Research and analysis

VPRS and VCRS Qualitative Evaluation – Year 3 Report

Published 30 March 2023

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

Acknowledgements

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

Galini Pantelidou, Roya Kamvar and Lauren Elliott conducted fieldwork for the study alongside the core team, supported by Fiona Tudor. Charlotte Peel, Yota Bratsa, Kirsty McLeod and Iona Gallacher helped in the analysis of data, with Charlotte also helping substantially in later revisions of the report. We are grateful to many other colleagues at Ipsos who helped with the research, our research partner Lisa Payne, and not least, to all the research participants, local authorities and community sponsor groups who collaborated with us on this study.

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

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

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

Executive Summary

Background and aims

This is Ipsos’s third and final report on the evaluation of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS), both of which ended in February 2021. These schemes offered a safe and legal route to the UK for vulnerable refugees in need of protection. The first report details the background to these schemes and the evaluation. This 3-year qualitative process evaluation examined the delivery of the VPRS/VCRS and considered how, and to what extent, the intended objectives of the schemes were being realised (for an overview of the methodology see Appendix B). The evaluation also provides evidence of good practice to inform further development and improvement of the schemes.

The first report focused on identifying how local authority^{[footnote 1]} and community sponsor groups were supporting refugees in their first year in the UK. The second report described how refugees were supported with their integration beyond their first year in the UK, and how delivery changed to support new refugee cohorts.

This final report describes further key changes and innovative practice demonstrated by local authorities and community sponsor groups in the third year of this evaluation. It also covers refugees’ progress towards the schemes’ intended integration outcomes and describes ongoing barriers to progress and areas that require further development. In this final year, the research placed greater emphasis on identifying examples of good practice that have emerged over time from the delivery of VPRS/VCRS, as well as the challenges and lessons learnt from delivery in a pandemic year.

Given the timing of the fieldwork this year (April to October 2020), the findings also reflect the impact of the emergence of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the UK, from March 2020 onwards. The pandemic affected not only the reality of refugee resettlement and integration efforts, but also the scope and the methodological approach taken in the final year’s fieldwork. These changes disrupted the longitudinal design of the evaluation, which aimed to follow the same people throughout the course of the 3-year study. This made it more difficult to measure the progress of the schemes against ‘normal time’ measurements of change.

Research Methodology

This report outlines the findings from the third and final year of fieldwork, including data from:

• interviews with 26 key national and regional stakeholders from central and local government and the third sector
• in-depth qualitative case studies involving interviews with local stakeholders, practitioners and refugees in 5 local authority areas across the UK and with 4 community sponsor groups in England and Wales

Across the 9 local authority and community sponsor case studies, 57 stakeholders and 46 refugee families/individuals were interviewed, as well as 2 focus groups with community sponsor members. To get an understanding of change over several years, most national stakeholder organisations (22/26 interviews) and refugees (31/46 interviews) had been interviewed in earlier years of fieldwork. The report identifies instances of ‘good practice’ throughout; however, given the nature, scope and aims of this research, limited evidence is available as to how prevalent these practices were across the UK at the time of research. The report provides additional information about the context of good practices where possible. Appendix B provides more information on research methodology and sampling.

We collected the evidence for this report from June to October 2020. We conducted all fieldwork remotely via telephone to adhere to government COVID-19 guidelines regarding social distancing.

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; Home Office, 2019), 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

The evidence from this 3-year qualitative evaluation shows that, based on evidence from key national stakeholders and case studies, the schemes have made positive, sustained progress towards meeting their overall objective of supporting the integration of resettled refugees. This means the programme mostly met its aims and objectives. However, while there is evidence of positive developments across all areas, there are areas requiring improvements, and evidence of uneven delivery of good practice.

Programme delivery

The unprecedented pressures and travel restrictions created by the global COVID-19 pandemic meant that the UK, along with many other countries, was unable to resettle refugees during this period. This presented the most significant change to managing and coordinating the schemes this year. In some areas, resettlement teams had intensified the focus on refugees’ longer-term integration as part of ongoing strategic plans, with more evidence of funding for refugee-specific services. There was also greater evidence of areas conducting research and evaluation to identify gaps in support and good practice.

National stakeholders reported several changes to the pre-departure process this year, including:

• refinements to pre-departure messages for refugees during cultural orientation sessions
• changes to the pre-departure medical assessment process
• conducting pregnancy tests for refugees 2 weeks before departure to provide more up-to-date information

National stakeholders noted that the community sponsorship organisation, Reset, had introduced their new 2-part introductory training course for new community sponsor groups, indicating thorough orientation to the scheme.

The inability to resettle refugees during the COVID-19 pandemic introduced significant uncertainty for local authorities around future funding. Local authority resettlement staff voiced concerns about their ability to plan ahead and commit to future arrivals. Stakeholders also expressed concern that the inability to resettle refugees during the pandemic had reduced momentum and enthusiasm among new and potential community sponsor groups.

Participants noted improvements to programme delivery this year, attributing these to:

• Home Office operations team and pre-departure partner organisations proactively seeking feedback and implementing learning
• initiatives to gather and share good practice
• strategic planning within local authorities to develop services to support the longer-term integration of families
• using centralised funding flexibly
• coordinating joint working between local authorities and community sponsor groups

Caseworker support

In response to the pandemic, caseworker support shifted from face-to-face to online/telephone support. Some refugees had begun to undertake tasks, such as, booking health appointments themselves, which had led to greater independence. However, it remained important for families to have access to support from caseworkers if required. The shift to the online provision of services meant caseworkers struggled to address the immediate needs of refugees who arrived shortly before the national lockdown. Some community sponsor group members mentioned challenges in supporting refugees where their older volunteers were shielding or lacked the digital skills to provide support remotely. However, all groups adapted to remote, technology-based support and maintained contact with families throughout.

