 outlines the time since resettlement for refugee families interviewed in each local authority case study area.

Table A2: Time of resettlement of participating refugees (individual/family encounters)

Case study area	3-6 months	7-12 months	13-18 months	18 months-2 years	Over 2 years
England, urban	-	1	2	2	1
Scotland, urban	4	1	2	-	3
England, rural and urban	-	-	6	1	-
Wales, rural	1	2	2	2	1
Northern Ireland, rural		2	2		1

Notes:

1. Length of time in the UK was not recorded for participants in 2 discussion groups with refugees, in Wales and Northern Ireland.

Where the participant’s preferred language was not English, interpreters were used to support researchers in conducting the interviews. Mindful that the use of interpreters can impact responses (for example, in inhibiting responses or through errors in translation or interpretation), participants were provided with detailed information sheets in their preferred language about the purpose of the research, and interpreters were briefed on the same issues, with clear instructions on translation requirements.

There were also advantages to the involvement of an interpreter, for example, their presence helped build rapport quickly, making participants feel at ease and able to talk freely about their experiences without worrying about finding the right words to communicate. For family interviews, the presence of an interpreter also meant that all family members could have equal opportunity to speak, rather than just those who were more confident with English. Interpreters were gender-matched to participants after discussion with them to ensure comfort. Participants were paid for their time; families received £60 per household interview and individuals participating in a group received £40 (adults) or a £10 high street voucher (people aged 17 and under).

Research materials for stakeholders and refugees

While slightly different techniques were used according to the audience and type of research encounter, research materials for the stakeholder interviews, online forums and case studies covered the same key topics, reflecting the relevant areas of the process and impact frameworks. Researchers added and modified key questions as the research progressed, reflecting the needs of the evaluation.

Table A3: Research questions explored with stakeholders and refugees

Section	Process evaluation questions	Impact evaluation outcomes tested
Pre-departure processes and arrival in the UK	Could effectiveness of pre-departure activities be improved (bearing mind resource constraints) in any way? How effective are these different post-arrival delivery models at facilitating the integration of resettled refugees across the following Indicators of Integration? (To include refugees’ access to, uptake of, and perceptions of resettlement support.) How effective are these different post arrival delivery models at meeting the immediate and essential needs of resettled refugees?	Improved knowledge and understanding of refugees of the laws and norms/expectations of living in the UK
Housing, locality, and social interactions	To what extent do processes ensure safe, secure housing and accessibility of local support services? To what extent do existing processes and communication lead to satisfaction with housing and the local neighbourhood? Are there any differences between rural and urban areas? Do local authority matching processes minimise requests to move home or location? What are the drivers for those who are not happy with their accommodation, local area, or local authority? To what extent is communication around the implications of moving communicated to refugees? Does the scheme facilitate mixing between refugees and their local communities? To what extent does the scheme facilitative positive interactions? To what extent does the scheme facilitate refugees to access services in their local community when needed? To what extent does the scheme facilitate refugees to undertake voluntary work in the community? Does this meet the needs of refugees? To what extent does the scheme support refugees to understand laws and norms and expectations of British culture?	Refugees do not move location within first 12 to 15 months of arrival, housing meets the expectations of refugees, increased interactions between refugees and their local community (including one use of local services and involvement in activities in the community) and improved knowledge of local communities about the culture of refugees
Perceptions of caseworker support	Do refugees feel adequately supported? Do caseworkers feel support is sufficient? Do refugees understand what the scheme should provide them with? Does the scheme facilitate communication and understanding for all stakeholders over refugee entitlements, restrictions, and implications of having refugee leave protection? Are expectations of refugees realistic?	Refugees and support staff understand refugees’ rights and legal status, refugees feel increased confidence and trust in public services
Healthcare awareness, access and understanding	To what extent does support enable access to healthcare, awareness, and trust in healthcare providers? To what extent do communication activities encourage the value of medicine in the UK and uptake of suitable provision? (for example, GP rather than A&E). To what extent do processes enable the identification of mental health problems and the facilitation of suitable medicine/social support? Are victims of torture/trauma being identified and supported?	Refugees have knowledge and skills to access healthcare. Refugees have improved understanding of the value of medicine.
Access to ESOL support	To what extent does the scheme facilitate learning outside of the ESOL classroom? To what extent does ESOL provision meet the expectations of refugees and encourage refugees to see the value in learning English? How does this vary across areas? To what extent does ESOL provision help to overcome the barriers to accessing and progressing in ESOL (particularly for different genders/ages)?	Refugees have knowledge and skills to access education and training, refugees make improvements in their attainment, increased value attached to learning English and understanding its uses, improved English language skills
Employment, volunteering, and access to benefits	To what extent does the scheme support refugees to enter the labour market? Does this meet their expectations? To what extent does VPRS/VCRS help support meaningful employment and job satisfaction for refugees where appropriate?	Refugees have knowledge and skills to access education and training, improved access to employment, improved access to volunteering opportunities, increased knowledge and understanding of the welfare system
Children and young people	To what extent does support offered facilitate access to education or training? How effective is support offered in ensuring children feel included and welcome in their school? To what extent does support offered help to break down barriers to school/further education (FE) attendance (particularly for 16 to 19-year-olds)? For those not in FE, does the scheme offer alternate routes? (For example, vocational education of pre-employment activities.)	Refugees make improvements in their attainment
Expectations around family reunion	To what extent does VPRS/VCRS facilitate family reunification in the UK?	Families are reunified in the UK

