Research and analysis

VPRS and VCRS Qualitative Evaluation – Year 2 Report

Published 30 March 2023

Authors: Isabella Pereira, Charlotte Peel, Andrew McKeown, Lauren Porter, Ilya Cereso and Amun Rehsi for Ipsos

Acknowledgements

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

Zara Regan, Loraine Bussard, Ed Allen, Mike Gibson, Colin Wilby, Chris Perry, Galini Pantelidou, Roya Kamvar, Sally Abernethy, Lauren Elliott and Naomi Day conducted fieldwork for the study alongside the core team, supported by Fiona Tudor and Yota Bratsa. We are grateful to colleagues at Ipsos who helped with the research, our research partner Lisa Payne, and not least, to all the research participants and the local authorities 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 and aims

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos to evaluate the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS). These schemes offer a safe and legal route to the UK for the most vulnerable refugees and purposefully target those in greatest need of assistance. The full background to the schemes and the evaluation is in the first report of this evaluation.

This 3-year 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^{[footnote 1]}. The evaluation also aims to provide evidence of good practice to inform further development and improvement of the schemes.

The first report focused on identifying how local authority^{[footnote 2]} and community sponsorship groups were supporting refugees, particularly in their first year in the UK, and the extent to which support through the scheme was meeting the immediate and essential needs of refugees. This second report focuses on how refugees are being supported with their longer-term integration (beyond their first year in the UK), and on how delivery has changed to support new cohorts of refugees arriving. Progress towards intended integration outcomes will be brought together across the 3 years of research in the third report.

Methodology

This report outlines the findings from the second year of fieldwork, based on data from:

• interviews with 26 key national and regional stakeholders, including from central and local government and the third sector
• qualitative case study research in 5 local authority areas across the UK and with 2 community sponsorship groups

To get an understanding of change over several years, most stakeholder organisations (17 of 26)^{[footnote 3]} and refugees (27 of 34 encounters) had been interviewed in the first year of fieldwork.

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 on 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

What helps to ensure effective programme delivery?

National stakeholder groups had facilitated sharing learning on key areas, such as, refugee employment and community sponsorship. Stakeholders felt that these national groups, and the central Home Office team, could share learning more widely with participating local authorities, particularly on supporting longer-term integration. Community sponsorship case studies shared knowledge and good practice between them through formal and informal networks. Groups valued the advice and training they received through Reset and other third-sector organisations, such as Citizens UK.

All local authority case study areas were considering how best to use VPRS/VCRS funding to support refugees’ longer-term integration (that is, over years 2 to 5 of resettlement). Some areas were undertaking needs assessments and mapping exercises to inform strategic planning. These exercises informed commissioning of specialised services addressing issues such as community integration and mental health. Local authorities were seeking greater coordination with the third sector to provide longer-term support to refugees, minimise duplication of work and increase efficiency. This worked well where there was regular communication between external partners and the local authority resettlement team, including clear referral routes to external support providers.

Communication between local stakeholders across case study areas had improved as relationships had built up over time. In some cases, the need for strategic groups and other formal meetings to plan for refugee arrivals had declined as relationships strengthened, which staff considered to be a positive outcome resulting from increasing experience. Having a clear strategic plan in place on longer-term integration supported effective collaboration between agencies. In areas where meetings continued to take place, these often focused on furthering longer-term integration objectives, which worked well.

What helps before arrival in the UK to ensure refugees are supported?

Local stakeholders welcomed further roll-out of pre-departure video conferencing and the improved quality of medical information they received about refugees from pre-departure partners (International Organization for Migration (IOM)). In some areas, stakeholders felt that there were good communication channels with the Home Office and pre-departure partner agencies – IOM and United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) – for obtaining additional information about refugees before they arrived in the UK. Delivery staff were also developing a greater understanding of the limitations for pre-departure agencies in gathering health information pre-departure; some local authority areas had developed ways to address this, such as conducting detailed health assessments on arrival. Delivery staff who had attended training by IOM on pre-departure processes reported that it had aided their understanding and helped ensure consistency in the information provided to refugees on arrival.

Social media was widely used by refugees and was instrumental in shaping their expectations of the support they would receive in the UK. Refugees about to be resettled valued receiving information on the local area from families already resettled there. When information shared was incorrect or incomplete, this could cause difficulties for delivery partners. Local delivery staff felt that providing local information for the cultural orientation helped manage refugees’ expectations of support on arrival.

What helps refugees to access housing and feel safe and settled in their local area?

Refugees were largely satisfied with their housing and felt safe and secure in the local area. Local authority staff felt that the process for allocating housing to refugees had improved because of improved relationships with housing associations, private landlords and local authority housing teams. They also felt that efforts to standardise housing quality, such as introducing refugee housing officers, had increased refugee satisfaction with housing. Local authority staff and delivery partners had applied their experience and understanding of refugee housing needs to housing allocation challenges, and local delivery staff felt this had led to refugee housing being of a higher, more consistent quality.

Stakeholders continued to report that the limited availability of suitable housing stock was a key threat to the schemes’ sustainability. Local authorities were trying to meet this demand by developing flexible models to source and allocate housing, drawing on both social and private rental sector housing.

What helps refugees to live independently in the UK?

Caseworkers and community sponsorship groups were providing support to refugees to access and understand services for longer than they had anticipated. In some areas, local authorities and delivery partners had extended the period of initial intensive caseworker support to address emerging and unexpected changes in refugee circumstances or transition points related to health, bereavement or having a child.

In some areas, increasing caseloads were stretching caseworkers’ capacity, leading to increased staff turnover and absence. To reduce caseloads, local authorities and delivery partners produced guidance and introduced processes. Caseworkers increasingly made efforts to explain the longer-term integration support process to refugees, including signposting to support available from external agencies such as local charities. This helped refugees gain confidence in living independently and reduced reliance on caseworkers.

In both community sponsorship case studies, families and group members describe their relationship as more like a “friendship” than a formal support relationship. As families had become more independent, the support provided by groups had become less structured (more ad hoc) and increasingly focused on longer-term integration goals, such as employment.

What helps young refugees to access and progress in education and training?

Overall, resettled children were continuing to settle in and progressing in line with schools’ expectations. Children made noticeable improvements where targeted support was coordinated by school leaders, educational departments or resettlement teams. Approaches included providing support and training for practitioners and working with specialist partners to ensure consistency in service delivery, for example, in supporting children with special educational needs. For example, the Schools of Sanctuary programme was influential in supporting schools to engender inclusive, welcoming environments for refugee children.

Post-16 education and training opportunities for refugees still varied considerably and it was evident that more could be done to improve access to education and training opportunities. One case study area had employed a dedicated employment and skills officer to improve awareness of opportunities for further education, including financial support.

What helps refugees to learn English?

There was growing recognition among local authorities that both formal and informal English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision needed to be more creative and flexible to meet refugees’ wider integration goals. A shortage of accredited ESOL classes in rural areas had led some local authorities and community sponsors to develop or commission innovative alternatives. For example, formal and informal ESOL providers were using online resources, which increased learning opportunities for part-time learners and helped overcome transport, childcare and other barriers to attendance. Both community sponsor groups had provided English language support to family members at home.

Most refugee learners wanted structure but informal opportunities to practice communication, such as conversation clubs. To address this, some local authorities were commissioning opportunities for English language learning focused on communication practice.

What helps refugees to understand and access welfare and employment?

Motivation to find employment was high among many refugees. It was lower among refugees with health issues, low confidence or childcare responsibilities. Across the case study areas, a few refugees had gained employment, although this remained a longer-term ambition for most due to insufficient English language skills. Several areas now offered, or planned to offer employment support tailored to refugee needs in addition to caseworker support. Refugees in areas where this tailored support was available were more likely to pursue jobs that used their skills and experience, rather than unskilled occupations. Refugees also requested tailored support for securing work through self-employment. To address this, one area employed an officer focusing on refugee training, entrepreneurship and employment.

Overall, refugees continued to access benefits to which they were entitled. Welfare reform, most notably the move to Universal Credit (UC), had led to some refugees needing additional advice and access to financial support beyond their first year in the UK. Some refugees affected by this move expressed confusion about the benefits they were entitled to and why changes had occurred. Several case study areas had local initiatives to improve the provision of interpreters at Jobcentres; in others, insufficient interpreter support (either in person or by telephone) remained a barrier to understanding and accessing benefits. In these cases, refugees relied on caseworkers, or friends and family.

What helps refugees to access and understand healthcare?

Refugees said that improved English language skills and understanding of the health system gave them greater confidence in accessing healthcare.

Many were booking and attending health appointments independently. Nonetheless, accessing interpreter support for health consultations, particularly for dental care, was an ongoing challenge. Some refugees relied on friends and family, including children, as interpreters.

Mental health needs often emerged over time as refugees became more settled in the UK. Several refugees reported seeking and receiving treatment for mental health conditions within the past year, including counselling and medication. Meeting mental health needs could be challenging when these emerged after caseworker support had ended. Some case study areas managed to fill gaps using third sector and voluntary organisations. However, gaps remained for addressing more complex, trauma-related mental health needs. Training for caseworkers in refugee mental health helped to generate additional mental health support capacity by helping them to communicate with refugees in a culturally sensitive manner and better understand symptoms. A wider understanding of refugee mental health needs among caseworkers and local authority staff had led to the creation of new services, including for mental health and wellbeing support specifically for refugee adults and/or children.

What helps families to build social bridges and bonds?

Many families now felt more settled in their communities. Community activities led by local authorities or voluntary and third-sector organisations helped families build links with other refugees and wider community members. One area engaged a Community Development Officer to coordinate community activities and commission new services, such as, refugee befriending services and refugee community spaces. In areas where the local authority did not provide financial support for community integration activities, successful programmes of activities depended on caseworkers or refugees identifying networks and organisations that could offer volunteer or in-kind support. Previously, resettled refugees were also forming organisations and support groups, in some cases facilitated by local authority staff, using tools such as social media. These were widely felt to work well to support integration.

Refugees discussed racism and hate crime more openly this year. One local authority was successfully approaching this through close working with the police and by offering training to police offers. Some areas identified a need for a more coordinated approach to racism and hate crime.

Internal delivery staff needed more knowledge and skills on how to inform refugees about the laws and norms of British society. This hindered refugees’ progress in fully understanding the life in the UK. External delivery partners providing caseworker support typically filled this gap.

Many refugees expressed confusion about the reunification process (either under UK Immigration Rules or UNHCR family link process) and were unhappy with both the difficulties in achieving reunification and the support available. Where family reunification had been successful local authorities sometimes struggled to support and house additional family members.

1. Introduction

The Home Office laid out its approach to evaluating the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS) (Home Office, 2018), which this qualitative evaluation is part of. This 3-year process evaluation examines the delivery of the VPRS/VCRS and consider how, and to what extent, the intended objectives of the schemes are being realised^{[footnote 4]}. The evaluation also aims to provide insight around how resources have been used, and evidence of good practice which can inform further development and improvement of the schemes and their delivery.

This report summarises the findings from the second of 3 years of qualitative fieldwork. The first research report focused on identifying how local authority and community sponsorship groups were supporting refugees, particularly in their first year in the UK. This second report focuses on how refugees are being supported with their longer-term integration (beyond their first year in the UK), and on how delivery has changed to support new cohorts of refugees arriving over time.

The evidence for this report was collected during the second year of the evaluation (February to August 2019) and includes interviews with 25 key national stakeholders, as well as qualitative case studies with 5 local authorities and 2 community sponsorship groups.

The following chapters in this report outline evidence collected across 9 key areas of integration. Each chapter contains an overview of key changes to the delivery of services to refugees, and sets out evidence to answer the following process- and outcome-related questions:

• in what 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 influence the outcomes of the schemes?

The policy background to the schemes is outlined in Appendix A. The methodology is detailed in Appendix B.

All qualitative research materials used for this year’s fieldwork^{[footnote 5]} covered similar key topics, reflecting relevant areas of the process and outcomes being evaluated (see Appendix B).

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 were collected in Spring 2019 and relates to 4,886 refugees who arrived over the course of 2018. For the purposes of analysis, cases with missing data have been excluded, but 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.

2. Programme management and coordination

2.1 What are the key changes to delivery?

Local authorities increasingly focused on building external partnerships to support the longer-term integration of refugees. Developments included identifying key staff in external organisations and statutory services, or funding internal roles to support resettled refugees with specific areas of integration (such as, employment, education or learning English). In one area with regional coordination of the schemes, mapping exercises had been conducted to identify gaps in support for refugees. This led to the regional authority commissioning additional refugee-specific services, for example, to develop refugees’ skills for employment and to improve refugee wellbeing.

More local authorities had moved towards formal partnerships with voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations, according to evidence from case studies and national stakeholders. Local and national stakeholders said these partnerships were key to supporting longer-term integration and reducing dependence on caseworkers (see Chapter 5). One regional stakeholder reported that local authorities had become more open to building these partnerships and commissioning support to meet the longer-term support needs of refugees. Commissioning services or partnering with existing VCS services were also seen in case study areas.

One community sponsorship case study group had attended training organised by Reset^{[footnote 6]} and had found this helpful, particularly for newer group members and as a ‘refresher’ for existing members.

2.2 What helps to ensure effective programme delivery at a national level?

Overall, national stakeholders and pre-departure partners considered the UK government to be responsive and receptive to addressing national issues relating to VPRS/VCRS as they arose. This included identifying additional funding to further develop pre-departure cultural orientation for refugees, as well as working with national charities to address gaps in support for refugees at a national level (such as mental health support for refugee families). The Home Office central resettlement team had also played a greater role over the past year in facilitating the sharing of good practice to support refugees’ longer-term integration. For example, the Refugee Employment Network (REN) had been set up, alongside the Mental Health Stakeholder Group and a newly developed National Stakeholder Group, to support the integration of all refugees in the UK.

National and local stakeholders suggested that the Home Office central resettlement team could play a greater role in sharing guidance and best practice with local authorities involved in the schemes on how to make the most effective use of VPRS/VCRS funding, particularly years 2 to 5 of tariff funding. Some stakeholders reported there was a lack of clarity about how some local authorities were spending VPRS/VCRS funding. Central government decisions on funding allocation aim to facilitate a flexible response for meeting refugees’ individual needs. However, several stakeholders were concerned that some local authorities were not using VPRS/VCRS funding creatively or to its full extent. For example, some local authorities had underspent due to ring-fencing funding for emergency spending. Evidence from case studies showed that pooling together VPRS/VCRS funding to deliver a shared strategic plan to support all VPRS/ VCRS refugees helped to address refugees’ emerging and longer-term needs. In both areas, the schemes were overseen at a regional level (see Case study example 1).