Several local authority case studies demonstrated new approaches to ensuring caseworker caseloads were manageable and sustainable. One example was briefing caseworkers to focus on priority tasks to support each refugee household during contact time with them. Dedicated mental health support for refugees, provided by delivery partners and paid for by the local authority, also helped reduce caseworkers’ workloads.

As in past years, English proficiency was the key factor in determining whether refugees could manage independently after caseworker support was ‘stepped down’. Stakeholders felt that approaches to communicating support stepdown plans needed review, as refugees often still misunderstood or challenged them. Some local stakeholders felt it was crucial that refugees understood that their caseworker support would end 5 years after their arrival. Related to this, as more VPRS/VCRS refugees approached 5 years living in the UK, stakeholders were concerned about access to support for refugees to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

Housing Support

This year, local authority housing leads continued to increase the number of properties available for resettled refugees by building networks of local private landlords. Some also explored strategies to increase housing stock by incentivising landlords with upfront rent payments and collaborating with surrounding local authorities where larger and more affordable properties were likely to be available. Some local authorities and community sponsor groups experienced difficulties holding private rented properties for refugees whose arrival was postponed due to the pandemic.

Due to increasing housing pressures in some areas, as well as increasing concern over incidences of hate crime in areas of high deprivation, stakeholders were more concerned than in previous years about the impact of refugee resettlement on community relations. Local authorities addressed this challenge by taking a strategic approach to housing refugees, which considered community dynamics and drawing on advice from those with strong local knowledge, such as, delivery partners.

Welfare and employment support

Many refugees continued to require support to access their benefits, especially if their entitlements had changed. In many areas, strong working relationships between Jobcentre staff and resettlement staff and/or community sponsor group members enabled a smoother process for refugees to access welfare support. Jobcentre staff who were experienced in working with refugees and migrants also supported refugees in finding employment. However, the need for consistent, high-quality interpreter provision at Jobcentres remained. Refugees who had lost their job reported difficulties in applying for Universal Credit (UC) and housing benefits after their caseworker support had reduced or was only available remotely.

Poor digital access, and low levels of both digital literacy and written English comprehension, remained barriers to refugees independently managing their welfare entitlements. Some local authorities overcame this through offering specialist support and advice to refugees to build their confidence in this area, or by providing smartphones or laptops. Refugees with additional needs required sustained, dedicated support to ensure their access to entitlements.

Many refugees continued to face barriers in accessing bank accounts this year, meaning they struggled to claim UC. Workarounds included opening accounts with app-based banks with simplified registration requirements. Stakeholders suggested the Home Office underwrite resettled refugee bank accounts to support easier access to welfare payments.

English language acquisition

This year, provision of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) moved online because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This created new challenges for those refugees unable to access online classes. Refugees noted the national lockdown had negatively impacted their overall language acquisition, due to finding it harder to ask questions in online classes and having fewer opportunities to practise English informally. Some areas enabled refugees to access classes online by providing computer hardware and offering support and advice on accessing relevant digital platforms. For some refugees, online classes removed barriers to attendance, such as, transport needs and flexibility for those with caring responsibilities.

Some case study areas made further progress this year in tailoring English language learning to refugees’ wider integration goals, delivering ESOL provision with an employment focus, or alongside modules for accredited professional qualifications. Stakeholders and refugees highlighted that ESOL classes with learners from different backgrounds helped build community integration. Tailoring support to refugees’ specific needs was also important; for example, through creating personalised learning plans. Alternatives to the traditional classroom-based learning emerged but were not yet widespread.

Education and training: children aged 16 and under

This year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and third-sector organisations provided schools with additional support and training on creating an inclusive and welcoming environment, and they addressed ongoing schools’ reservations about accepting refugee children. Schools provided additional English lessons and a thorough orientation for refugee children. Local authority education staff provided refugee children with dedicated support, particularly in the transition from primary to secondary school, drawing on partnerships built in previous years to do so.

Young refugees continued to value additional support designed to facilitate their progression in school. However, some families felt that their children’s progress in English learning and integration had slowed due to COVID-19 and fewer opportunities to interact with other children and teachers.

Education and training: young people aged 16 to 25 years old

Local authorities worked closely with relevant third-sector organisations to provide employment and volunteering support for young people. However, many in-person training and education activities for young refugees were cancelled, postponed or moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholders were concerned about the impact of the pandemic on young refugees’ mental health, progression in learning and towards employment and wider integration. Some young refugees reported the pandemic had impacted their ability to learn English by limiting their social interactions and opportunities to practise speaking the language.

Effective support for young refugees focused on the provision of advocacy and support addressing their individual needs and aspirations, to enable them to access education and employment opportunities. Examples included, initiatives which provided trauma-informed support alongside education activities to ensure young refugees could sustain their engagement with learning activities in the event of distress. Some local authorities implemented initiatives that effectively combined ESOL provision with employability, skills development and social activities. Local stakeholders identified tailored ESOL provision as essential to support access for refugees to mainstream college courses. Stakeholders and resettled families also wanted to see an increase in signposting to support and advice in further education (FE) colleges to help build young refugees’ confidence and understanding of the education system, and support their access to higher education or further training and employment pathways.

Employment and volunteering support

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employment-support initiatives could not provide their services in the way they had done before. Where possible, support was provided over the phone or online. Some chose not to move their services online because they were not confident of accessibility due to the poor digital literacy, particularly among older refugees. The pandemic also impacted employment opportunities, with some refugee participants being furloughed, or losing jobs and volunteering positions altogether, particularly in the hospitality sector.