Research with the general public

Ipsos conducted focus groups with the general public in each case study area. The aim was to better understand the broader views of the receiving community and their engagement with and awareness of the VPRS/VCRS. This offered a snapshot of public opinion locally, and an insight into the potential for reciprocal relationships with resettled refugees and the community.

Participants were recruited face-to-face in the street. Discussion groups lasted around 90 minutes and included 8 to 10 participants that reflected the neighbourhood based on characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, and social class.

Ipsos also screened out those who identified as either very favourable or very unfavourable to refugee resettlement. This is because including those with very strong views can detrimentally affect a group dynamic and discourage others from speaking up. Participants received £40 for taking part in the discussion. Discussion content for the groups reflected the relevant areas of the process and impact frameworks, as detailed in Table A4.

Table A4: Research questions explored with the general public

Section	Content	Evaluation framework outcomes tested	Relevant indicators of integration explored
Views about the local area	Icebreaker - participants introduce each other. This section will primarily focus on understanding how participants perceive community, and their broader feelings about the community they live in		Social bridges - perceived friendliness of local people (by refugees and non-refugees Safety and stability - [the proportion of] residents in areas of refugee resettlement who feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together
Views about resettled refugees and refugee integration	In this section, the moderator will introduce the scheme in more detail, explaining relevant definitions. We will explore attitudes towards refugee resettlement, including the place of refugees within the community	Improved knowledge and understanding of local communities about the culture of refugees and improved attitudes of local communities towards refugees	Social bridges - reported public attitudes to refugees
Contact with resettled refugees	This section will explore participants’ knowledge of, and interactions with, refugees in their community. We will also explore knowledge and experience of integration activities	Improved knowledge and understanding of local communities about the culture of refugees and increased social cohesion. Refugees have social networks outside of existing networks and connections in their community; positive interactions between communities and refugees leads to social networks and connections in the community	Social links - use of local services and amenities by refugees

Community sponsorship case studies

Community sponsorship case studies involved 2 stakeholder interviews, a public focus group and one refugee family interview, with the format depending on the composition of the family. Interviews were set up through community sponsorship group contacts, provided by the Home Office. Consent to take part in the research was sought from refugees through the community sponsorship group member, following a briefing about the research from Ipsos and the provision of a translated information sheet.

Data management and analysis

Ipsos recorded all research encounters and wrote detailed notes for each of them. Data from the case study strand were analysed thematically. This involved reviewing, sorting, and labelling the data against the impact and process evaluation frameworks, and generating summaries of the key evidence. This evidence was assessed against each of the evaluation outcomes across all case studies. The qualitative evidence gathered in the case study strand was triangulated with evidence from other strands of the research, to judge how far the relevant hypotheses were supported (or not supported) by the results. Furthermore, Ipsos also considered the data for each case study individually, again reviewing this against the impact and process evaluation frameworks. This allowed us to build up a detailed picture of how things are working in each of the case study areas, and the key factors underpinning this.