Case study example 1: Pooling resources to address refugees’ longer-term integration needs

In one area, VPRS/VCRS funding was used to appoint officers who acted as key points of contact, responsible for identifying and addressing resettled refugees’ needs related to ‘employment and skills’ and ‘health and wellbeing’. The roles included liaising with external support services to improve refugees’ access to and understanding of available support and commissioning new services. One staff member in post felt that their role had led to better communication and collaboration with external services, by providing additional capacity for face-to-face meetings. Delivery staff reported that this had led to more appropriate support, such as enabling group registration of resettled refugees at Jobcentres.

In another case study area, a dedicated education officer within the education department was granted responsibility for allocating VPRS/VCRS funds to all schools in the region, as well as identifying ways to use the funding to support resettled children. The officer had used the funding to commission books to aid understanding of refugees among the wider school population and fund transport for resettled children to travel to schools (see Chapter 6).

Community sponsorship groups in both case study areas maintained a positive relationship with their Home Office contact officer, who they described as responsive and thorough in providing advice and guidance. Groups had found their contact officer helpful when responding to queries on the support available to the families and facilitating contact with national services. There was evidence, however, that community sponsorship groups were disappointed their contact officer was not able to provide more information about the possibility to visiting relatives abroad.

One community sponsorship group reported that official documentation to evidence their relationship with the family would be useful. Group members were concerned that the lack of official documentation could cause delays in accessing support and advocating on behalf of the family with national or statutory services, such as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). This had not been an issue with local organisations, as group members had pre-existing relationships with them.

”We have nothing to prove who we are or give us any recognition that we have any responsibility.”
Community sponsorship group member, urban area, interview

In some local authority case study areas, delivery staff said that differences in the support available to refugees between local authorities had resulted in some refugees feeling unsupported or unfairly treated. Stakeholders felt that greater consistency in service delivery across local authority areas might help with this issue and with managing families’ expectations. Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) staff reported that their role in sharing information with local authorities and regional bodies had encouraged more consistent provision of support across local authorities. For example, one SMP representative had sought to encourage more consistency around when caseworker support was reduced and when it stopped (while recognising that, for some families, longer support might be necessary based on individual needs). Some SMPs had also shared information on available VPRS/VCRS funding with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and other regional bodies and local authorities to support the development of wider service provision for refugees. As representatives from SMPs attend the Refugee Integration Stakeholder Group, this may be an appropriate forum for transferring good practice and knowledge to a wider local authority audience.

Pre-departure delivery stakeholders reported that the involvement of the central resettlement team, as well as feedback from SMPs and local authority delivery staff, had streamlined the process for obtaining information pre-departure. The role of some SMPs included facilitating communication between local authorities and pre-departure delivery partners – the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) – to clarify or seek additional information (for example, on refugee health needs) before arrival. SMP staff reported that the process of obtaining information from pre-departure partners had become clearer and information sharing was faster. This had aided efficient matching of refugees to local areas and appropriate housing. Delivery staff in some case study areas also felt that the accuracy and level of detail of information they received about refugees pre-departure had improved.

In other areas, delivery staff (including caseworkers) reported that they did not understand the pre-departure processes and were not aware of routes for requesting additional information. In these areas, the view that information was insufficient persisted, suggesting that greater involvement of delivery staff in communication surrounding pre-departure information would be beneficial. One stakeholder involved in the pre-departure process reported that the experience of the UK schemes had influenced the refugee resettlement pre-departure processes used by other countries, leading to a more consistent approach internationally. Pre-departure information is explored in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.3 What helps to ensure effective programme delivery at a local level?

Case study areas were changing their approach to multi-agency meetings on resettlement. Areas were holding fewer meetings (or in one case, no meetings), or holding meetings virtually instead of face-to-face. Local stakeholders reported that meetings were no longer as necessary due to more effective pre-arrival processes, closer relationships with external agencies and delivery partners, and increased confidence among staff delivering the schemes. In some areas, the focus of meetings had shifted from initial needs (such as, housing and registering with services) to longer-term integration needs (such as, employment and training). This was thought to encourage creative thinking and engagement from wider stakeholders on providing refugees with longer-term support. In one area, a local stakeholder highlighted the importance of including local community representatives in regional multi-agency meetings, given their central role in refugees’ longer-term integration into the local area. In another area, caseworkers held regular meetings with local charities and community groups with the aim of facilitating community groups’ understanding of the resettlement team’s work, increasing the consistency of messages refugees received about support available from the local authority, and managing refugee expectations. One SMP stakeholder highlighted their successful approach of engaging VCS organisations by holding a quarterly voluntary sector stakeholder group.

SMPs had a clear role in maintaining levels of interest in VPRS/VCRS among senior and strategic local authority staff and commissioners. Some local stakeholders felt that senior and strategic local authority staff and commissioners had become less interested and less involved in the schemes over time. Local stakeholders across areas also expressed uncertainty around their area’s longer-term commitment to resettling refugees. This was reportedly a barrier to sustaining longer-term partnerships, including with smaller organisations whose capacity would significantly reduce if VPRS/VCRS funding for commissioned support services ended. In one area, the SMP hosted regional meetings that stakeholders described as useful for engaging local authorities and wider partners. As well as being a forum for troubleshooting issues and sharing good practice, one SMP representative reported that these meetings helped local authority resettlement staff “feel part of something bigger” and reduced feelings of isolation in delivering the schemes. SMPs had shared good practice, for example, on securing affordable and safe housing, or around education, health and English language. Local delivery staff in an area with no previous experience of supporting refugees particularly valued the SMP hosting meetings and sharing learning and resources. In particular, the SMP sharing resources created by local authorities was thought to represent better value for money as other local authorities did not have to develop and translate resources independently.

Several networks were helping community sponsorship groups to network and share learning, information and ideas. These networks included national faith networks, national charities acting as the main sponsor for multiple groups, and national charities involved in community sponsorship sharing electronic updates and information. One national stakeholder felt that sponsoring families had become easier over the past year because community sponsorship groups had access to more information and guidance, and local authorities were more aware of community sponsorship.

Local authorities were increasingly focused on building external partnerships to support the longer-term integration of refugees, although progress varied by area. In one area, delivery staff acknowledged the shift in focus from the initial resettlement period to refugees’ longer-term integration should have started sooner, and gaps in longer-term support were now becoming apparent. Delivery staff acknowledged that relationships were more difficult to sustain with larger or diffuse services, such as Jobcentres or schools. Some areas were trying to overcome this issue by appointing or identifying key points of contact to coordinate resources on a single issue. In an area with regional oversight, these key points of contact were identified in the regional health and education departments. In areas that lacked these roles, delivery staff felt that more coordination would be helpful. For example, local authority delivery staff in one area said that families relied on caseworkers to liaise with and resolve issues in schools because of a lack of relationship between resettlement team staff and the education team in the local authority, who may be best placed to do this work as they have established relationships with schools. In another area, caseworkers reported that support from a national charity (the City of Sanctuary) to encourage schools to become accredited Schools of Sanctuary had raised standards of support for pupils, as accreditation involved a commitment from school staff to support understanding and integration of refugee pupils. Accredited schools had also shared good practice on supporting refugee pupils with other schools in the region (see Chapter 6).

National and local stakeholders highlighted the importance of ensuring that external services did not duplicate support. Examples of duplication included local or regional authorities commissioning services that already existed in the area, and caseworkers providing support to refugees that external stakeholders did not consider necessary (such as attending GP appointments with refugees) due to existing support structures being in place. As above, regional mapping exercises in one area had identified existing support services and gaps in support. Staff felt that newly commissioned services were now effectively targeted and relevant to the needs of refugees, including specific groups (such as women or young adults).

According to local resettlement staff, the strategic decision by senior local authority staff in some areas not to treat resettled refugees differently to the wider population was a barrier to providing tailored support to the resettled population. In one case study area where the schemes were coordinated at a regional level, delivery staff acknowledged that some local integration strategies deliberately chose not to distinguish between different minority communities, to not be seen as prioritising one group over another. This meant that council staff did not consider it within their remit to undertake specific work to support the local integration of resettled families. In another area, delivery staff felt that some commissioners and strategic local authority staff had a limited understanding of the specific needs and entitlements of refugees (as opposed to asylum seekers or other migrants). Delivery staff had encountered this as a barrier to commissioning tailored refugee-specific services.

Stakeholders reported that the additional support provided to VPRS/VCRS resettled refugees (compared to other refugees and migrants) had sometimes caused tensions with the third sector and resentment from other refugees. Stakeholders felt that this had sometimes inhibited relationships between resettlement staff and the third sector who stakeholders felt deprioritised VPRS/VCRS refugees and focused their resources on the wider refugee and asylum-seeking population. This could mean support was not readily available for VPRS/VCRS refugees in areas that relied heavily on existing infrastructure (for example, asylum dispersal areas). This was particularly evident where there were no formal partnerships and referral processes between resettlement staff and wider refugee support providers. Local and national stakeholders found that using VPRS/VCRS funding to increase the capacity of existing services that support resettled refugees had additional benefits for the wider refugee, asylum-seeking and migrant population, and this improved relationships with third-sector organisations.

According to stakeholders, partnerships with third sector and community organisations were central in supporting longer-term integration. Delivery staff reported that these partnerships reduced refugees’ dependence on caseworkers, thereby allowing caseworkers to provide more intensive support to more-recently resettled cohorts. Stakeholders also reported that these partnerships had improved the quality of support provided to resettled refugees. For example, in some areas, community groups and charities were involved in preparing and furnishing housing.

Barriers to local authority resettlement teams working with VCS groups included:

• wariness among delivery staff about the quality of support that the groups would deliver
• a lack of clarity over safeguarding and data sharing procedures
• insufficient referral routes to support

Key to overcoming these challenges were clear and open communication with the third sector, and a willingness among local authority delivery staff and caseworkers to engage with the third sector. In one area, a VCS group had managed a local authority resettlement team’s safeguarding concerns by adopting the team’s data sharing policies into their own practice. This included arranging Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for volunteers and organising group activities for refugees instead of one-to-one activities.

Concerns among some local authority staff around sharing refugees’ personal information, and the lack of a clear and consistent approach to sharing information, limited the engagement of resettled refugees with external support services. This had made it more difficult for some VCS organisations to plan and manage activities for resettled families. In one case study area, a local VCS organisation reported that a reluctance among local authority staff to share refugee details directly with the charity had resulted in the local authority referring refugees to unsuitable activities (for example, referring single adults to activities planned for families with young children). Local authority staff subsequently sought consent from resettled families to share their information (including contact details, family composition and ages) directly with the charity. Charity staff felt that this had improved the relevance and reach of their activities. External support providers in more than one area also felt that receiving aggregate information about refugees from local authority staff before they arrived (including the numbers, age groups, gender and languages spoken) would allow them to better plan activities for when refugees arrived. As approaches across areas were inconsistent, this is an area where local authorities may benefit from more centralised guidance.

3. Pre-departure support and information

3.1 What are the key delivery changes?

In more than one case study area, local resettlement staff who received training from IOM on the pre-departure processes (including refugee health assessments and the cultural orientation syllabus) said that this had made the process clearer. National stakeholders noted that IOM had provided this training to other local authority staff in the UK. Local staff and SMP representatives felt the training had enabled staff to provide more consistent messages to refugees and had increased understanding among staff of the limitations of collecting information about or sharing information with refugees before they arrived in the UK. In case study areas where staff had not received training, they felt this would be useful and that their understanding of pre-departure processes could be improved.

Resettlement team staff also mentioned providing more locally relevant information for pre-departure partners to share with refugees before departure. Local staff had adapted and updated this information in line with their experience resettling refuges through the schemes.

3.2 What helps when preparing for the arrival of refugees?

Across case study areas, delivery staff and local stakeholders said clear processes were in place to plan for arrivals, and relationships between local authority staff and delivery partners were improving and embedding over time. Delivery staff said this had facilitated the process of refugees registering with various services and the arrival process more generally. In some areas, staff involved previously resettled refugees in welcome events and orientation for new arrivals (see Chapter 10).

Staff reported that pre-departure planning had improved, including improvements to sourcing appropriate housing and matching refugees to suitable areas. In most areas, staff attributed this in part to more detailed information sharing between IOM and the Home Office regarding refugees’ health and family composition before arrival. Delivery staff and national stakeholders also highlighted areas where more information would be helpful:

• previous employment experience and skills of refugees, to give staff a ‘head start’ in planning volunteering and employment opportunities, and to ensure refugees are matched appropriately to areas with job prospects based on their previous experience
• special educational needs (SEN) information for children, to enable staff to identity appropriate school places and avoid delays in registering children with schools
• information about refugees’ wider family networks, to ensure appropriate area matching (where family are in the UK) and to help manage refugee expectations about family reunion (where family are abroad, including in European Union countries)
• more detail on potential mental health ‘triggers’ for refugees, so that staff could factor this into the support provided (although they noted that information on refugee mental health more generally had improved)

A national stakeholder highlighted that local resettlement teams should consider cultural background and specific vulnerabilities (including religious, ethnic or other minority status, or history of exploitation) when deciding whether to house refugees near each other, to avoid conflict, discrimination or exploitation.

Local authority staff also recognised the challenges of refugees not disclosing relevant information to IOM or the Home Office pre-departure (such as, health needs or wanting to be resettled in a particular area), which limited the accuracy of information local authorities received. Staff felt that refugees’ reluctance to disclose information (for example, on health needs) could be due to a fear that this might delay resettlement. One refugee family mentioned that friends had told them not to ask for anything during the Home Office interview for this very reason. They now regretted this, as they would rather have been resettled in a more urban area with more services available for their children.

”I wish I would have asked to be in a bigger city because things would have been much easier for my daughter [who has an autism spectrum condition].”
Refugee, man, less than one year in UK, family interview

Caseworkers noted that there were still some cases where they did not receive accurate information pre-departure, and this negatively impacted refugees’ initial experience on arrival (for example, through inappropriate housing allocation^{[footnote 7]} or a lack of appropriate school places), and their longer-term integration (for example, if a family subsequently moved out of the area to move closer to family or health services). Areas were finding different ways to mitigate the impact of inaccurate or incomplete medical information. In some areas, delivery staff conducted detailed health assessments with refugees on arrival, to ensure health information was correct, up to date, and actioned in a timely fashion. In another area, staff sent pre-departure health assessments to a medical officer to review and identify any additional information or clarifications needed from IOM.