Despite these more recent barriers, some services had implemented initiatives that promoted employment. These included developing confidence and work-related skills through peer mentoring, workshops and volunteering, and encouraging employers to hire refugees. Providing tailored support through specialised employment advisers and wellbeing officers was considered an important approach, notably for groups such as, refugee women who face multiple barriers to employment. Several employment-support initiatives in sectors including retail, hospitality and construction were also implemented this year to help refugees gain qualifications, placements and interviews. Stakeholders felt that delivery staff would be better placed to plan employment support for refugees if their skills and experience were recorded and shared pre-departure.

Healthcare

This year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, health services such as, GP surgeries shifted from in-person appointments to remote services. The availability of telephone interpreters for appointments increased as part of this change, making services overall more accessible to refugees. However, pre-appointment assessments that did not include interpreter support remained difficult to access.

Further initiatives to increase mental health support for refugees were implemented this year, including dedicated mental health professionals providing therapeutic support as well as accompanying refugees to GP appointments. Local delivery partners also set up wellbeing groups for refugees aimed at tackling stigma associated with mental health, addressing anxiety and promoting self-care. Involving refugees in service design was in the early stages, with one case study area planning to include refugee experiences of the healthcare system in planning future services.

Social bridges and bonds

Geographic differences in social integration were more apparent this year, with ‘bonding’ social capital being generated most successfully in urban areas, where refugees developed relationships with others with whom they shared a sense of identity. Rural areas showed more evidence of ‘bridging’ social capital, with refugees making connections with people from different backgrounds to them. The COVID-19 pandemic created new barriers:

• constraints on longer-term funding of social integration initiatives
• initiatives being postponed or halted due to social distancing restrictions
• refugees being unable to learn to drive, which increased their isolation
• digital exclusion increasing due to many social activities moving online

Many local authorities had developed a strong model for engaging refugees in supporting newly arrived families. Supporting faith, educational and language-based networks also helped promote relationships between refugees and wider communities with whom they shared cultural connections. Refugees were engaged in developing services through consultation exercises. Targeted initiatives to engage women and young people socially were also underway.

Several stakeholders perceived an increase in hostility and hate crime from host communities in their areas. They typically attributed this to existing deprivation within communities where refugees had been resettled, as well as Brexit and related narratives on race and immigration. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of civic leaders taking steps to challenge racist narratives in communities to address the social and political drivers of hate crime, such as, holding open community meetings to respond to questions from residents. Initiatives were also being trialled this year to encourage refugees to report such crimes. Arts and community projects which amplified refugee voices and stories were identified as powerful in building community bridges.

Conclusion

Local authorities and community sponsor groups have adjusted and improved their post-arrival delivery models over time. Stakeholders commonly attributed the success of the schemes to the openness of local authorities, central government and civil society groups to collaborate and seek solutions at a national level. This was supported by the flexible tariff funding model which afforded opportunities for flexibility and creativity in designing and delivering support to refugees at a local level.

Evidence from the 3 years of evaluation showed that adjustments made to the schemes at a local level had enabled areas to meet the essential needs of refugees better over time. Improvements have come from an increased knowledge and understanding of refugee needs among local and national resettlement staff and delivery partners.

In the final (third) year of the research, refugees interviewed at Year 1 were increasingly adjusting to life in the UK and becoming more independent. Services were also continuing to evolve to address longer-term support needs. Nonetheless, despite the progress made, many refugees continued to face multiple barriers to their longer-term integration, such as, English language support which did not meet their needs, poor opportunities for employment, and poor health and/or caring responsibilities which were a barrier to wider community integration.

In summary, the evaluation demonstrates that, overall, delivery models in diverse local authorities and community sponsor group areas have matured over time, supporting progress towards meeting the schemes’ goals. Areas with strategic plans in place for refugee integration and well-established multi-agency approaches to providing support were also the most likely to be generating strong examples of innovative and good practice regarding refugees’ longer-term integration.

1. Introduction

This is the third and final report of a longitudinal, 3-year qualitative process evaluation of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS). The evaluation aimed to examine the delivery of the schemes and consider how, and to what extent, the intended objectives of the schemes were being realised. The evaluation also aimed to provide insight into how resources were being used and evidence of good practice to inform further development, and improvement of the schemes and their delivery.

The evaluation was designed to answer the following process and outcome-related questions:

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

Appendix A outlines the policy background to the schemes and Appendix B details the methodology.

Each of the 3 reports draws on the findings from fieldwork carried out in the previous year(s) where relevant. The first (Year 1) report focused on identifying how local authorities and community sponsor groups were supporting refugees, particularly during their first year in the UK. The second (Year 2) report focused on how refugees were being supported with their longer-term integration (beyond their first year in the UK), and on how delivery had changed over time to support new cohorts of refugees arriving.

This third and final report (Year 3) describes further key changes and innovative practice demonstrated by local authorities and community sponsor groups in the third year of this evaluation, as well as reflections across all 3 years. This year, a greater emphasis was placed on learning about good practice in supporting refugee integration. Given the disruption caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic to data collection, some further changes were made to the methodology and scope of this final year. Measuring the progress of the schemes was more difficult in the context of the pandemic. The report therefore highlights innovative and good practice demonstrated by local authorities and community sponsor groups, and ongoing barriers to progress, including areas that require further development. Also described are changes in delivery of the schemes brought about by the pandemic; many of these ways of working were beneficial and there remain lessons to be learnt from the delivery of schemes in this pandemic year.

The findings for this research are based on an analysis of stakeholder and refugee participants’ perceptions of what was working well in refugee resettlement and integration in diverse specific settings forms, collected from June to October 2020. For full details of the research design, see Appendix B: Methodology. Evidence includes data from 26 interviews with key national stakeholders and 9 in-depth case studies conducted in 5 local authority areas and with 4 community sponsor groups. Across these case studies, 57 stakeholders and 46 refugee families/individuals were interviewed in total. All the case studies were included in the 2 previous years of the evaluation, except for 2 community sponsorship case study areas, which were added to explore, in greater depth, how community sponsor groups promote refugee integration.