Research ethics

Ipsos has a dedicated Ethics Group which provides an advisory and review function for all projects within the Social Research Institute, with a specific focus on high-risk projects involving vulnerable individuals or sensitive issues.

Ensuring informed consent underpins our overall research approach. It is imperative that all participants feel well-informed about the research and receive information about how the information they provide will be used. Participation should be voluntary and free from coercion or pressure. In line with the requirements of GDPR, confidentiality and anonymity will be respected. Ipsos complies with Social Research Association (SRA, 2003), Market Research Society (MRS, 2014) and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, 2015) core ethical principles. These include:

• research should be designed, reviewed, and undertaken to ensure integrity, quality, and transparency
• research staff and participants must be informed fully about the purpose, methods and intended possible uses of the research, what their participation in the research entails and what risks, if any, are involved
• the confidentiality of information supplied by research participants and the anonymity of respondents must be made clear
• research participants must take party voluntarily, free from any coercion
• the independence of research must be clear, and any conflicts of interest or partiality must explicit (ESRC, 2015)

In addition, our approach is compliant with the MRS Code of Conduct and requirements of the law under the new GDPR regulations. Ipsos’s approach to informed consent is underpinned by these values and the extensive applied experience of the Ipsos Social Research Institute across some of the most challenging research studies in the UK working with diverse populations.

For this study, over and above Ipsos’s mandatory ethics requirement, at the design stage of each research element, the ethics submission for this study was commented on by 2 external academic reviewers as well as Ipsos’s internal Ethics Group, ensuring the same scrutiny levels as an ESRC Research Ethics Committee (REC). Following written and face-to-face feedback with the REC, our approach and relevant research materials were revised.

Appendix B: Caseworker support models

Table B1: Models of caseworker support across the 5 local authority case study areas

Case study local authority	Summary of model	Agencies involved	Initial support	Ongoing support	Step-down from main support period
England - Mixed Urban and Rural	Three tiers of support: 1. Two weeks of intensive support 2. Secondary less intensive support for the rest of the first year 3. Significantly stepped down support in the second year	Caseworker support provided by third sector and substantial involvement from other agencies and charities	Initial intensive (daily) support over the first 2 weeks	Dependent on refugee needs - typically, fortnightly visits for the remainder of the first year	Step-down after 1 year, more limited support continues through second year (for example, drop-in services rather than visits)
Northern Ireland - Mixed Urban and Rural	Intensive face-to-face support for 16 weeks, followed by lower-level support which continues indefinitely	Caseworker support provided by third-sector organisations	First 5 days at a welcome centre, receiving intensive support	Intensive face-to-face support for 16 weeks	Step-down after 16 weeks, support continues indefinitely but more limited (for example, drop-in services rather than visits)
England - Urban	Intensive support gradually reduces over 6 months, then continues at a lower level for the remainder of the first year. Caseworkers remain contactable after this	Caseworker support provided through local authority housing department. One key external partner but otherwise very limited involvement from other agencies and charities	Initial intensive (daily) support for up to around 6 weeks	Dependent on refugee needs. Fairly intensive support for the first 6 months, gradually decreasing from daily to weekly. Afterwards, less frequent visits for the remainder of the first year	Timing of step-down dependent on refugee needs -step-down typically after first year, but caseworkers remain contactable if help needed
Scotland - Urban	Initial 2 weeks of intensive support, then ongoing support varies considerably depending on individual needs. Support finishes after first year but caseworkers remain contactable	Caseworker support provided through the local authority . Some limited involvement from other agencies and charities	Intensive initial support over the first 2 weeks	Depended on refugee needs - substantial variation between cases	Support officially ceases after first year, although can be significantly earlier. Caseworkers remain contactable if needed
Wales - Rural	Initial 2 weeks of intensive support, then ongoing support is fairly hands-off and varies considerably depending on needs	Caseworker support is provided by third sector - very limited involvement from other agencies and charities	Intensive initial support over the first 2 weeks	Dependent on refugee needs - aim to reduce support within 3 to 6 months	Step-down starts after 3 to 6 months, caseworker support officially ends after around a year