Some VCS partners would value having more information about refugees before their arrival, such as, the number of refugees arriving, their gender and family composition (including number and age of children) and languages spoken. VCS stakeholders felt this would help them plan culturally appropriate activities for shortly after refugees arrived (for example, arranging gender-specific groups or interpreters).

Concerns about data protection had limited some local authorities from sharing this information externally. Some areas shared information about arrivals at multi-agency meetings, although these had reduced in frequency over the past year and did not always include the third sector (see Chapter 2).

3.3 What helps to ensure refugees are prepared for their arrival in the UK?

While stakeholders felt that refugees were arriving with a better understanding of British customs and cultural norms, some gaps in pre-departure information remained.

• staff and refugees identified a lack of understanding among refugees of the process and barriers to family union - this led to disappointment and confusion on arrival and could impact on refugees’ mental health.
• delivery staff and refugees felt that a greater understanding of the benefits system - particularly the benefit cap and Universal Credit (UC) - would help manage refugee expectations of financial support
• delivery staff indicated that information about how most UK bathrooms different to wet rooms (which many refugees were more familiar with) and associated water use would help refugees to maintain their properties and reduce issues with damp

Refugees would have also found it helpful to receive further information pre-departure on:

• how long it might take to learn English and transfer existing qualifications
• the education system and local opportunities for children to socialise
• the availability of specific health treatments for existing health conditions

There was evidence that expectation management could result in refugees perceiving support more positively. Two families recalled being told during cultural orientation that their housing would be small and mentioned being pleasantly surprised at the size and quality of their property.

Refugees, regardless of how long they had been in the UK, agreed that basic spoken English language classes pre-departure would be helpful. This was particularly true where refugees had been aware for several months that they would be resettled in the UK. Refugees would welcome learning basic greetings, simple words and conversational phrases to help them navigate their first weeks in the UK. One refugee parent recalled teaching his children “4 or 5 words a day” before the family arrived in the UK and would have welcomed English classes for himself to increase what he could teach his children. Basic English language, including greetings, were incorporated into the pre-departure cultural orientation in 2016. A national stakeholder suggested that digital solutions to learning English pre-departure, such as mobile apps, might help facilitate pre-departure English language learning. Some refugees suggested specific provision to help them start the process of learning English, such as learning written Arabic if they were illiterate, or being taught by an Arabic-speaking teacher to ease them into learning. This would require a flexible and supportive approach to help overcome barriers to attendance, including lack of childcare, inability to travel to classes and long working hours.

”We knew English would be the formal language for this country, but we hadn’t realised it would be this difficult [to learn]. […] it would be great to have had some training or practice. At the moment, we rely a lot on interpreters and could have relied more on ourselves.”
Refugee, man, 18 months in UK, family interview

National stakeholders highlighted that refugees could not always retain detailed pre-departure information due to the stress and upheaval. To ensure vital information was understood and remembered, caseworkers reiterated the importance of providing consistent messages through different modes (written and verbal) both before and immediately after resettlement. Refugees supported this. One couple mentioned they had not read the Welcome to the UK booklet provided to them pre-departure, and later regretted this as it included information on contacting emergency services. They reflected that it would have been helpful if important information had been reinforced verbally.

Respondents saw information sharing between refugees before arrival as both positive and negative. Refugees continued to have high expectations of the support they would receive, and in one case study area these expectations were felt to have increased. Delivery staff felt that this could be due to more refugees being resettled in the UK, resulting in more information being shared between refugees through social media, some of which might be inaccurate. While some delivery staff said it was understandable for refugees to seek out additional information, others viewed this as problematic when it contradicted official guidance. This had caused issues where refugees expected better quality housing or additional benefits. Nonetheless, some stakeholders said these networks were an important source of support and aided the development of social bonds between refugees.

To address gaps in information, local authorities had provided more area-specific information for refugees before arrival. This included a video of resettled refugees speaking about their experiences in the UK, information about recycling, and pictures of local housing. Refugees mentioned finding local information helpful or feeling that such information would have been useful. In one area, regional staff had fed back to IOM how to ensure the cultural orientation information was relevant to the area. Caseworkers in one area said they would like to be more involved pre-departure, for example by dialling in to pre-departure interviews with refugees to provide locally specific information. One stakeholder mentioned that UNHCR was developing an online tool for refugees to access additional information about life in the UK.

4. Housing and local area

4.1 What are the key delivery changes?

In general, local authority staff felt that the allocation and provision of housing to refugees had improved over the past year, with minimal changes made to the delivery model for matching and allocating housing or providing housing support. This was attributed to relationships growing closer over time with housing providers (including housing associations, private landlords and local authority housing teams), and local delivery staff developing their experience and understanding of refugee housing needs. As a result, local delivery staff felt that refugees’ housing was of a more consistent and higher quality. In one area, housing teams invested in existing housing stock, inspected properties, and renovated or redecorated them based on their acquired understanding of refugee needs. In another area, housing staff arranged for wet rooms to be installed in properties and felt this reduced damp problems that some refugees experienced.

Delivery staff and national stakeholders reported that their improved understanding of the cultural preferences of refugees informed housing preparation. This was felt to have increased satisfaction with housing for more recent cohorts of refugees. Changes included providing net curtains, new white goods and showers (instead of just baths). In one area, caseworkers arranged for properties to be furnished with ‘personal touches’ (such as, plants and age-appropriate children’s bedding), which helped families to feel settled. Refugees in one area appreciated the effort taken to refurbish properties and make them feel welcome (for example, being provided with non-perishable food items on arrival).

4.2 What helps to ensure refugees have safe and secure housing?

National stakeholders and delivery staff in some areas noted improvements to medical information received pre-departure and said this had resulted in more appropriate housing allocation (see Chapter 3). However, staff in other areas continued to have concerns about out-of-date or missing information resulting in less appropriate housing allocation. Staff addressed this by collecting more and better information shortly after refugees’ arrival.

Housing shortages were a major, and sometimes a growing, challenge. Local stakeholders gave recent examples of housing shortages causing delays to accepting new refugees, or to relocating families to more appropriate accommodation (for example, needing a ground-floor property due to new mobility issues). Delivery staff reported it was harder to take individual refugee needs into account with limited housing supply, which could compromise housing quality.

Partly in response to housing shortages, local authorities developed flexible delivery models to source housing for resettled refugees. Most areas used a mix of private rental sector (PRS) and social housing. Home Office monitoring data reflect this; 2018 arrivals were mostly renting privately (42%), or from housing associations (19%) or the local authority (18%). In one area, housing teams allocated temporary PRS housing to refugees, after which caseworkers supported refugees to move to longer-term social housing. Local stakeholders felt this provided time to source appropriate social housing, while addressing concerns around fairness in housing allocation by treating refugees in the same way as the wider population. Refugees’ views were mixed; some found the process confusing and described feeling under pressure to accept permanent housing offers, while others valued the opportunity to choose their permanent accommodation and decide if they wanted to remain in the local area or move elsewhere.

Delivery staff and national stakeholders considered PRS housing to be an important resource in the face of social housing shortages. However, delivery staff also reported that PRS housing identified was often lower quality and required additional inspections and repairs by the local authority housing teams once refugees moved in. To address these challenges, local authorities were selective in the PRS landlords they engaged. Delivery staff felt this had improved the quality and suitability of properties.

Delivery staff found that some private landlords were increasingly willing to let to refugees, as they considered refugees to be secure, longer-term and council-supported tenants. In one case study area, a local stakeholder noted that there had been an increase in the number of landlords with smaller portfolios offering properties over the past year, due to other local landlords’ positive experiences in housing refugees.

Local authorities had also enlisted the support of local communities in housing refugees. Local and national stakeholders stated that this was currently rare but could be replicated on a larger scale. Stakeholders suggested that this provided sustainable properties at Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates and could deliver additional social benefits for refugees due to the increased involvement of the local community.

Case study example 2: Support from the wider community to house refugees

In one case study area, a refugee family privately rented a property from a church warden with the support of the congregation. The congregation provided support to the family, and this fostered the church’s links to the local authority and a local mosque. The warden felt this model could be replicated in other parishes.

One national stakeholder noted instances of community sponsorship groups securing offers of multiple properties for resettled refugees from sympathetic landlords and offering surplus properties to local-authority-supported resettled refugees. Another national stakeholder highlighted the work of a local ‘network’ of volunteers in one rural area. These volunteers reached out to landlords to secure properties to house refugees. By identifying suitable and affordable properties, they hoped to encourage the local authority to accept more refugees through the resettlement schemes.

While private properties were an important resource, delivery staff in some areas felt that housing association and local authority owned social housing tenancies were more suitable for resettled refugees. This arrangement provided longer-term tenancies and additional support for tenants to manage their tenancies. Delivery staff also noted that some housing associations provided wider support to tenants (for example, support workers, employment support or residential English for Speakers of Other Language (ESOL) classes), which offered a support net for families once caseworker support ended. In one community sponsorship case study, a family could access additional support through their housing association (including employment support and computer classes). The family would also automatically move from a fixed-term tenancy to a long-term tenancy after 2 years, providing security of tenure.

In one area, the SMP collated and shared best practice for securing affordable and safe properties for resettled refugees among local authorities in the region through a Housing Task and Finish Group (see Chapter 2).

4.3 What helps to ensure refugee satisfaction with housing and the local area?

Delivery staff in more than once case study said that efforts to standardise housing quality increased refugee satisfaction with housing, as refugees were less likely to compare their housing unfavourably to other resettled refugees. National and some local stakeholders considered housing quality to remain highly variable within and between areas. In one area, a dedicated staff member conducted inspections of all properties before refugee families arrived to better ensure that housing was of a consistent quality.

Stakeholders reported that one-to-one caseworker support with settling into properties was particularly important for families in unfamiliar types of housing, such as high-rise flats or properties with stairs. In many areas, caseworker support remained available when refugees encountered issues with housing beyond their first year in the UK (for example, when moving home, or dealing with rent arrears – see Chapter 5). In these areas, refugees valued this extended caseworker support with housing issues. Where this support was not available, refugees contacted local authority housing teams, housing associations or private landlords for support.

Providing housing for refugees in areas with good transport links, employment opportunities and social opportunities appropriate to each family’s needs helped foster social contact with the wider community, leading to greater integration and improved satisfaction with housing. Refugees who expressed dissatisfaction with housing or a desire to move property often cited the need to travel long distances to access key services, transport costs in rural or suburban areas, and lack of employment or socialising opportunities for teenage children and adults. One national stakeholder felt that rural areas might be suitable for young families (where schools could foster socialising), but less appropriate for single refugees or families with teenage children due to a lack of social opportunities. In some areas, SMPs and local authority staff took age and family composition into account when deciding where to house families.

Most refugees mentioned feeling settled in their properties and local area. Refugees often attributed this to feeling safe, relative to their experience prior to resettlement. While some refugees experienced anti-social behaviour from local people which had made them fearful, proactive support from caseworkers and police helped to allay fears (see Chapter 10). Local amenities and community ties contributed to refugees wanting to stay in the same area. Refugees valued having access to appropriate amenities that met their needs (such as, health services, places of worship and shops). Refugees also valued social links they built in the local area (including with neighbours, schools and friends). Refugees said that relationships with neighbours developed organically as they became more skilled and confident in speaking English.

”You don’t feel this worry like you’ll be in your house sleeping and somebody will break in … This is something very good here, I’m feeling very comfortable and I have a better life in here.”
Refugee, woman, 2 years in the UK, in-depth interview

Among the small number of refugees who wanted to move to a different property in the same area, the main reasons were poor housing quality, damp and mobility issues. Refugees and caseworkers highlighted how changing priorities sometimes led to a desire to move areas, such as seeking a more urban area with more employment opportunities when starting to look for work. According to Home Office monitoring data for refugees who arrived in 2018, most households (93%) had remained in the same accommodation by Spring 2019^{[footnote 8]}. Of the 5% who had moved within the same local authority, a quarter (25%) did so because they were unhappy with the quality of their accommodation. Areas varied in whether caseworkers supported refugees to move (see Chapter 5).

Local authority staff reclaimed additional housing costs through the exceptional costs process (such as rental costs for properties secured before refugees arrived but subsequently not used, or property adaptations). Staff stated that the process was long, and funding was not guaranteed. Private rent increases had resulted in local authorities allocating VPRS/VCRS tariff funding to ‘top up’ coverage of rental costs. Delivery staff saw this as necessary to avoid relocating refugees and spending time and resources sourcing new properties. However, this may not be sustainable in the longer term; VPRS/VCRS funding for local authorities is only available for a refugee’s first 5 years in the UK, so local housing could become unaffordable to families beyond this point. Some areas had used Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP), which are typically only awarded for a limited period. According to Home Office monitoring data for 2018 arrivals, a fifth (21%) of households were receiving DHPs towards their accommodation costs.

5. Caseworker and integration support

5.1 What are the key changes to delivery?

Local authority case study areas continued to use a variety of delivery models for caseworker support^{[footnote 9]}. As their experience of resettlement grew, areas adapted their models to ensure support was effective and efficient. Some areas offered more flexibility in the duration of caseworker support. In these areas, the point at which initial intensive support ended was based on caseworkers’ perceptions of refugees’ support needs, rather than being pre-determined. Caseworkers in these areas suggested that the approach was more “person-centred” and therefore better suited to the varied needs of refugees. In contrast, some national stakeholders felt that refugees’ longer-term integration was better supported by a clearly defined period of caseworker support, which reduced the risk of dependence. In line with this, caseworkers in some areas implemented processes to make length and type of support provided to families more consistent. They sought to manage refugee expectations of support and avoid refugees negatively comparing the support between each other. This more structured approach was also meant to avoid caseworker caseloads becoming unmanageable when new cohorts of refugees arrived.

In both community sponsorship case studies, groups had not anticipated how much support would still be required in the families’ second and third years in the UK. This influenced the groups’ decision not to sponsor a second and a third family, respectively. However, both groups planned to continue providing support for as long as the families required. Both groups had reduced in size over the past year as group members moved away from the area or left for personal reasons. While both families interviewed no longer needed regular face-to-face contact with group members, they still required some support. This put additional pressure on remaining group members, particularly in the group that was supporting a second family. In both areas, group leads remained closely involved in supporting families with emerging needs including support with health referrals, employment, benefits, and visa arrangements to visit family abroad.