Given this, evidence of good practice presented in the report is commonly drawn from a specific setting. It also highlights broader examples of good practice which were consistently perceived to have worked well over the 3 years of the evaluation. The report also draws on interviews with specific demographic groups of refugees resettled via VPRS and VCRS, including working-age men and women, and young people (aged 16 to 25).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all fieldwork was conducted remotely via telephone with the support of interpreters to ensure the safety and comfort of both participants and researchers, and to adhere to government guidelines on social distancing. The scope of the research for Year 3 also considered the impact the pandemic had on delivery of services, as well as how services adapted to address challenges associated with the pandemic.

In February 2021, the target number of 20,000 refugees resettled was achieved. With the VPRS and VCRS ending, the Home Office published final statistics (Home Office, 2021a). A total of 20,319 refugees were resettled under the VPRS from 2015 to 2021 (including 239 resettled before the scheme was upscaled and not included in the 20,000 commitment). This includes 484 refugees resettled to community sponsorship groups. A total of 1,838 refugees were resettled under the VCRS. This includes 38 refugees resettled to community sponsorship groups. In June 2019, the UK government announced it would consolidate the VPRS, VCRS and Gateway protection programmes into a new, global UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS). The new scheme launched following the completion of VPRS on 25 February 2021, which was affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

2. International context

To provide context for this evaluation, Home Office Analysis and Insight commissioned a team at the University of Birmingham to review existing literature on refugee resettlement policy and practice internationally. The team systematically reviewed both academic and grey literature on refugee resettlement policy and practice (restricting the search to publications in English, after 2010). This review looked at schemes resettling refugees to EU states, the US, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, South America and Asia.

2.1 VPRS/VCRS in its global context

In recent decades, states have increasingly recognised the need to expand the size of refugee resettlement programmes (UNHCR, 2018). While global schemes share the aim of supporting successful integration, the scope and particulars of national policies and services vary considerably.

The literature review identified that while some (9) EU countries provide the same post-arrival and integration measures for both resettled and asylum-route refugees, others (12 in practice, including the UK) provide additional or targeted support for those who are resettled via specific schemes (for example, VPRS/VCRS).

Most resettlement schemes grant a similar status to resettled refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection. While the specifics of status vary, the VPRS and VCRS are broadly in line with international comparators, in offering refugee status on arrival, and offering the opportunity for refugees to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after a fixed period. For VPRS/VCRS this means 5 years of refugee status before beneficiaries can apply for ILR, also known as permanent residence.

VPRS/VCRS processes operate in line with identified best practice internationally across several domains, including:

• providing information and cultural orientation sessions for resettled refugees pre-arrival
• providing both short-term monetary and in-kind integration support for new arrivals
• supporting school registration
• ensuring permanent access to healthcare through mainstream services
• providing family reunification support
• using a variety of housing solutions to meet requirements

VPRS/VCRS also follows standard practice across schemes by working with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), service providers and social workers, faith organisations and local authorities to ensure adequate provisions for resettled refugees.

However, the additional support provided to resettled refugees varies across schemes. For example, discrepancies exist in the type and length of direct/in-kind support, and accommodation offered. Other global schemes have implemented specific additional measures not offered on VPRS/VCRS, including targeted national language courses, educational courses, vocational orientation counselling and job-related workshops, recognition of qualifications, and targeted legal and social support.

2.2 Key findings from international review

Programme management and coordination

• successful programme design requires recognising that refugees are heterogeneous and may require differentiated interventions according to gender, age and education levels; engaging refugees in the development of initiatives supports this outcome
• precarious funding structures can adversely affect the implementation of integration support programmes, including putting undue strain on local government and service providers (Fix et al., 2017)
• consulting and informing local stakeholders is essential to ensure that they are aware of refugee service needs, and, where possible, prepare the necessary specialist services in time for refugee arrival; high-quality consultations with local host communities are also key to successful integration programmes for resettled refugees.
• incentivising short-term goals, such as, getting a job in less than 12 months, often undermines long-term, higher quality integration outcomes (Fix et al., 2017) such as, learning the local language and being socially mobile; frameworks that incorporate longer-term objectives and multi-dimensional aspects of integration encourage more comprehensive and long-term positive outcomes

Housing

• global resettlement schemes vary in the type and length of accommodation provided to resettled refugees, including use of reception centres, and social or private housing; access to good quality, affordable housing is a common problem for resettlement globally
• partnering with social housing providers to identify housing for refugees may often be the best solution to sustainably housing refugees in the context of competitive private markets
• developing a centralised database of refugee-friendly landlords, who can advertise their property to refugees, can increase efficiency and sustainability of provision and matching

Employment

• in most countries with resettlement programmes, refugee under-employment is a significant barrier to integration; evidence suggests a causal link to language skills, non-recognition of international qualifications, a lack of tailored skills services, workplace discrimination and racism, and lack of social capital
• good practice included tailoring skills assessment and qualification recognition processes for people from refugee backgrounds, and recognising the heterogeneity within the refugee population (for example, gender, levels of trauma, language competency, education level) noting in particular that men and women often have different integration priorities
• engaging with employers, local councils, economic development agencies and chambers of commerce, industries and sectors in the settlement locations helped to identify and maximise opportunities for collaboration
• removing requirements that refugees access work within set time periods after arrival has enabled time for language learning, re-training and requalification (Fix et at., 2017; GAO, 2012)