References

Ager, A. and Strang, A. (2004) Indicators of Integration: final report. Home Office. London

DWP (2014) Freedom of Information response 12 September 2014. [Accessed 11 February 2021]

ESRC (2015) ESRC Framework for research ethics. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

HM Government (2018) Community Sponsorship: Guidance for prospective sponsors. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

Home Office (2018a) Resettlement: policy schedule. [Accessed 11 February 2021]

Home Office (2018b) Community Sponsorship: how you can make it happen. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

Home Office (2019a) How many people do we grant asylum or protection to?. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

Home Office (2019b) Home Office Indicators of Integration framework 2019. [accessed 11 February 2021]

Home Office, DfID and MHCLG (2017) Funding for Healthcare in England in Support of the United Kingdom’s Resettlement Programmes: financial year 2017-2018. [Accessed 11 February 2021]

Home Office, DfID and MHCLG (2018) Funding Instruction for local authorities in the support of the United Kingdom’s Resettlement Programmes Financial Year 2018-2019. [Accessed 11 February 2021]

Ipsos (2019) World Refugee Day. [Accessed 15 February 2021]

MRS (2014) Code of Conduct. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

NHS Inform (2018) Health acre for asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland, version 6. [Accessed 17 February 2021].

ONS (2017) Families and Households in the UK: 2017. [Accessed 11 February 2021]

SRA (2003) SRA Ethical Guidelines. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

UK Parliament (2015) Housing supply - where will we live?. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

WLGA (2018) Education Toolkit for Syrian Refugee Children in Wales. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

World Jewish Relief (2016) Supporting Syrian Refugees in the UK. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

Zayed, Y. (2019) Hate Crimes: What do the stats show?. [Accessed 17 February 2021]

Further Information

Feedback and enquiries

We’re always looking to improve the accessibility of our documents. If you find any problems, or have any feedback, relating to accessibility please contact us at:

ResettlementEvaluation@homeoffice.gov.uk

1. Local authorities, as referred to throughout this report, refers to local councils in England, Scotland and Wales, who resettle refugees in their communities, as well as the Northern Ireland Executive, where the NI Department for Communities (DfC) works in partnership with a consortium of organisations to deliver resettlement and integration support. ↩

2. Exceptional cost claims can be made by local authorities to cover additional essential costs incurred by the recipient above and beyond what could reasonably be regarded as normal expenditure and not available through other mainstream funding mechanisms. ↩

3. Local authority staff receive a copy of the UNHCR Resettlement Registration Form (RRF) for each refugee, a Migration Health Assessment (MHA) form, Best Interests Assessments and Determinations, and Pre-departure Medical Screening Form (PDMS). ↩

4. The UNHRC notes that the Family Links Information Sharing (FLIS) form was not an application for family reunion. As of 23 October 2020, the form has been discontinued as it was of limited practical use. ↩

5. Data were missing for 10% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

6. A PIP is an individualised plan, developed by caseworkers together with refugees, to agree and reach integration goals. ↩

7. Data were missing for 11% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

8. Additional funding is available on a case-by-case basis for schools through VPRS/VCRS on behalf of children with identified needs (for more information see Home Office et al., 2018). ↩

9. Data were missing for 18% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

10. Data were missing for 20% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

11. Data were missing for 10% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

12. Data were missing for 13% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

13. However, in one area, participants were not aware of refugees resettled in their local area (and this was not disclosed by researchers). In the other area, some participants were aware that families had been resettled locally, but they did not mention having personal contact with resettled families. ↩

14. The survey was sent to one NIE staff member due to their centralised approach to delivering VPRS/VCRS. At the time of writing, a total of 511 refugees had been resettled across Northern Irish local councils. ↩