5.2 What helps promote independent living among refugees?

Caseworkers continued to seek a balance between promoting independence and providing person-centred support to help refugees meet their longer-term goals. Some refugees who had been in the UK for 2 years or more reported that they continued to rely on their caseworker to engage with public services (such as, booking and attending appointments or managing their benefits and finances). Delivery staff attributed refugees’ ongoing support needs to their limited English, resulting in a lack of confidence to undertake tasks independently. In one area, Arabic-speaking caseworkers reported that being able to speak to refugees in Arabic helped them to quickly build trust, but some families became reliant on them as an interpreter and less likely to engage with services independently.

Delivery staff reported that working in partnership with VCS organisations reduced refugees’ reliance on caseworkers and ensured that additional support was available once caseworker support ended. Where partnerships did not exist, some refugees with additional support needs (for example, in health and literacy) worried about how they would get help once caseworker support ended. This suggests refugees lacked information about other local organisations that could provide similar support.

”I just thinking about what will happen now, because [the caseworker] was supporting and helping, what help I can get and who will help.”
Refugee, woman, over 55 years old, 2 years in the UK, family interview

In some areas, caseworkers’ caseloads became unmanageable where regular support continued beyond refugees’ first few months in the UK. Where local authority funding allocations for caseworker support were restricted to an initial ‘intensive period’ of support, some delivery staff felt that capacity for meeting refugees’ longer-term needs was not taken into consideration. To meet refugees’ longer-term needs, some caseworkers continued to provide support beyond the intensive support period, despite this not being part of their role. This reduced their capacity to provide intensive support to newly resettled refugees. In one case study area, caseworkers widely expressed feeling overburdened and reported that high caseloads had led to ‘burnout’ and long periods of sick leave, intensifying workloads for remaining staff.

To address fluctuations in the amount of support that refugees required, one area had brought in additional support staff during busy periods. Support workers were recruited from within the local authority and from third-sector organisations to support refugees with routine tasks, such as, attending appointments. Internal resettlement team staff said this meant caseworkers could focus on more complex support (around bereavement or health) and could balance their workload between longer-established refugees and newly arrived refugees who required intensive support.

Local resettlement teams were funding new roles focused on specific areas of longer-term integration around employment, socialising and wellbeing. In 2 case study areas, specialist workers were employed as leads for specific integration areas (such as, employment, education or mental health) working alongside caseworkers and with refugees. Delivery staff said this meant caseworkers could focus on refugees’ more immediate integration needs, such as, registering with services, getting information on the local area, and managing benefits and tenancies. Delivery staff also reported that having other points of support helped refugees become less dependent on caseworkers.

Stakeholders emphasised the benefit of integrating partnerships with VCS organisations into the support model and putting clear referral routes and signposting procedures in place. This ensured refugees were aware of additional support available locally and less reliant on caseworkers. Caseworkers felt that working with VCS organisations meant they could focus their attention on refugees that had arrived more recently or had higher needs. Building trust between refugees and external support providers was aided by organisations training up previously resettled refugees to provide support to newly arrived cohorts or employing staff with relevant language skills.

Case study example 3: Community-informed caseworker support model

One local authority worked with several organisations to supplement caseworker support, including groups from an existing Syrian community in the area. These organisations distributed welcome packs, arranged events (such as, Eid celebrations) and advised the local authority on supporting integration. An internal stakeholder said these organisations helped make the local authority aware of issues that refugees experienced once caseworker support had ended.

Clear communication from caseworkers about the transition process from initial face-to-face support to less regular or ad hoc support helped refugees feel supported to live independently. Measures included:

• a ‘client charter’ (signed by caseworkers and refugees at the start of the support period) that outlined the gradual reduction in support (see Case study example 4)
• regular verbal reiteration of the support model to refugees by caseworkers
• clear signposting to third-sector organisations, both during and after the intensive support period

Caseworkers and local authority resettlement team staff said these approaches helped refugees to understand what support is available and reassured them that ongoing support would be available to them once intensive support ended. Delivery staff said these measures helped build trust between caseworkers and refugees. Refugees in these areas reported that they felt confident about undertaking tasks independently of caseworker support. They also said they knew other organisations, or other refugees, they could contact for support. Nevertheless, some refugees reported that knowing they could still contact caseworkers reassured them and gave them confidence to attempt tasks independently.

“We contact [the caseworker team] if we have something we find difficult. But [not] if something is simple, or that our friends can help us with.”
Refugee, man, 2 years in the UK, family interview

Case study example 4: Clearly communicating the support process to foster independence

One local authority resettlement team drew up a ‘client charter’ outlining the support process. Caseworkers focused on encouraging independence and used the charter to reiterate to refugees the support available. This approach provided refugees with time to understand the support process while managing their expectations of support.

During the support period, caseworkers encouraged refugees to think about living independently, by asking them what they would do in specific situations without caseworker support. Towards the end of the support period, caseworkers held sessions with refugees on living independently and how to access further support, including through a helpline. Caseworkers also held an exit meeting with each household and sent them a letter confirming that regular support was ending.

Refugee participants were generally satisfied with how caseworkers communicated this process. Those who were more able to speak English felt confident to complete day-to-day tasks independently. Those who had made less progress felt reassured by knowing where they could access support when needed.

In both community sponsorship case study areas, support from group members became less structured. As with the local authority resettled refugees, increased English language skills was key to reducing families’ reliance on support. Over the past year, support was increasingly initiated by the refugees, who rang group members to ask questions or for practical support such as attending appointments. While groups no longer supported families to access amenities in their local area, refugees in the rural area occasionally required support to travel to services in neighbouring towns. The family reported that this was due to infrequent transport links and one parent not yet having passed their driving test due to the level of English required. The group was providing support to family members to revise for the driving theory test and take practical driving lessons.

The relationship between community sponsorship group members and families became informal. Group members and refugees described the relationship as developing into a friendship rather than a formal relationship. Mixed messages around the type of relationship that should develop between group members and families from other community sponsorship groups and organisations caused confusion for some group members. One group member mentioned that other groups had a very professional approach to support and did not socialise with the families, but they felt this did not encourage a supportive relationship.

In-kind support remained central to groups’ ability to provide support to the families. Groups made use of wider relationships within the community, for example, to identify employment and training opportunities and to source a private ESOL tutor. In one area, a volunteer interpreter attended Jobcentre appointments and translated letters while the family moved to UC.

Both groups raised enough money through pre-departure fundraising to support the families beyond their first year in the UK. Both groups continued to support the families financially. One group purchased books and resources for employment training and funded a playgroup for the youngest child. In the other area, the group supported the family financially while they awaited their first UC payment. One group had applied for additional VPRS/VCRS ESOL funding through the local authority but had experienced delays accessing it. The group planned to use the funding for tutoring during college holidays and to provide employment focused ESOL provision.

6. Education and Training

6.1 What are the key delivery changes?

Across the case study areas, few changes were reported to the delivery model for providing statutory education for resettled children. In some areas, resettlement teams and caseworkers had sought support from external partners to aid children’s integration in school. The Schools of Sanctuary programme (part of City of Sanctuary UK) remained an influential partner, with caseworkers in some areas encouraging schools to become recognised Schools of Sanctuary. Stakeholders said that schools had developed additional expertise in supporting refugee children through this process.

Some areas had developed processes to facilitate access to education. These were positively received by delivery staff, particularly in relation to SEN placements. One area had employed a dedicated education officer within the education department. The officer was responsible for supporting resettled children across the region, including identifying suitable SEN placements and coordinating between education staff in different areas and refugee caseworkers. Citing the education officer’s existing relationships and knowledge of the education system, caseworkers and other resettlement staff felt the role had enabled faster and more suitable of SEN placements. The officer also identified travel funding for children who had to travel longer distances to school. Caseworkers felt the role had resulted in a clear division of responsibilities between caseworkers and education staff, and improved working relationships between delivery partners. The officer also planned to share good practice among schools in the region regarding supporting resettled children. In 2 other areas, a multi-agency approach was developed to support SEN pupils (see Case study example 5). Staff reported that this sped up school placements and enabled the provision of more appropriate support.

Case study example 5: Coordinated approaches to support children with SEN

Two case study areas had developed multi-agency approaches to support resettled children with SEN. This involved holding multi-agency meetings with relevant partners (for example, health workers, school staff, psychologists, local authority education team officers, GPs, caseworkers and parents). These meetings meant participants could share information and plan support. Interpreters were employed to enable refugee parents to understand and participate. Parents valued being involved and being able to contribute to decisions regarding their child’s care.

6.2 What helps enable refugee children to access education?

Timely information from IOM and the Home Office about refugee children due to arrive helped resettlement teams engage schools and secure suitable places as early as possible. Caseworkers said that when they received information only a few days or weeks in advance, they were less able to find suitable school places close to the family house. This led to some pupils having to travel further to school than families were happy with.

Identifying school places before families arrived had several advantages. It meant caseworkers could arrange for children and parents to visit the school shortly after arrival. It also gave schools time to put relevant support in place for children and parents (such as, teaching assistants and interpreters). Delivery staff felt this improved children’s experience of school and their integration into the school community, while refugee parents valued the clear communication on arrival about their children’s education and additional interpreter support during the enrolment process.

Local authorities were liaising with schools to support children. In one area, the local authority School Improvement Team offered support and training for all schools to prepare to accept refugee pupils. This included sharing strategies for English as an Additional Language (EAL) assessments and targets, supporting teachers to sensitively manage issues experienced by resettled pupils, and signposting schools to additional resources. In some case study areas, caseworkers were liaising directly with schools and coordinating meetings between schools and families. In an area with a history of resettlement, this helped caseworkers to identify schools with experience of supporting refugee pupils.

In one area, delivery staff reported that accessing VPRS/VCRS exceptional costs for SEN pupils was a long process. This resulted in local authorities covering schools’ costs to minimise delays to placements, which were later refunded.

6.3 What helps support refugee children to progress and feel welcome and included in school?

Younger children up to 16 years old continued to settle into their schools. Children mentioned making friends, and parents and children felt they were progressing well in terms of their academic attainment and English levels. Home Office monitoring data for 2018 arrivals show that 98% of children aged 5 to 16 and 79% aged 17 to 18 were attending school^{[footnote 10]}.

“When we go for parents’ night, they get really good feedback from the teachers. The kids are achieving higher grades than the other kids.”
Refugee, man, 5 years in the UK, in-depth interview

The amount of additional support children received in schools varied considerably and appeared largely influenced by individual school leadership and the wider resources available to schools. School resources widely considered to provide resettled families with a positive experience of school included specialised EAL support, interpreters and mental health provision. Children and parents who mentioned receiving additional support reported feeling generally happier. According to Home Office monitoring data, most (91%) children aged 5 to 16 attending education were receiving additional English language support in school (7% did not require it, and for 2% it was not available)^{[footnote 11]}.

Stakeholders reported that schools were more able to effectively support refugee children if they had previous experience of welcoming and supporting migrant children and parents (particularly those with low levels of English language) and robust anti-bullying policies. These resources were more commonly reported in urban case study areas with histories of migration and more diverse populations. However, caseworkers also reported that schools in rural areas had started developing expertise through accepting resettled children.

English language support in school, including interpreters, remained both variable and crucial for children and their families to settle into the school environment. Language barriers hindered communication with peers and teachers, causing anxiety and concern for both children and parents. A lack of support from schools increased caseworkers’ workload, with caseworkers and some parents reporting that they relied on caseworkers to translate school documents and explain school rules and policies. Provision of interpreters in schools varied. In one area, caseworkers arranged access to interpreters (either by telephone or in person) when relaying school-related information to families. Schools with experience of working with pupils and families with low levels of English were more likely to provide interpreters to communicate with parents, particularly during the initial period or when discussing SEN support. For example, in one urban case study area, a school provided an interpreter for a discussion between a mother and the principal regarding a child’s SEN requirements. The parents reported that this had enabled them to understand the progress their child was making and the support available, which reassured them the school was meeting their child’s needs. Other refugee parents reported interpreter support in schools made them feel included in decisions. Other schools only provided interpreters for parents when there were safeguarding issues.

Regular, one-to-one EAL support for resettled pupils during the initial period was widely cited, including by children, as aiding language acquisition and integration into school. However, some stakeholders felt that bilingual support could create dependency and slow English language acquisition for some pupils, particularly for those at primary school.

Robust and clear responses from schools to instances of bullying were key to resolving issues, and creating and maintaining trust between parents and schools. One family reported that the response from their child’s school had been insufficient, had further isolated their child, and damaged the family’s trust in school staff. In some cases where instances of bullying were mentioned in the previous interview for this evaluation, children mentioned this had resolved over time and their school experience had improved. Refugee parents and their children reported that attending after-school clubs and extra-curricular activities helped children integrate into schools and make friends.

Caseworkers and stakeholders saw initiatives to increase understanding of refugee pupils among the wider school population (including pupils, parents and staff) and foster a welcoming environment as an effective way to reduce bullying. As above, in one area, caseworkers and local authority staff encouraged schools to become recognised Schools of Sanctuary, to create a welcoming environment for refugee pupils. Caseworkers reported that schools had shared learnings from the process of becoming a School of Sanctuary with other schools in the area. Case study areas were developing new initiatives in response to bullying. In one area, resettlement staff secured funding for a local charity to provide training in schools to raise pupil awareness of different cultures and to train pupil peer mentors. In another area with regional coordination of the schemes, the education department had used VPRS/VCRS per-pupil funding to develop books for schools about the experiences of refugee children, to increase understanding among pupils.

Delivery partners reported limited examples of bespoke mental health and wellbeing support tailored to young refugees, and initiatives tended to be led by individual schools. One family had withdrawn their child from school due to a perceived lack of support for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Initiatives reported in schools included providing counsellors trained in trauma support, using ‘nurture rooms’ to support children who needed mental health support, and arranging for an external therapist to provide support for a resettled pupil in school.