Language

• language competency is essential in refugee integration regardless of their resettlement pathway
• local language ability is a significant factor in access to work, especially in the early years, but that those engaged in language classes are less likely to be employed, suggested that time is needed for language learning before finding work (Rodgers and Porter, 2020)
• classes need to be tailored to meet the needs of people with different levels of education and literacy (Hynie et al., 2016; Martzoukou and Burnett, 2018; Phillimore et al., 2020)
• introducing standards to ensure the quality of provision of classes and interpretation and translation is important in enabling refugee communication development

Education

• lack of continuity of, and access to, education negatively affects many resettled refugees
• providing bridging and catch-up classes can help refugee children quickly settle into school
• special interventions for older children and young people with disrupted education can enable them to re-engage effectively, including language education and support to pass critical certificates (for example, GCSEs)

Health and social care

• refugees experience both psychological and physiological health problems, and often require specialist health interventions, including checks, in the period post-arrival (Perdrix et al., 2015)
• screening refugees for health problems on arrival identified problems early, and providing integrated services helped better to address the problems
• ensuring refugees are provided with early, accessible information about the workings of the local healthcare system and their entitlements improved refugee access to services
• refugee women benefitted from specific initiatives to ensure their access and knowledge of general and targeted health services (for example, maternal and sexual health), including providing gender-appropriate interpretation at all health appointments
• good practice in supporting refugee mental health included ensuring specialist services are accessible to refugees, offering group sessions or partnering with services aimed at ethnic minority groups, in order to improve access and sustainability of services

Social bridges and bonds

• while all positive social connections improve refugees’ integration, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether ‘bonds’ or ‘bridges’ are more effective. It is, however, clear that both play important functions
• evidence strongly suggests that an absence of any kind of network can be highly problematic (Hassan and Phillimore, 2020)
• living in and developing ethnic communities can be helpful for integration, particularly in rural areas, but can also result in isolation from mainstream population (Bankston and Zhou, 2020; Dagnelie et al., 2019; Gilhooly and Lee, 2017; cf. Hooper et al., 2016)
• government and NGOs working with migrant group leaders can help to identify the cultural, economic and social resources needed to support social integration (Bankston and Zhou, 2020)
• digital literacy training may help avoid social isolation, particularly for older refugees (Pachner et al., 2020)
• supporting refugees’ social networks is beneficial, including encouraging a more proactive role for host communities (Tip et al., 2020)

This 3-year evaluation of the VPRS/VCRS addresses many of the points above from a longitudinal perspective. It improves knowledge and understanding of experiences of resettlement across the UK from 2017 to 2020 from the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders and actors, including resettled refugees. These reports can therefore inform policy developments and future research agendas.

3. Programme management and coordination

3.1 What are the key changes to programme management and coordination?

The unprecedented pressures and travel restrictions created by the COVID-19 pandemic meant that the UK, along with many other countries, was unable to resettle refugees during this period^{[footnote 2]}. This presented the most significant change in relation to managing and coordinating the schemes this year. Some local and national stakeholders reflected on how it provided time to take stock and reflect on delivery, including what was working well and what required improvement. For example, one area used the opportunity to reach out to new partners and deliver staff training on recognising domestic abuse and the barriers refugees face in accessing support. Section 3.2 outlines the challenges to refugee resettlement presented by the pandemic.

In some local authority case study areas, resettlement teams had intensified the focus on refugees’ longer-term integration as part of ongoing strategic plans, with more evidence of funding for refugee-specific services. There was also greater evidence of areas conducting research and evaluation to identify gaps in support and good practice. This included one local authority area where resettlement staff organised an event to identify ‘what works’ and areas for improvement regarding refugees’ longer-term integration.

3.1.1 Key changes to pre-departure processes

National stakeholders reported several changes to the pre-departure process this year, including:

• refinements to the pre-departure messages for refugees during the cultural orientation sessions; pre-departure stakeholders reported an increased focus on pathways to employment, the education system, the benefits of learning English and volunteering, and cultural adjustment
• changes to the pre-departure medical assessment process; according to stakeholders, local authority resettlement teams received more up-to-date and accurate medical information and, as a result, were better able to allocate housing and medical support for refugees on arrival
• conducting pregnancy tests for refugees 2 weeks before departure to provide more up-to-date information; stakeholders involved in the pre-departure process felt this would address issues and concerns raised by local authority resettlement staff about allocating appropriate-size housing to families where pregnancies were not disclosed

3.1.2 Key changes to the management and coordination of community sponsorship

Reset was now leading on the post-arrival support visits with community sponsor groups and families. This included conducting welfare checks with families resettled by community sponsor groups (previously the sole responsibility of the Home Office). Stakeholders felt this was a positive move as it meant that families and groups benefitted from Reset’s in-depth understanding of the dynamics of resettlement through community sponsorship and the challenges sometimes faced by groups. The Home Office was still in attendance at each post-arrival visit.

Stakeholders reported that the new 2-part introductory training course for new groups meant that information about community sponsorship could be covered in greater depth. Reset and the Home Office had also recently developed a toolkit for local authorities to share good practice relating to giving their permission for groups to resettle a family and relating to supporting and working with community sponsor groups.

3.2 What barriers were evident in managing and coordinating the programme?

The scaling back of local delivery because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated restrictions, introduced significant uncertainty for local authorities around future funding. Local authority resettlement staff voiced concerns about their ability to plan ahead and commit to future arrivals, and caseworkers were furloughed in one case study area. The pandemic also impacted local delivery partners, where funding from the local authority was based on the number of new arrivals supported. Delivery partners took action to reduce direct delivery costs and expressed hope that the shift to digital support would contribute to lower overheads. Stakeholders also continued calls for the central government resettlement team to streamline applications for additional funding and provide clearer guidance on how funding can be used flexibly to benefit the wider population. Section 3.5 covers proposed solutions in more detail.