The use of additional per-pupil tariff funding for schools varied across case study areas. National stakeholders noted that not all schools were aware they could claim additional pupil tariff funding. Where VPRS/VCRS funding was not available to education teams, staff felt that additional funding would enable them to provide more targeted support to resettled children, such as Arabic-speaking teaching support. One area with regional coordination of the schemes had claimed additional per-pupil tariff funding for all VPRS/VCRS pupils across the region. A dedicated refugee education officer was responsible for allocating resources, both to individual schools and to fund wider support initiatives for resettled children. This led to creative responses, such as, providing additional learning resources to resettled pupils and developing books to educate pupils about refugee issues.

Accessible communication channels between parents and schools were key to maintaining positive relationships and facilitating parents’ involvement in their children’s education. In one area, parents wanted to support their children’s education, but felt unable to do so as they did not understand the UK education system or curriculum. In another area, the local authority School Improvement Team produced and translated advice leaflets for resettled parents on the UK education system. This included information on parents’ evenings, school attendance policies, and what to expect in their children’s school bags. School Improvement Team staff were also looking into developing videos for parents with low literacy. School-led initiatives also aimed to involve wider refugee families in the school community. Examples included a school-led mentoring initiative pairing resettled mothers with longer-term resident parents, and school-organised trips for parents and pupils. Families reported that they had developed friendships with parents they had met through schools.

In both community sponsorship case studies, all children in formal education continued to receive EAL support as part of school-wide provision. In addition, one group had funded ‘playdates’ to expose a young child to more spoken English before starting pre-school. Members had also increased in-home lessons for the eldest child before starting secondary school. Group members and parents in both areas felt that the children had integrated well in school, while children mentioned enjoying school, making friends and going on school trips.

“The eldest daughter moved to the secondary school … we are pulling out all the stops … to make sure she is catching up and not left behind.”
Community Sponsorship group member, rural area, interview

6.4 What helps older refugee children (16+) to access education and training?

Most young refugees aged over 16 were accessing education in secondary schools or local colleges. However, older children and young adult refugees in their second or third year in the UK tended to be less satisfied with their progress in English and education than school-aged refugees. Many young people articulated clear aspirations for the future (in some cases representing a change to last year). These included intentions to enter higher education (HE), or specific career aspirations. There was limited evidence of refugees in this age group being able to achieve these goals in the past year. Refugees felt this was mainly due to language barriers, but also financial constraints and a lack of targeted support. A local authority stakeholder highlighted the risk that caseworkers may unintentionally overlook the needs of teenagers and young adult refugees, as their main focus was on adult family members.

“Young people between the ages of 13 to 18 … casework support doesn’t really touch them … they are completely invisible in a sense.”
Internal stakeholder, case study interview

As with pre-16 education, local authorities lacked coordinated approaches to providing education and training opportunities for resettled older teenagers and young adults. Approaches were inconsistent and highly variable across and within case study areas. For example, in one area, some young adults had discussed their future aspirations with college career advisors, while others had not. In the same area, a stakeholder recounted young adult refugees’ frustration that their college did not provide enough contact hours with tutors or relevant employability courses.

Several families mentioned financial constraints as barriers to HE or training opportunities, suggesting a lack of awareness of available support such as student loans and apprenticeship grants. In one area, a regional staff member responsible for improving employment and skills for resettled refugees signposted refugees towards a local HE institution offering no-fee courses for refugees.

Language was the main barrier young people faced in accessing education and training aligned with their aspirations. Young adults in their first few years in the UK reported having insufficient English skills to apply for college classes or trade-specific training aligned with their longer-term goals. This meant that they were restricted to courses with lower English language entrance requirements, in ESOL, maths and physical education. This caused disappointment for some refugees, who felt their expectations could have been better managed if this had been explained to them before they arrived in the UK. Furthermore, some young adult refugees reported that the level of English language support provided in college was lower than the support younger children received in schools. One 18-year-old felt at a disadvantage compared to younger siblings who received one-to-one teaching support in secondary school. Most refugees were confident that their Jobcentre, ESOL tutor or local college would signpost them towards relevant training opportunities and educational courses, once their English language had improved to a sufficient standard. This suggests that young adult refugees may overcome barriers to access once their English language skills have improved.

Bespoke courses, available for young adult refugees in some case study areas, were widely considered to help this age group overcome the language barrier to accessing further and HE (see Case study example 6).

Case study example 6: College-led ESOL provision tailored to older children and young adult refugees aged 16 to 25

In one case study area, a local college had developed tailored ESOL provision for young adult and older child refugees and asylum seekers, to prepare them for employment, further education (FE) or training. The college’s experience of supporting asylum-seeking children informed their development of the curriculum and resources. College staff felt that the students benefited from an ESOL curriculum developed specifically for their age group and background as refugees, and from learning with others their own age in a classroom setting. The classes took a topic-based approach to ESOL, covering creative arts, maths, history, science, and personal and social development. The curriculum and course content were also adapted to the needs of individual pupils. Staff received training on how to support vulnerable young people from a psychologist specialising in trauma, grief and loss.

Other initiatives to improve access for this group included gateway access courses, employment-specific language courses and refugee training placements. Some case study areas organised gateway access courses through local colleges for young adult refugees to attain the level of English language required for many FE and HE courses. Caseworkers said that gateway courses helped young adult refugees bridge the gap between ESOL provision and education. In one of these areas, a training, entrepreneurship and employment officer employed by the local authority arranged trade-specific language learning opportunities to improve refugees’ vocabulary and support them to obtain qualifications for employment in their desired field. The officer also worked with external organisations to develop bilingual courses in Health and Safety and in Food Safety (see Chapter 8). Stakeholders cited good practice where large companies had arranged refugee training placements, including providing mock interviews and, in some cases, providing job opportunities following the placement.

7. English language acquisition

7.1 What are the key delivery changes?

Local resettlement staff and delivery partners had introduced measures to address the shortfall in ESOL provision in some rural areas. In one area, these measures included developing online resources and facilitating travel to classes in urban areas. Delivery staff felt this increased availability and accessibility of classes for learners in rural areas. Another rural case study area had identified a need to fund travel for refugees to access ESOL classes, but this was not yet provided.

7.2 What helps support refugees improve their English beyond their first year in the UK?

Refugees were learning English through a combination of formal and informal provision. Delivery staff said that formal provision ranged between 5 and 9 hours per week and ESOL levels ranged from pre-entry to entry level 3. Stakeholders reported a greater demand for pre-entry level provision among refugees. However, in some areas, delivery staff and refugees reported a lack of higher-level accredited classes.

Refugees valued formal ESOL for learning grammar and achieving accreditation, and informal ESOL for practising communication and building confidence. Accreditation was particularly important for refugees who needed proof of language ability for employment or training. Refugees who wanted to learn English primarily to communicate with people in the community and complete day-to-day tasks independently, felt that college based ESOL provision was too focused on grammar and passing exams. Informal learning opportunities (such as, conversation sessions, tailored befriending and public speaking sessions) focused more on building confidence and fostering wider social integration.

“What they are teaching us in the college, it’s not what we need for general life.”
Refugee, age and gender not recorded, focus group

In some areas, stakeholders and refugees reported a lack of coordination between formal and informal ESOL providers, leading to misalignment of class schedules and syllabuses. Where college classes and community-led sessions clashed, refugees could not benefit from the different advantages offered by each approach. In one area, refugees who could not immediately access (formal and informal) college-based ESOL on arrival were signposted by caseworkers to community-led ESOL sessions. A stakeholder attributed the area’s availability of different learning opportunities to its experience of resettlement and asylum.

Some areas had taken steps to coordinate ESOL provision. In one area, stakeholders reported that colleges, third-sector organisations and the local authority worked closely together to deliver college-based ESOL and felt this worked well. An area with regional coordination of the schemes had used VPRS funding to develop a grant scheme to fund informal English learning opportunities, such as drama-based learning, storytelling sessions and language exchange opportunities. One stakeholder felt offering diverse, creative and innovative approaches to English language learning would appeal to learners and encourage more independent learning (outside of formal ESOL opportunities).

In some areas, local authorities used support from voluntary and community organisations and additional VPRS funding to promote accessible ESOL classes for refugees with different needs. For example, some refugee participants with less experience of formal education expressed feeling intimidated in classes with more educated learners. Refugee participants felt that male refugees with lower levels of education were less likely to engage with formal college-based classes due to embarrassment and shame regarding their low English language proficiency and lack of understanding. To address this issue, one local authority brought in Arabic-speaking volunteers to work with refugees and support them in the classroom.

Childcare provision remained a barrier for some parents to access college based ESOL classes. This had a greater impact on female learners, some of whom mentioned prioritising childcare at home over ESOL classes. One area employed an Arabic-speaking childminder. Delivery staff said this enabled communication with the parents, reassuring them that their children were being looked after well. In another area, delivery staff felt that ‘family learning’ courses (where parents could attend with their children) helped overcome barriers to attendance. Again, Home Office monitoring findings support this; amongst 2018 arrivals aged 16 or above, health issues and caring responsibilities were the main barriers to attending ESOL. Also, men were more likely than women to attend ESOL, and to attend more hours of ESOL.

The time and cost of travel remained a barrier to refugees in rural or suburban areas attending college ESOL classes. In a rural case study area, with limited formal ESOL provision at the local college, delivery staff secured college places for refugees 25 miles away, to increase their ESOL hours. Refugee learners said that the financial support available from the new college did not cover the cost of travel and it took a long time to receive reimbursement. This journey was particularly difficult for those who relied on public transport.

Case study example 7: Additional support to attend college classes

In one area, an association of voluntary organisations worked with a local ESOL provider to deliver formal ESOL classes at a college. The ESOL provider conducted language assessments to allocate refugees to suitable classes, while link workers from the association of voluntary organisations arranged childcare and transport for learners. Stakeholders reported good coordination between the organisations and the local authority.

In one area, a central ESOL coordinator provided extra resources for refugees struggling to access ESOL. Resources included an online ESOL directory so that refugees could search for ESOL opportunities in their local area according to level, accreditation type and childcare availability. The coordinator also used additional VPRS/VCRS ESOL funding to purchase tablet devices and loaned them to refugees so that they could access an online, employment focused ESOL course.

A few areas were developing employment-related ESOL provision. Community ESOL tutors in one area worked with the local authority to align employment-focused ESOL class content to vocational opportunities in areas such as, food hygiene and construction. Stakeholders felt that this helped engage refugee learners by making ESOL provision more relevant to their longer-term goals and aspirations. Local authority delivery staff said that working in partnership with ESOL tutors meant they could offer more flexible ESOL provision than the local college.

“It makes it more relevant, and … motivating for people to know that what they’re learning … [is] going to have quite a specific outcome.”
Internal stakeholder, case study interview

It is widely reported that investment in ESOL provision represented good value for money, as English language contributed to the independence of refugees and is a pre-requisite for longer-term integration, including access to employment, health and education. One stakeholder suggested that sharing best practice on ESOL provision could help local authorities manage resources and understand different ways to structure support to meet refugees’ ESOL needs.

8. Welfare and employment

8.1 What are the key delivery changes?

The introduction of UC had caused delays in registering for benefits. Delivery staff reported that this was due to having to wait for refugees’ biometric residence permits (BRPs) to arrive before making a claim. In these circumstances, refugees received cash payments from the central government resettlement team. Loans were available from DWP through the standard process for refugees awaiting their first UC payment. However, delivery staff in one area felt that loans were inappropriate for many refugees, as they had not yet received information about how to manage their finances in the UK.

Local authority staff were developing tailored support to help refugees achieve their employment goals. One case study area had employed an officer to focus on the skills and employment goals of all resettled refugees in the region. The officer worked closely with Jobcentre and DWP managers to ensure support provided was appropriate and coordinated tailored employment support for resettled refugees through new initiatives. Another area planned to employ a refugee work coach and commission a specialist charity to provide employment support to resettled refugees.

8.2 What helps support refugees to access and understand benefits?

Refugees’ understanding of the welfare system remained a challenge. Delivery staff and national stakeholders said this was partly due to the complexity of the UK welfare system, particularly for refugees from countries without an established welfare system. In some areas, delivery partners and caseworkers felt that insufficient information provided pre-departure, and inaccurate information shared between refugees, resulted in misaligned expectations regarding benefits and funding (see Chapter 3).

Tailored support may help refugees’ understanding of and access to benefits. In some areas, delivery staff and refugees reported that Jobcentre staff and work coaches did not understand refugees’ support needs. This included Jobcentres sending appointment information via text message to refugees with low levels of literacy and English language skills and arranging appointments at the same time as ESOL classes. Face-to-face welfare assessments, additional to what the Jobcentre provided, helped to ensure that families were both applying for and receiving the correct benefits from the outset. For example, in one area, a Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) assessor made a pre-assessment of refugees based on the pre-departure information received, which enabled them to start appropriate welfare applications. Staff reported that this sped up the process for refugees to receive benefits. In another area, a specialist doctor conducted a health assessment with refugees during their first week in the UK to ensure that the correct benefits applications were made.

Delivery staff reported that collaboration and sharing of best practice between key delivery partners also improved understanding of and access to benefits for refugees. In one area, caseworkers worked with local Jobcentre staff to set up group sessions and workshops for refugees to help with their initial benefit applications and to address misunderstandings about benefit entitlements. Stakeholders said this helped to establish good relationships between refugees and Jobcentre staff, and reduced refugee dissatisfaction with the level of benefits received. Caseworkers also stated that this approach reduced their workload, giving them more time to support refugees with other issues. In another area, delivery staff reported that one-to-one drop-in sessions about the benefits system helped refugees to process and retain information provided to them about their benefits and viewed these as more effective than group sessions.

8.3 What helps refugees understand the welfare system in the longer term?

In some areas, refugees still struggled to understand their welfare entitlements once caseworker support had reduced. This was particularly apparent for refugees with limited literacy and/or English language skills and older refugees (aged 55 and over but below retirement age). This resulted in areas ‘stepping up’ caseworker support for refugees beyond their first year in the UK, or where this was not available, refugees being left without additional information or support.

In one community sponsorship case study, members said it would have been helpful to have had more information about the types of benefits the family would be entitled to before they arrived. They said that a lack of understanding of the benefits system had delayed the group in supporting the family to apply for certain support they were entitled to, such as free school meals.

Caseworkers in only some areas reported improved provision of interpreters at Jobcentres. However, in other areas, delivery staff said a lack of interpreters at Jobcentres remained a barrier to effective refugee support. A national stakeholder reported that DWP had increased communications to local authorities regarding the ability of Jobcentres to provide interpreters, which the stakeholder felt had resulted in increased understanding in some areas. One community sponsorship group re-engaged a volunteer interpreter to support the family through the transition to UC.

Refugees often required additional support when their benefit entitlements or the delivery of their benefits changed, most notably in areas that had moved to UC. Caseworkers and wider delivery staff reported that UC was harder to access for refugees with lower English language skills, limited digital literacy or who found it difficult to proactively manage their claim (barriers considered widespread among refugees). Delivery staff reported that the transition to UC made refugees more reliant on Jobcentre work coaches, caseworkers and local authority welfare officers. There was a lack of consistency in the availability of support with UC applications between different case study areas.

Managing the transition to UC often required financial support. Local authorities in some case study areas had made advance payments to refugees while UC was being set up or during the transition period from other benefits to UC. One community sponsorship group encountered barriers and delays to transferring to UC due to a family member’s date of birth being incorrectly recorded before the family arrived in the UK. Despite this error being corrected on official documentation once the family arrived, it had remained on a central database. Group members supported the family financially while awaiting UC payments and planned to continue until the issue was resolved. One volunteer supporting the family, who also supported other resettled families, reported that this was not an isolated issue.

Some refugees who had been in the UK for over a year had been confused about why the benefits they received had changed, indicating they had not received sufficient explanation. Delivery partners also noted that some terms relating to benefits did not translate easily into Arabic, which made it more difficult to explain this change to refugees. Where caseworker support had reduced, some refugees did not know who to turn to for support. In one case study area that was also an asylum dispersal area, some local libraries engaged face-to-face or telephone interpreters to support residents, including resettled refugees, in applying for UC or managing their claims using library computers. Delivery staff said this worked well for supporting refugees where caseworker support was no longer available. Some stakeholders also suggested that UC could be an easier system for some refugees, as they no longer needed to regularly ‘sign on’ at the Jobcentre to claim certain benefits.

Some stakeholders and refugees reported that transitioning to UC left some refugee families financially worse off, despite them already living frugally. The benefits cap had also affected refugees who arrived in the UK before November 2016, with some families reporting they were unable to afford basics such as rent and transport. Some refugees felt caseworkers and Jobcentres poorly communicated the change and said they had only learned from other refugees that this was a national policy change.

8.4 What helps support refugees to access meaningful and sustainable employment in the longer term?

For most refugees, including those who had been in the UK for over 3 years, securing employment in line with their aspirations and skills remained a longer-term goal. While motivation to secure employment was generally high, refugees reported that: it took time to achieve the necessary qualifications; to attend enough ESOL classes, training and work experience; and to acquire a sufficient level of English. The proportion of refugees that delivery staff said were in work varied considerably across case study areas. Delivery staff and refugees said finding work was more challenging in areas with fewer available jobs, where refugees’ previous skills were not transferrable to the local labour market, and where there was a lack of a coordinated approach to supporting refugee employment.

Caseworkers described how these difficulties finding work could result in disillusionment and low expectations among refugees. Stakeholders also noted that unemployment could affect male refugees’ mental health, particularly due to cultural expectations of being the ‘family breadwinner’. Delivery staff and stakeholders also recalled some refugees being concerned that they may be worse off financially in employment than on benefits, due to the low-wage occupations available to them. Staff and a small number of refugees felt this could contribute to a reluctance to enter the labour market. Delivery staff attributed this belief to misinformation from informal networks (including from other refugees) and from some caseworkers.

Nonetheless, finding paid work was an important goal for most refugees, particularly men. Most men were actively seeking employment or in work, and those who were not, cited poor health or disability (particularly older men). Most female refugees interviewed were not actively seeking employment due to childcare, other domestic responsibilities, or lacking confidence in speaking English. Some female refugees also mentioned preferring volunteering over paid employment. While reasons for this were not explicitly provided, this could relate to the flexible hours afforded by some volunteering opportunities (enabling refugees to work around childcare and other responsibilities) and cultural expectations around women earning money outside the home. Delivery staff in one area noted that motivation to work among female refugees was often related to their previous experience (or lack thereof) in the labour market. No initiatives were reported across case study areas to specifically encourage women refugees to enter the labour market. However, in areas where UC had been introduced, married women mentioned having more Jobcentre attendance obligations and being required to commit to finding paid employment. These gender differences are apparent in the Home Office’s monitoring data; amongst adults (aged 18 to 64) who arrived in 2018 and had spent around a year in the UK, men were more likely to be in employment than women (6.7% versus 0.7%), and women were far more likely to be looking after home or family (31% versus 3%)^{[footnote 12]}.

Caseworkers said they had limited capacity to support refugees to achieve their longer-term employment goals due to the reduction in caseworker support after their first year in the UK. In one area, local stakeholders noted that the local Jobcentre had not secured employment or volunteering opportunities for any resettled refugees. Stakeholders and delivery staff reported that where resettlement was coordinated at a regional level, it was possible to ‘pool’ VPRS/VCRS tariff funding for additional employment support. For example, in one area, the county council created a regional role to support refugees in identifying pathways to employment (see Case study example 8).

Case study example 8: Local authority-based refugee employment support

One case study area with regional coordination of resettlement had created a new Training, Entrepreneurial and Employability Officer role. The officer aimed to help refugees develop skills for employment (including, via subject specific ESOL lessons), secure relevant work experience and find sustainable employment in line with their aspirations (including self-employment). The officer worked closely with Jobcentres and DWP to improve support, and organised meetings with training providers to ensure training was sufficiently tailored to refugees’ needs and goals. The officer also coordinated a Refugee Job Fair, to help employers learn about employing refugees and the support available to do so. The fair also gave employers, refugees and other migrants a chance to meet and discuss work-related opportunities.

The officer was also responsible for supporting local ‘employability coordinators’ (piloted in some local authorities in the region). The coordinators’ role included coordinating and supporting refugees to access employment and training and establishing and maintaining relationships with local employers. Coordinators also translated risk assessments, helped get qualifications recognised in the UK and helped with driving theory tests.

Refugees also accessed employment support and advice through ESOL colleges and third-sector providers. Third-sector organisations in some areas offered refugees support with job searches and applications, and they provided a range of skills training. World Jewish Relief had created a ‘Progress to Work’ checklist for refugees to use with their caseworker or work coach to track their progress in seeking employment, helping build refugees’ confidence in their own skills. The Home Office had also piloted a skills profile with IOM and DWP to use with refugees pre-departure.

Difficulties transferring existing qualifications limited refugees’ ability to access work that matched their skills and experience. Some refugees lacked recognised evidence of their work experience or proof of qualifications. Other refugees were highly experienced but had skills that were not considered transferable to the UK. For example, one refugee had held a senior role in construction for many years, but he was told he would have to “start from the bottom” due to differences in construction between UK and Syrian houses. In one case study area, caseworkers drew on support from the UK National Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) to help refugees transfer their qualifications.

Support for refugees to identify and access volunteering opportunities varied. In one area, caseworkers supported refugees to identify opportunities and complete application forms. Refugees also mentioned Jobcentres, ESOL providers, and third-sector organisations helping them find volunteering opportunities. In Case study example 8, employability coordinators encouraged refugees to volunteer and identified suitable opportunities based on individual skills and aspirations. Refugees noted several benefits of volunteering: improved English language skills, the opportunity to meet new people, and feeling they were giving back to the community (see Chapter 10). Barriers to volunteering included some roles requiring a minimum level of English language, or refugees lacking the language skills to read and sign health and safety documents. Refugees also mentioned feeling unable to balance volunteering with ESOL classes and responsibilities such as childcare.

In both community sponsorship groups, members had identified employment and volunteering opportunities through connections within the group and the wider community. Group members had also set up work experience days linked to family members’ previous employment, which the families received well. Where childcare was a barrier, one group had discussed volunteering at the child’s school.

Stakeholders noted that some areas had limited employment opportunities. For example, refugees resettled to a seaside town felt they had limited opportunities for sustainable employment due to the seasonal nature of the jobs market. In a rural case study area, delivery staff and refugees mentioned refugees moving to more urban areas outside of the local authority to seek employment opportunities. In one area, SMP staff had met with the Construction Industry Training Board to discuss skills shortages in construction and facilitate training for refugees to gain employment in shortage occupations. Some areas provided classes for refugees to learn the relevant vocabulary to pass the test for a Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) card, required for working in the construction industry.

Self-employment was considered a valuable route to employment for resettled refugees. Barriers to self-employment included refugees not being able to access personal loans that charge interest for religious reasons, and the amount of time required to help refugees understand laws and regulations around setting up a business. In some case study areas, third-sector organisations had organised self-employment workshops for refugees. Local authorities had supported refugees with understanding and accessing loans to start businesses, and with making connections with other local business owners. Caseworkers cited examples of resettled refugees starting businesses, including a tailoring business and a building company. In another area, caseworkers were supporting refugees to set up a car washing company.

Refugees’ lack of English language proficiency was said to be the main barrier to employment. Refugees said they lacked the confidence and language ability to apply for jobs or pass required qualifications. A local authority resettlement team staff member reported that a lack of ESOL provision beyond entry level 3 limited refugees’ ability to gain the level of English required for work. Correspondingly, in areas where there was limited support to learn English and find employment, refugees expressed frustration at the ‘vicious circle’ this created. A refugee in a community sponsorship case study felt employment was also a barrier to progressing in English, as English was not often spoken where he worked. Due to their low level of English on arrival to the UK, this had been the only opportunity available to them.

“They said ‘OK you need to study English’. You study English and they say, ‘oh you have to look for work’, you look for work and they say, ‘you don’t have enough English’ … it’s just been going on and on.”
Refugee, man, 1 to 2 years in the UK, in-depth interview

ESOL opportunities tailored to refugees’ language needs and coordinated with employment or work experience opportunities helped refugees build confidence in both their English skills and their ability to find employment. In one area, a refugee employment officer partnered with a social enterprise to provide bilingual food safety courses for resettled refugees. Delivery staff felt the course had helped build workplace skills for attendees. Another area developed an online portal for refugees to access employment specific ESOL provision. In another area, the Jobcentre had set up a women’s group to focus on conversational English related to employment. Some refugees reported that working with others who spoke the same language helped them to feel more comfortable in their role and helped them to learn the relevant terminology for the role.

9. Healthcare

9.1 What are the key changes to delivery?

Local authority delivery staff were increasingly aware of the need for tailored mental health support for refugees. In one case study area, the resettlement team commissioned an existing delivery partner to provide additional days of mental health support for resettled refugees, including home visits. In another area, the NHS trust commissioned a refugee-specific therapeutic care service. The Home Office central resettlement team had conducted a mapping exercise of mental health services in the UK and had shared this with national and local stakeholders to raise awareness of the support available for refugees.

9.2 What helps ensure refugees are aware of, and can access, appropriate physical healthcare?

Across case study areas, caseworkers expected most refugees to book and attend healthcare appointments independently after their first few months in the UK. Most felt able to do so and attributed this to improvements in their English language skills. However, for others, a lack of proficiency and confidence in speaking English (particularly in relation to medical terminology) remained a barrier to accessing health services. Limited access to interpreters compounded this.

Provision of interpreting services by healthcare providers remained inconsistent. Most refugees reported that their general practitioner (GP) practice offered interpreters for appointments, commonly through a telephone service. Some GPs arranged for interpreters to attend appointments face-to-face. However, in these cases, refugees noted that a lack of available interpreters could delay medical appointments, which they found frustrating. Other refugees reported their GP practice did not offer an interpreting service at all. In these instances, refugees asked caseworkers, friends or their children to accompany them to appointments, or used apps such as Google Translate to aid communication with medical staff. Stakeholders highlighted that a lack of interpreter provision could act as a barrier to accessing health services, as refugees may feel uncomfortable discussing personal or sensitive health details with friends or their children present. In one community sponsorship case study, group members felt that practising healthcare scenarios during informal English lessons with the family had increased the parents’ confidence in accessing health services independently.

Refugees and stakeholders across most areas noted dental surgeries had variable, and often inadequate, policies on providing interpretation services. This was a barrier to refugees accessing dental care. One refugee reported their dentist had refused to see them unless they brought their own interpreter, despite feeling that their level of English was sufficient to access the service independently. In another area, refugees had written to their local MP about dentists not allowing interpreters to attend dental appointments. Some dentist surgeries may require additional guidance on when it may be appropriate to provide or facilitate interpreters to attend appointments.

Some refugees (male and female) preferred attending appointments with doctors and interpreters of the same gender as them. Where GP practices could not facilitate this, some refugees mentioned feeling uncomfortable during appointments, particularly discussing sensitive issues. One caseworker noted this could also present a barrier for female refugees booking appointments through male receptionists. In one urban case study area with experience of supporting refugees, the GP practice where most resettled refugees were registered provided the option for female patients to request a female interpreter. Refugees who had used this service reported feeling comfortable when booking and attending appointments. Caseworkers reported that having the same interpreters present at multiple appointments had built trust and rapport with refugees.

“I completely trust the health services here; I have no doubt about it.”
Refugee, 2 years in the UK, family interview

A small number of refugees felt they were receiving a worse service than the general population. This was due to their experience of waiting times to book appointments and GPs not providing prescriptions on request. As these experiences are not restricted to the refugee population, it suggests that some refugees may benefit from more information about how the UK healthcare system operates. Aside from waiting times, refugees who had received healthcare in the last year reported being satisfied with the level of support and care they received and that the quality of care was high.

In both community sponsorship case studies, groups continued to help refugees access healthcare and provided support with managing more complex health issues. In the rural area, the group provided transport for the family to attend hospital appointments. In the urban area, the group lead supported the family to change dentists and manage health referrals. However, in contrast to last year, families increasingly initiated requests for support.

9.3 What helps ensure refugees are aware of, and can access, appropriate mental health services?

Delivery partners noted that refugees rarely discussed mental health until they had built rapport with caseworkers. While refugees knew they could talk to their caseworkers about mental health, many had not done so. Some refugees attributed this to reductions in caseworker support, and feeling caseworkers were too busy. Caseworkers felt refugees were unwilling to openly discuss mental health due to cultural stigma around the issue. Some refugees also mentioned hiding negative feelings from their children due to concerns this would “burden” them. Some parents felt that younger children were less affected by displacement and wanted to protect them from the trauma they had suffered. Language barriers also played a role. In some areas, refugees mentioned feeling more comfortable talking about their mental health with Arabic speakers, as they could explain what was wrong in their own words and understand the diagnosis or advice given.