Stakeholders also expressed concern that the scaling back of local resettlement activity due to the pandemic had reduced momentum and enthusiasm among new and potential community sponsor groups, and that the longer this situation lasted, the greater the risk of disengagement among new groups. While local authority stakeholders still thought the central government resources available through the schemes were sufficient and made available on time, community sponsorship stakeholders felt that their current annual funding structure presented a barrier to effective longer-term planning and inhibited recruitment.

Evidence from the 2 community sponsor groups included in previous years of the research showed that financial emotional and practical support provided by group members to families often continued beyond the first year of support. As volunteers moved on or disengaged over time, this could present a challenge for remaining group members, with the responsibility largely falling to the group lead. In both areas, families got in touch with group members when additional support needs emerged following their first year of resettlement, such as, needing to access referrals for emerging health needs and support to access welfare payments due to becoming unemployed. Family members were aware of the need to undertake tasks independently but felt reassured that the group remained available to advise and support when required. This was particularly the case for the group in the rural study area, where the family was not aware of other routes for advice or support.

As identified in previous years, stakeholders also expressed concerns about refugees not disclosing information considered relevant pre-departure, which continued to impact the delivery of support on arrival.

3.3 What helps to ensure effective programme management and coordination?

3.3.1 Proactively seeking feedback to improve delivery

National stakeholders attributed improvements to the pre-departure process (outlined in Section 3.1.1) to the Home Office operations team and pre-departure partner organisations proactively seeking feedback and implementing learning. Local authority staff in one area reported that pre-departure operations staff had a better understanding of the information that local authorities required to ensure resettlement was successful, and vice versa. They attributed this to work being undertaken to understand local authority needs. Some local authority staff also noted that it had become easier to ask clarifying questions to pre-departure operational staff about refugees due for resettlement, which staff felt improved their ability to plan support for when refugees arrived.

3.3.2 Identifying and sharing good practice

There was further evidence this year of work undertaken to share good practice at local, national and regional settings, considered particularly effective in a multi-agency setting. Examples included:

• Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) meetings, which local and national stakeholders continued to report, provided a useful forum for local authority resettlement staff to share information and good practice and discuss delivery challenges; one stakeholder noted how the move to online meetings led to greater attendance; stakeholders also highlighted a recent review of SMP roles and responsibilities which they hoped would lead to greater consistency between regions
• local and national stakeholders in Scotland praised the New Scots Integration Strategy (Scottish Government, 2018) for successfully bringing together public bodies, local government and the third sector to share good practice and collectively work towards refugee integration
• stakeholders reported that the Lead Sponsor Network, established in April 2020 by Reset, was a useful forum through which to share good practice with community sponsor groups
• in one area, stakeholders highlighted how multi-agency resettlement meetings were used to improve interpreter provision; the meetings provided a forum for stakeholders to raise awareness of the obligation to provide interpreters among statutory organisations in attendance
• prior to the pandemic, one area with a regional delivery model of support had moved to a ‘roadshow’ model, which staff from the central resettlement team travelled to different councils in the region to share good practice and identify local needs

3.3.3 Strategic planning to support refugees’ longer-term integration

There was further evidence this year highlighting the benefit of strategic planning to develop approaches to address the longer-term integration of resettled families. In one area, the resettlement team commissioned research on perceptions of gender-based violence in asylum and refugee communities to feed into a wider local strategy to tackle gender-based violence. Another area had funded refugee-specific commissioning officers, as reported in previous years, to conduct a needs assessment and mapping exercise to identify refugees’ longer-term integration needs. This year, there was evidence of these officers strategically planning different areas of work and developing targeted initiatives. These included health and wellbeing-based projects addressing domestic abuse, gender-based violence and hate crime, and a women’s wellbeing group. Following a successful pilot, this area had also formally moved to a grant-funding model to streamline service commissioning.

Community sponsor groups applied strategic thinking to financial planning. In one area, group members highlighted how setting up standing orders among supporters to donate regular small amounts each month helped to provide financial security for the group and provide necessary support to families beyond the initial contracted support period, if required.

3.3.4 Using centralised funding flexibly

Across local authority case study areas, there was further evidence of resettlement teams using VPRS/VCRS tariff funding flexibly to support the integration of refugee communities. Examples included areas funding refugee-specific support worker roles, including mental health and employment-support workers. One area hired a female employment-support worker to focus on access to employment for women refugees. Resettlement staff saw these roles as crucial to both refugees’ current support needs and longer-term integration, particularly as support was not restricted to a specific period following resettlement (in contrast to caseworker support in some areas).

Stakeholders also continued to highlight how funding helped facilitate local partnerships between resettlement teams and local third-sector organisations, while also widening the support available to resettled refugees. This continued to be an important resource once caseworker support had stepped down (explored further in Chapter 4). Where funding was not restricted to resettled refugees, support services could also support wider integration initiatives and refugee and migrant populations. Stakeholders highlighted the ‘Our Liverpool’ integration strategy (launched in 2019) as an example of using VPRS/VCRS funding to promote the longer-term integration of all migrants through funding local community services (Liverpool City Council, 2019). Stakeholders felt that engaging with wider local services was particularly beneficial in asylum dispersal areas, where services often already existed to support vulnerable migrant communities. However, this was not taking place in all areas; a local stakeholder in one case study area complained how local authority VPRS/VCRS funding was not available to local organisations providing support to resettled refugees, limiting their capacity. The stakeholder felt that this funding was necessary to engage these organisations and give them a “seat at the table” in shaping local integration policy and for the local authority to learn from their experience.