National stakeholders and delivery staff were increasingly aware that mental health issues, including trauma-related issues, may not appear until months or even years following resettlement. They highlighted that pre-existing mental health issues among refugees often became apparent once the initial relief of resettlement had subsided. This was also apparent in refugee interviews. As above, this could present an issue if caseworker support had reduced by the time mental health issues arose.

“In the beginning [my mental health] was better but now [it has] declined … It is to do with me and nothing to do with the system. I just feel mentally down.”
Refugee, woman, 18 months in the UK, in-depth interview

Caseworkers reported barriers to discussing mental health with refugees and valued training on this. Some caseworkers felt ill-equipped to provide mental health advice to refugees, due to not being aware of the symptoms or local support services available. In addition, due to the sensitive nature of mental health, some caseworkers found it challenging to discuss these issues through interpreters. In one area, caseworkers felt concern about whether interpreters had sufficient experience to interpret conversations about mental health using culturally appropriate language. To address these issues, some local authorities had organised training for caseworkers and delivery partners on how to recognise, discuss and address refugee mental health. Often, specialist third-sector organisations provided this training. Caseworkers found training useful and mentioned feeling better equipped and more confident to approach mental health proactively and as issues arose. Examples included:

• training on supporting victims of domestic and sexual violence
• culturally appropriate discussions about mental health with refugees early in the resettlement journey
• working with interpreters when discussing mental health
• signposting refugees to local services

Where training was not provided, caseworkers felt that this would be helpful.

Some local authorities funded external services to provide culturally appropriate and refugee-specific mental health support. For example, one case study area created a new role to identify and commission mental health and wellbeing services for refugees (see Case study example 9).

Case study example 9: Refugee-specific health and wellbeing support

One regional authority sought to address a gap in mental health and wellbeing support for resettled refugees by funding a new role of a Health and Wellbeing Officer. The officer commissioned short-term contracted services tailored to the needs of refugees. Delivery staff identified relevant needs through working with caseworkers and third-sector organisations.

For example, the officer developed a grant scheme to bring together young refugees from across the local authority for weekend activities on employability, mindfulness, sports and art. The officer set up women’s refugee groups to support women to learn English, and to promote integration by encouraging women to spend time outside of the home and discuss their experiences.

The local authority also funded training for delivery staff from specialist third-sector organisations on how to support the health and social care needs of refugees. In the longer term, the officer planned to commission torture and trauma support and therapeutic support services.

Delivery staff highlighted a gap in support for medium-level mental health needs. They noted that some refugees’ mental health needs were not severe enough for referral to crisis support services, but still required sustained mental health support (such as, counselling and therapy). In one area, refugees who had experienced torture could not access specialist services as their needs were not considered high enough. To address this, a local authority had commissioned specialised trauma centres and culturally sensitive counselling. In other areas, resettlement staff struggled to find delivery partners with the skills and experience to provide refugee-specific mental health services and training.

Some refugees mentioned they would like someone to share their feelings with, rather than formal psychological support. Some charities and volunteer organisations aimed to meet these lower-level wellbeing needs through befriending schemes and coffee mornings. Where partnerships with the third sector existed, local authority staff stressed the importance of coordinating services and ensuring they were of a suitable standard to meet refugee needs. While stakeholders acknowledged the benefits of working with the third sector to provide these services, some staff raised concerns that voluntary staff may lack the skills and experience to approach refugee mental health needs appropriately. Delivery staff also raised concerns that volunteers may be insufficiently trained in maintaining professional boundaries with clients, safeguarding procedures or understanding the cultural context of refugees.

Delivery staff and stakeholders identified a need for culturally specific child and adolescent mental health services for refugees on a national scale. This was due to recognising resettled children may have significant emotional and wellbeing needs that, due to their experiences, were likely to be different to the needs of their peers. In some areas, schools offered therapeutic services for refugee pupils (see Case study example 10). However, this was not available in all schools.

Case study example 10: Mental health support for children

One case study area used VPRS per-pupil funding to develop a mental health course with a focus on early intervention in trauma. The course techniques were based on cognitive behavioural therapy and were designed specifically for children who had spent time in conflict zones. Delivered by teachers and classroom assistants, the techniques aimed to improve attention and learning in the classroom, and to improve wellbeing by providing children with methods to process their experiences before resettlement. This approach was adopted over other forms of therapy due to the small number of Arabic-speaking therapists in the region.

Delivery partners highlighted drug and alcohol use issues and behavioural problems among some teenage refugees and attributed this to their experience of trauma. Caseworkers felt that some refugee parents were unwilling to seek mental health support for their children due to concerns that social services would take their children away from them. This indicates a gap in understanding among parents about the health and social care system and the support pathways available for children.

10. Social bridges and bonds

10.1 What are the key changes to delivery?

Refugees were increasingly forming organisations and support groups. Caseworkers or other delivery staff sometimes facilitated this using social media. In some areas, caseworkers supported previously resettled refugees to act as ‘mentors’ for new cohorts of refugees.

One case study area had recruited a Community Development Officer to commission and pilot services for promoting community integration among resettled refugees across the region.

10.2 What helps facilitate positive interactions between refugees and the rest of the local community?

Stakeholders and delivery staff generally considered awareness of refugee resettlement to be low among the wider population. In some areas, the lack of knowledge and awareness of refugee families’ situations could feed community suspicion and hostility, which inhibited refugees’ use of public space.

Stakeholders and refugees reported experiences of hate crime and racism, and a wider lack of community receptiveness to refugees, as key barriers to refugee integration. Close working with the police was critical to addressing these issues. One area offered regular hate crime awareness training to frontline resettlement staff, while police in another area worked closely with resettlement leads to address concerns in specific communities. In another area, racism and hate crime incidents were addressed through resettlement staff working closely with the police and training for police officers.

Volunteering was critical to the success of community integration activities, as volunteers provided much of the resource driving these activities. Individuals and organisations were working to generate relationships across communities in all case study areas. Successful programmes of activities depended on identifying networks and organisations that could provide in-kind support. Examples included:

• in some areas, people in the community with links to youth and church groups provided the ‘glue’ between local communities and resettled families
• some schools provided structured support for refugee children and supported the wider community to understand, respect and accept each other (see Chapter 6). Schools also provided opportunities for refugees and local partners to mix, and a location for culture sharing events
• community organisations, including those organising sporting activities, colleges or those focused on refugee welfare, supported integration through outreach activities with refugees and wider awareness raising among their service users

Local authorities also implemented a wide range of initiatives to improve the receptiveness of communities to resettled refugees. The most innovative examples were seen in response to a structure refugee needs assessment. Across the case study areas, examples included:

• creating community spaces where refugees and the wider community could mix, such as, education centres and community cafes
• organising communal events, such as ‘pop-up’ cafes, conversation classes, lunches with food cooked by refugees, music and children’s activities
• developing a community cookbook containing recipes and personal stories from refugees
• cultural events organised by the council with involvement from local migrant groups (such as, a ‘Bulgarian Culture Night’)
• community celebrations of Eid and activities to support wider community recognition of Ramadan
• regular community clubs, classes and sporting activities, such as, football or cooking clubs, which invited refugees to participate
• creative activities to bring people together (theatre, art, poetry and music)
• commissioning a befriending service matching adult resettled refugees with local people with similar interests

Both refugees and local communities were positive about community integration interventions. According to stakeholders, activities helped generate an environment of warmth and support for resettled families. This helped overcome some elements of the unavoidable distress of forced migration or other types of dissatisfaction relating to resettlement (for example, with location). In rural areas, some stakeholders noted that resettled families were not migrating to cities and attributed this to refugees feeling included and involved locally. However, refugees in some areas reported not being aware of available activities in the community.

“I feel safe in this country and comfortable. Even the neighbours all around here, they’re all nice and they have no bad comments or bad stuff to say. Whenever I go out, they always say ‘Hi, Hi!’, so that’s nice.”
Refugee, woman, 2 years in the UK, interview

Community activities served as a pathway for refugees to engage in volunteering, helping them build skills (notably learning English) and take part in civic life. However, some refugees reported it was difficult to engage with community activities alongside commitments such as managing health conditions and childcare.

Barriers to refugees attending community activities including cultural preferences and childcare. Some refugees mentioned not wanting to take part in events where alcohol was consumed, or with mixed genders. Staff and volunteers were adapting activities to address cultural differences and reduce barriers to access. For example, organising activities by gender, or for men and women concurrently, but separately. Access to childcare could also be a barrier to female refugees attending community events that did not involve children. Ensuring childcare is available has addressed this (see Case study example 11).

Case study example 11: Women-only events

A local charity ran a ‘women’s pampering event’ for refugee women and women in the wider community. It provided a creche. The activities (yoga, massage and beauty treatments) aimed to help women refugees feel at ease and relax in a women-only space. Women asked for this event to be monthly and said it provided respite from housework or looking after others.

Several stakeholders were working to raise refugees’ awareness of local services and events. Caseworkers provided information on services and guidance about undertaking everyday activities and ensuring personal safety. Third-sector organisations introduced families to amenities, such as, parks and community centres, through organised activities. More structured activities to share information about opportunities in the community included a charity running a drop-in centre for refugees, and social media channels (either set up by refugees or coordinated by caseworkers) through which refugees posted news of events and celebrations. In one local authority area, resettlement staff ran a ‘family learning project’ for resettled families, which included trips to markets, museums and into town, providing the opportunity for families to get used to using public transport and get to know the local area.

10.3 What helps facilitate positive social interactions between refugees?

Some local authorities were taking steps to increase interactions between refugees, typically as part of a strategy that also aimed to support integration into wider communities. In some areas, delivery staff organised events or signposted refugees to third-sector activities with other resettled refugees. They undertook similar activities to those used for creating ‘bridging’ social capital with the wider community (as outlined above) but with a focus on bringing refugees together. Tailored schemes supplemented these; in one area, a Young Refugee Grant scheme invited applicants to propose creative ways to bring young refugees together, following feedback from young refugees that this would be beneficial. Caseworkers in the area also set up a WhatsApp group to connect young refugees and share information about opportunities for face-to-face meetings and activities.

As above, previously resettled refugees were helping new families to familiarise themselves with the local area, which caseworkers encouraged.

Case study example 12: Involving refugees in service delivery

In one local authority area, resettled Syrian refugees formed a ‘self-help group’ for newly arrived refugees. The local authority encouraged refugees to contact the group directly to avoid data sharing risks. The group organised social nights to encourage contact with other refugees and local people. Delivery staff drew on advice from the group to help develop their work on refugee integration. Refugees reported that volunteering had helped them socialise and improve their English.

Local authorities navigated cultural and religious tensions when carrying out activities to build relationships between refugee groups. Diversity of cultures within Syria meant that mixing between resettled individuals was not always straightforward, for example due to negative attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals or lone parents. Some refugees mentioned preferring not to live close to or take part in activities with other refugees of the same nationality to avoid discrimination. In one area, caseworkers reported that conflict had arisen between existing and resettled migrant communities. In some case study areas that were also asylum dispersal areas, stakeholders emphasised efforts to include asylum seekers in community activities to build bonds between the different refugee groups.

10.4 What helps refugees understand the UK’s legal system, cultural norms and expectations?

Stakeholders noted that to effectively support refugees’ understanding of British culture, frontline workers needed more information, and an overarching strategy, on how to promote British ideas of inclusion, norms and expectations. This gap meant refugees obtained this knowledge either informally or from local agencies (such as, external caseworker organisations or ESOL providers) delivering these messages. Examples included:

• caseworkers employed by a housing association providing families with advice on UK culture and local services (including refuge disposal and recycling)
• ESOL classes including content on British laws, cultural norms and expectations
• British culture and values being included in the school curriculum
• a national charity advising local authorities on how to communicate with refugees around cultural issues, notably on addressing domestic abuse in the UK context

10.5 What helps promote refugees’ understanding of family reunification?

There were a few examples of successful family reunification, and the family reunification process remained poorly understood by many refugees and delivery staff. This led to disappointment among many resettled families. Delivery staff also expressed frustration at the lack of coordination and information sharing with local authorities regarding the process. Resettlement staff reported they lacked the expertise or necessary accreditation to advise and support families on family reunion^{[footnote 13]}. Therefore, external agencies and charities, such as, the British Red Cross, mainly coordinated applications for family reunion under the UK Immigration Rules. The UNHCR Family Links process (a way of making UNHCR aware of the protection needs of a family member abroad) partly caused confusion surrounding family reunification by drawing on a different system and framework to refugee family reunification under the UK’s Immigration Rules. This led to confusion among refugees and delivery staff, and in some cases raised expectations among refugees that they would be reunited with family in the UK.

Providing evidence for family reunification could be challenge. Some refugees who wished to reunite in the UK with family members living abroad could not provide proof of relationships (for example, marriage or birth certificates). Where families wished to reunify with adult children, adult siblings, or other extended family members, they frequently encountered challenges in meeting the evidence threshold under the UK Immigration Rules.

Many refugees had discussed family reunification with caseworkers and understood the constraints, but still remained hopeful that family members could join them in the UK eventually. Stakeholders felt that the ease of contacting family members through the internet and social media also raised hopes among refugees. In some cases, families had engaged their local Member of Parliament for support. It was often unclear whether refugees were discussing formal family reunification applications or registrations to the family link programme. However, some refugees expressed frustration at how long the process took and the lack of updates after making an application or submitting information. Several families said they had not understood why their application had been rejected or were still waiting to hear back.

Successful reunification could also present practical problems for local authorities. One local authority reported that staff only received notice once reunited family members were about to arrive in the UK, which presented challenges to providing support. VPRS/VCRS funding was not available for families granted entry to the UK under the Immigration Rules, which caseworkers experienced as challenging where families required additional support following reunion (for example, to move property to accommodate additional family members).

Case study areas had made little progress overall in overcoming these challenges, with one notable exception. In one case study area, a local law centre allocated an accredited and experienced immigration advisor to provide support and immigration advice to resettled refugees. The advisor provided information and support on family reunification but also on issues such as travel documentation (to visit other European countries, for example) and changes in immigration status.