For community sponsor groups, receiving clear advice about central government funding available through the schemes from Reset or the local authority had enabled groups to apply for this support^{[footnote 3]}. In contrast, where this information was not readily available, there was evidence of groups struggling to understand what funding was available and experiencing long delays accessing funding.

3.3.5 Joint working between local authorities and community sponsor groups

Evidence from one case study area demonstrated the mutual benefits of close joint working between local authority resettlement teams and community sponsor groups. In this area, the local authority worked closely with group members to coordinate support for all resettled families. The community sponsor group benefitted from advice and guidance from the resettlement team about how to support the family, including:

• support to obtain Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks
• signposting to relevant training for volunteers
• invitations to multi-agency meetings
• introductions to local support services
• access to relevant information about resettlement and funding

In turn, group members used their skills to support wider resettled families, including delivering online English lessons. For local authority staff, the close working relationship promoted a more consistent approach between local authority and community sponsored families, which they felt was important to mitigate any feelings of unfairness among resettled families in the area.

3.4 What were the planned future developments for programme management and coordination?

To address the prior lack of capacity among the local health services to cater for refugees’ health needs, staff in one case study area planned to introduce a specialist NHS team to review refugee medical reports pre-arrival. Staff hoped this would reduce instances of families having to move area where treatment for an existing condition was not available locally. Several refugee mental health services were also in development, with a number looking to address the gap in provision for young refugees in particular.

There was various initiatives in development across areas to raise awareness of refugee experiences and empower refugees’ voices. One area was developing a communication and engagement strategy to promote the needs of refugees and asylum seekers among the wider resident community, as well as, a refugee-run advisory service that aimed to empower local refugees and asylum seekers to use their voice to raise awareness of their needs. Local stakeholders in this area felt this would make the area more responsive to refugee needs, as the advisory group could provide timely feedback.

“There’s [currently] no meaningful way for [refugees] to give feedback and input into what we do … We just want to make sure that organisations are listening, and refugees are able to speak for themselves …”
Local authority stakeholder, in-depth interview

3.5 How could ongoing issues be addressed in the future?

3.5.1 What partnerships could be further developed?

Some stakeholders suggested that stronger relationships could be developed with local transport companies to improve accessibility for refugees and their safety. They highlighted how resettled families widely used public transport, which they said were common sites for reports of harassment and hate crime.

Local stakeholders felt that improved partnerships between local authorities and local schools could be mutually beneficial. School staff could benefit from access to resources from the local authority to support refugee children, while local authorities could signpost wider families to English language support provided by schools.

3.5.2 How could pre-departure processes be further improved?

Stakeholders suggested that more thorough one-to-one engagement with refugees pre-departure would further encourage refugees to feel comfortable disclosing information about their support needs (such as, information about their health needs or family circumstances) which would improve the support they would receive on arrival.

Stakeholders felt that managing refugees’ expectations pre-departure requires further work, including emphasising the message that the welfare support families would receive on arrival was a stepping stone to self-sufficiency. Stakeholders also highlighted ongoing cases of families not receiving sufficient information about their resettlement area and the local housing available, leading to disappointment on arrival. Stakeholders reported this was especially important for refugees being resettled in rural areas.

3.5.3 What improvements could be made to funding and resources available through the schemes?

Calls to streamline the process of applying for additional, non-tariff VPRS/VCRS funding continued (for example, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) funding, or to fund exceptional costs on a case-by-case basis). Local authority and community sponsor group stakeholders highlighted ongoing challenges in applying for funding, including:

• difficulties estimating the amount of funding required before refugees arrived
• lack of awareness among local authority staff regarding what additional funding could be used for
• low awareness among community sponsor groups of additional funding that families were eligible for
• the length of time required to apply for funding and demonstrate for money
• the slow process for raising errors in applications, which could lead to delays in receiving payments

National stakeholders felt the lack of funding commitment past 2021 would make some local authorities ‘nervous’ about taking part in future resettlement, particularly given wider pressures on health, social care, education and housing budgets. Stakeholders were concerned about local authorities not being able to continue to provide dedicated resettlement support if the central funding allowance did not increase in line with inflation. They felt this could be a particular issue for small, rural local authorities resettling smaller numbers of refugees and which lacked existing infrastructure.

3.5.4 How could local authorities and community sponsor groups be encouraged to engage in the future resettlement scheme?

Stakeholders highlighted several factors that felt would encourage the involvement of local authorities and community sponsor groups in any future resettlement scheme. These included:

• raising awareness of the schemes among local politicians, including Members of Parliament, and encouraging them to promote these locally among their constituents
• providing additional guidance for local authorities with less experience of resettlement on how to support refugee integration and effectively use funding (including further guidance on how VPRS/VCRS funding can support wider integration projects)
• clearer communication with both community sponsor groups and local authorities about centralised funding available to support family resettled through community sponsorship

4. Caseworker and integration support

4.1 What are the key changes to caseworker support and integration?

This year, caseworkers and community sponsor groups focused more than ever on building confidence to complete tasks independently, particularly among refugees who had been in the UK for over a year. This included providing support to book and attend health and benefits appointments, raise property maintenance issues, and engage with wider services such as, schools, colleges, banks and utility companies. Caseworkers and other integration support staff increasingly took a flexible approach tailored to refugees’ specific support needs in some areas, with a greater focus on fostering independence where possible. They provided ongoing ad hoc support to families who needed it, while providing more light touch support to families who were more independent.

This greater focus on independence was in part driven by social distancing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local stakeholders and local delivery partners reported that almost all caseworker support moved from face-to-face to online/telephone support. Delivery partners also reported that caseworkers and community sponsor groups were now more confident in ‘stepping back’ and encouraging refugees to complete tasks themselves as the pandemic limited face-to-face contact with families.