Appendix A. Policy background

A.1 Policy background

The VPRS/VCRS are 2 of the 4 UK resettlement schemes. The VPRS was launched in January 2014 and expanded in September 2015 with the aim of resettling 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict by 2020. The VCRS scheme was launched in April 2016, aiming to resettle up to 3,000 vulnerable children and their families from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region (Home Office, 2016). In response to an increase in public interest in responding to the needs of Syrian and other refugees, the Home Office launched a community sponsorship scheme in July 2016. This community-based resettlement model enables groups to directly welcome and support resettled refugees through the VPRS/VCRS. As of December 2019, 21,524 people had been resettled – 19,353 under the VPRS, 1,747 under the VCRS (Home Office, 2019a) and 424 through the community sponsorship scheme (Home Office, 2019b).

The UK’s resettlement schemes offer a safe and legal route to the UK for some of the most vulnerable refugees. The schemes purposefully target those considered to be in greatest need of assistance, including people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk. The Home Office works with 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 near countries with conflicts such as, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey (Home Office, 2019b).

In June 2019, the UK government announced that from 2020 a new global UK resettlement scheme (UKRS) would consolidate the VPRS/VCRS and the gateway protection programme into one global scheme (Home Office, 2019c). The government also announced that community sponsorship would also continue, with refugees resettled by community sponsorship groups counted in addition to those under the new scheme.

A.2 Delivery of the schemes

The Home Office managed the VPRS until September 2015, at which point a cross government programme was formed with officials from the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) embedded within the team. Participation in the VPRS/VCRS is voluntary for local authorities^{[footnote 14]}. Local authorities make pledges to the Home Office about how many people or families they can support over a set period. Based on the number of places available, Home Office staff work closely with UNHCR and IOM in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, to process refugees for resettlement. UNHCR determines refugee status and refers refugees for resettlement in the UK. The Home Office determines suitability for entry to the UK and retains the right to reject individuals on security or other grounds. Prior to the refugees’ departure for the UK, IOM provides logistical support through health assessments, document handling, travel assistance and pre-departure cultural orientation sessions.

Home Office staff conduct a pre-departure interview with refugees via telephone or video-link. This provides an opportunity for Home Office staff to ask refugees for additional information not recorded by IOM/UNHCR, and for refugees to ask questions about the resettlement process. Since 2016, local authorities have had the opportunity to provide fact sheets about the local area refugees will move to.

Local authorities offering placements to refugees receive per capita VPRS/VCRS funding to contribute towards refugees’ integration needs during their first 5 years in the UK. The UK government has set out the responsibilities of local authorities for the initial 12-month period following a refugee’s arrival in a Statement of Outcomes (UKVI, 2018b). During the first year of resettlement, local authorities are responsible for:

• meeting the family at the airport
• providing furnished accommodation with utilities installed and operational
• arranging a local orientation
• ongoing practical support from caseworkers to help refugees establish themselves in the community
• providing a cash/clothing allowance for refugees until benefits and other support are in place

The amount of tariff funding reduces in each year following the family’s first year in the UK and the required use of funding in years 2 to 5 is more flexible. In addition to the tariff funding, funding for exceptional costs based on individual needs is also available for local authorities^{[footnote 15]}. Local authority resettlement teams had flexibility in how to spend tariff funding in years 2 to 5 to best support resettled refugees’ longer-term integration.

The Home Office centrally coordinates community sponsorship. In June 2019, a new charity, Reset, was awarded Home Office funding to provide support to groups across the UK looking to sponsor refugee families as part of the community sponsorship scheme (UKVI, 2018a). Reset has since taken over responsibility for supporting groups through the application process and raising awareness of community sponsorship. The Home Office remains responsible for developing policy, the application process and engaging partners and stakeholders. Reset also supports the Home Office in evaluating the scheme.

Community sponsorship groups provide integration support to resettled refugees for one year and housing for 2 years (HM Government, 2018). Groups must 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 evidence a minimum of £9,000 available for support and submit a plan to the Home Office for approval of how they intend to provide support in accordance with the statement of requirements (HM Government, 2018). Groups must also obtain consent from their local authority, demonstrate robust safeguarding processes, and complete training before the Home Office approve them to sponsor a family.

Appendix B. Methodology

B.1 Evaluation objectives

This qualitative process and impact evaluation of the VPRS/VCRS aims to provide a robust evidence base on the schemes’ activities and consider how, and to what extent, the intended objectives of the schemes are being realised. Given that the schemes are ongoing, the evaluation also delivers good practice evidence to inform the development and improvement of the schemes. As the schemes focus on providing value for money, the evaluation provides insight into how resources have been used. To meet these objectives, the overall evaluation seeks to answer the following overarching research questions:

• in what different ways are local authorities and community sponsors delivering the scheme?
• 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 outcomes of the schemes?

To answer these questions, the inception phase of the evaluation (October to December 2017) identified key intended outcomes and impacts across integration areas. This included the Home Office Indicators of Integration framework (Ager and Strang, 2004; Home Office, 2019d), an evidence-based tool for conceptualising and measuring integration across a range of different domains, which fed into development of the research materials^{[footnote 16]}. The output of the inception phase was a Theory of Change for the VPRS/VCRS (featured in Year 1 report). A scheme-level evaluation framework contained key evaluation questions.

During Year 1, the evaluation focused on describing the delivery models used by local authorities and community sponsorship to support VPRS/VCRS refugees, how this support aimed to meet shorter-term integration, and the key barriers and enablers encountered.

During Year 2, the evaluation focused on describing key changes in support delivery models, how delivery models aimed to support longer-term integration, and emerging barriers and enablers including good practice to overcome barriers.

During Year 3, the evaluation will focus on good practice to overcome new and existing barriers to integration. The third report will bring together the progress towards intended integration outcomes across the 3 years of research

B.2 Overview of fieldwork during Year 2 of the evaluation

Ipsos carried out the following activities during the second year of the evaluation (February to August 2019)

• in February 2019, a stakeholder panel with key national and regional stakeholders, which included central government, third sector and local government
• qualitative case study research between June and September 2019 in 5 local authority areas across the UK (including in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and with 2 community sponsorship groups

B.2.1 Stakeholder panel interviews

Ipsos conducted stakeholder panel fieldwork with 26 stakeholders, whose composition was reviewed following Year 1. Additional representatives (from the same organisation where possible) involved in refugee resettlement and integration replaced stakeholders who had left or whose role and experience was less relevant to the areas of interest in Year 2.

Over half of stakeholder panel representatives (17) were interviewed in both years of the research. Interviews in Year 2 included:

• 7 interviews with central government staff (Home Office, HMCLG, DfID and DWP)
• 2 interviews with UNHCR/IOM representatives
• 11 interviews with key third-sector organisations involved in the schemes
• 6 interviews with SMP staff and local government representatives

B.2.2 Local authority case study research

Ipsos conducted case study fieldwork in the same 5 local authority areas as Year 1. This included a combination of methods and participants.

Firstly, telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 36 local authority staff, including local authority and delivery partner staff responsible for the oversight and delivery of the scheme.

Secondly, face-to-face interviews and focus groups (and a few telephone interviews) were conducted with 18 caseworkers in case study areas. These replaced the online caseworker panel conducted in Year 1.

Thirdly, telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 8 local stakeholders who could speak to wider community views about refugees and refugees’ social integration in the area. These interviews replaced the public focus groups conducted in Year 1.

Finally, face-to-face family interviews and focus groups were conducted with 95 resettled refugees. Most refugee participants (70%) were also interviews in Year 1. Details of the refugee sample are outlined in Table B1 (including the 2 families interviewed as part of the community sponsorship cases outlined in ‘B.2.3 Community case study research’)

B.2.3 Community sponsor case study research

Fieldwork was conducted with the same 2 community sponsorship groups as Year 1. This included:

• 5 telephone interviews with key community sponsorship group members and one focus group with wider community sponsor group members
• family interviews with 2 refugee families (9 family members in total)

B.2.4 Year 2 refugee sample

Table B1 provides a breakdown of the refugee sample for each case study area by time in the UK^{[footnote 17]}.

Table B1: Time of resettlement of participating refugees (individual/family encounters)

Area	Less than a year	1 to 2 years	2 years or more
England (urban/rural)	-	-	7
Northern Ireland (urban/rural)	1	1	1
England (urban)	1	1	5
Scotland (urban)	-	6	3
Wales (rural)	1	2	-
Community sponsorship groups (1 rural, 1 urban)	-	-	2

Of those taking part in the 31 family, paired or individual interviews in Year 2, 24 had also taken part in Year 1, and the interviewing team followed up on their experiences in Year 2^{[footnote 18]}.

B.2.5 Analysis

Ipsos analysed all data from the stakeholder and case study strands thematically. This involved reviewing, sorting, and labelling the data against the impact and process evaluation frameworks. Ipsos researchers could then assess the evidence for each of the evaluation outcome questions across the case studies and the extent to which it had been met. Ipsos researchers then triangulated the gathered qualitative evidence with the evidence from other strands of the research, to judge how far the results supported (or did not support) the relevant hypotheses.

Data for each case study were also considered individually, again reviewing this against the impact and process evaluation frameworks. This allowed the evaluation to build up a detailed picture of how things are working in each of the case study areas, and the key factors underpinning this.

B.2.6 Next steps

Ipsos will repeat the stakeholder panel interviews in Year 3 to capture change and progression over time; should key personnel change we will seek to interview their replacement. The sampling approach will be reviewed and may be revised in Year 3 of the study as the scheme develops.

The evaluation intends to repeat the research in each case study area for a final year (2020). However, there may be attrition of case studies; even with strong engagement strategies in place, such as dedicated local authority leads within Ipsos and regular updates to local authorities, case study areas may struggle to participate fully over such a long period and need to be replaced. Furthermore, there may be methodological reasons to replace a case study should research questions shift over time.

Appendix C. Caseworker support models

Table C1 summarises the models of integration support across the case study areas.

Table C1: Summary of integration support models

Case study area	Agencies involved in delivering integration support	Initial intensive support period	Ongoing and regular support period	Open ended, ad hoc support period	Adjustments to delivery model
England Mixed Urban and Rural	Third-sector organisations	2 months	Dependent on refugees’ support needs, typically for 1 year following arrival	After 1 year, support steps down to ad hoc support when necessary	Initial intensive support period extended from 2 weeks to 2 months. Increased involvement from specialist staff, for example, employment and training officer
Northern Ireland Mixed Urban and Rural	Third-sector organisations	5 days at a welcome centre	Approximately 6 months	After 6 months, support steps down to ad hoc support when necessary	Ongoing and regular support period extended from 16 weeks to about 6 months. Welcome Centre includes activities that promote wellness among refugees at arrival stage
England Urban	The local authority housing department	Around 6 weeks	Dependent on refugees’ support needs; fairly intensive support for 6 months, with gradual step down for the rest of the year	After 1 year, support steps down to ad hoc support when necessary	Increased commissioning of mental health services. Guidance and support available for caseworkers to address ‘burnout’. More direct control of housing provision.
Scotland Urban	The local authority, with some limited involvement from other agencies and charities	2 weeks	Dependent on refugees’ support needs, with substantial variation between cases	Step down after 1 year, but can be much earlier; ad hoc support is available when necessary	Increased involvement from specialist staff, for example, welfare rights officer
Wales Rural	Third-sector organisations	2 weeks	Dependent on refugees’ support needs; aim to step down within 3 to 6 months of arrival	After 1 year, support steps down to ad hoc support when necessary	Caseworker staff capacity reduced from 2 to one caseworker

References

Ager, A. and Strang, A. (2004) Indicators of Integration: final report Home Office. London [Accessed 18 February 2021]

HM Government (2018) Community Sponsorship: Guidance for prospective sponsors [Accessed 18 February 2021]

Home Office (2016) New scheme launched to resettle children at risk. [Accessed 18 February 2021]

Home Office (2018) The UK government’s approach to evaluating the Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes [Accessed 18 February 2021]

Home Office (2019a) Asylum applications, decisions and resettlement [Accessed 18 February 2021]

Home Office (2019b) How many people do we grant asylum or protection to? [Accessed 18 February 2021]

Home Office (2019c) New global resettlement scheme for the most vulnerable refugees announced [Accessed 18 February 2021]

Home Office (2019d) Home Office Indicators of Integration framework 2019 [Accessed 18 February 2021]

UKVI (2018a) Home Office awards £1 million to help communities support refugees [Accessed 18 February 2021]

UKVI (2018b) UK resettlement programmes: funding instruction 2018 to 2019 [Accessed 18 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. Appendix A in the Year 1 report contains an overview of the evaluation questions. ↩

2. 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. ↩

3. Additional representatives involved in refugee resettlement and integration were introduced for Year 2, replacing stakeholders who had left or whose role and experience was less relevant to the areas of interest in Year 2 of the evaluation. More than half of the interviews (17) were with representatives of organisations that had also been represented at Year 1. More information on the composition of the stakeholder panel is included in Appendix B. ↩

4. See tables A3 and A4 in Appendix A of the Year 1 report, for an overview of the research questions. ↩

5. Including in-depth interview guides for national stakeholders, local stakeholders and refugees and focus group materials for refugees and local caseworkers. ↩

6. In June 2018, a new charity, Reset, was awarded £1 million of Home Office funding to provide support to groups across the UK looking to sponsor refugee families as part of the community sponsorship scheme (UKVI, 2018a). The charity took responsibility for some functions that were originally under the remit of the Home Office, including supporting groups through the application process and raising awareness of the community sponsorship scheme. The Home Office remains responsible for developing policy, the application and assessment process and engaging partners and stakeholders. Reset also supports the Home Office in evaluating the schemes. ↩

7. Housing allocation relates to local resettlement staff identifying suitable properties for resettled families. ↩

8. Data were missing for 19% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

9. This included differences in how long more intensive face-to-face support was provided, how support reduced over time, and arrangements for contact or support after the first year. Table C1 in Appendix C outlines the different ways in which integration support was implemented across the case study areas. ↩

10. Data were missing for 16% of children aged 5 to 16 and 12% aged 17 to 18, and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

11. Data were missing for 17% of cases and have been excluded from the analysis. ↩

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

13. Immigration advice in the UK is regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) and individuals providing advice must be accredited. ↩

14. 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. ↩

15. 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. ↩

16. Following the initial development of this project, the Home Office has published an updated version of the Indicators of Integration framework (Home Office, 2019d). ↩

17. Time in the UK was not recorded for participants of 2 focus groups with refugees in Wales. ↩

18. Participation in the previous year of research was not recorded for those taking part in the 2 focus groups in Wales. ↩