Nevertheless, caseworkers and community sponsor groups continued to support refugees beyond the planned support period, particularly when life events (such as, moving house or the birth of a child) resulted in additional support needs. However, stakeholders reported that caseworkers could spend more time supporting existing cohorts of refugees due to the halt to new arrivals from March 2020.

4.2 What were the barriers to caseworkers supporting integration?

As more VPRS/VCRS refugees approached 5 years living in the UK, stakeholders were concerned about access to support for refugees to apply for ILR. One national stakeholder felt there was insufficient legal support or advice provided under the VPRS/VCRS for resettled refugees. A national stakeholder highlighted how some refugees had successfully applied for ILR by getting advice and information from other refugees via social media. In one area, a stakeholder felt it would become more difficult for refugees to access the legal advice and support available as the eligible cohort becomes larger over time due to constraints in immigration legal advice capacity locally.

Stakeholders raised concerned about caseworker support ending once per capita funding (provided during refugees’ first 5 years in the UK) was no longer available to local authorities. Some national stakeholders and delivery partners were concerned that refugees’ support needs would not be met if caseworker support was no longer available.

Some local stakeholders reported that the requirement to access services online (such as, Jobcentre appointments, health appointments, banking) during the pandemic presented a barrier for refugees with poor digital literacy and who lacked access to digital devices. Delivery partners in one area reported that this was particularly an issue among older refugees who did not have younger family members who could help them. Caseworkers reported they had not anticipated the need to support older refugees to set up online accounts or use digital devices.

Caseworkers found it challenging to address the immediate needs of refugees who arrived shortly before the national lockdown at the start of the pandemic as they could not provide support face-to-face. Consequently, refugees had to navigate services, such as, banking, online or over the phone without direct caseworker support. Delivery staff also reported that it was harder for caseworkers to remotely support more recently arrived refugees because they had not yet built a rapport with them.

Some community sponsor group members reported challenges supporting refugees during the pandemic due to older volunteers shielding or lacking the necessary digital skills to provide support remotely. Members felt it was important to engage volunteers of different ages in community sponsor groups from the outset, to ensure continuity and diversity of support.

National stakeholders expressed concerns around a potential rise in domestic abuse towards resettled women during the national lockdown. Lockdown restrictions meant caseworkers often could not speak to women in person or alone to discuss their situation and offer support, potentially leading to abuse going undetected. Concerns over a rise in domestic violence have also been raised for the wider UK population (ONS, 2020) and noted as a global issue (Graham-Harrison et al., 2020).

The communication of reductions in, and ‘step down’, of caseworker support to refugees was an ongoing barrier to integration support. Caseworkers reported that initiatives of previous years, such as, developing a ‘contract’ between the caseworker and the refugee family, had been less successful than hoped. Stakeholders felt this issue would become more pronounced in areas where caseworker support ends due to the local authority choosing not to participate in a future resettlement scheme.

4.3 What helps to promote independent living among refugees?

As in past years, the confidence to communicate in English, both with local services and in the community, was the key factor determining whether refugees felt they could manage without caseworker support. One local stakeholder felt this was a clearer determinant of the need for caseworker support than length of time in the UK. Refugees who did not feel confident communicating in English, had poor digital literacy, or had complex health and social care support needs continued to feel most reliant on caseworker support.

“Myself and my wife, if we are alone, no we can’t do it on our own. We don’t have confidence in our ability to do that alone. But when [son] is around he can go shopping for us. But he can find some things difficult too.”
Refugee, man, over 2 years in the UK, in-depth interview

Some local stakeholders and delivery staff reported that the national COVID-19 lockdown and the inability to provide face-to-face caseworker support had forced many refugees to undertake tasks, such as, booking health appointments, themselves. Sometimes this had led to greater independence. Caseworkers encouraged refugees to use translation apps and reassured them they would be on hand if they found they could not undertake tasks independently after attempting to do so. Refugee participants who completed tasks, such as, going to health appointments, independently for the first time during lockdown reported that they were more confident to attempt these tasks when they knew caseworkers were also available to help them if necessary.

Across case study areas, delivery staff emphasised the value of signposting refugees to wider opportunities and services in their area to promote independence and reduce reliance on caseworkers. For example, delivery staff reported finding opportunities for refugees to build connections and practise their English language in a safe and supportive environment helped build their confidence.

4.4 What helps to overcome barriers to integration relating to caseworker support?

This year, multiple local authority case studies demonstrated approaches to ensure more manageable caseworker caseloads to better support refugees’ integration. Previous years’ research identified overstretched caseworkers as a barrier to providing sufficient initial support to resettled refugees on arrival. In this year of the evaluation, caseworkers in 2 areas reported implementing a targeted approach to managing contact time with refugees, which helped them manage their caseloads more efficiently. The measures under this approach included:

• encouraging refugees to prioritise their support issues according to urgency and importance
• assigning specific days for each family to contact their caseworker about non-urgent issues
• scheduling meetings between refugees and caseworkers to last one hour (rather than open-ended)
• providing refugees with written materials, such as, newsletter, that they could refer to for information
• matching previously resettled refugees to more recently arrived refugees to provide peer-support (explored further in Chapter 11)

These measures were based on delivery partners acknowledging that for contact time to be used effectively and address the most important issues facing the family, careful planning between caseworkers and refugees is required. Delivery partners also reported that caseworkers were still available to provide urgent support as needed. Some refugees reported that addressing non-urgent routine issues took longer under the new approach but were still happy with the caseworker support they received.

This approach also helped caseworkers avoid ‘burnout’ in their roles (identified as a barrier to supporting refugees in Years 1 and 2 of this evaluation). Stakeholders in some areas also reported a greater focus on supporting caseworkers with their mental health and wellbeing. In one case study area, the caseworker team ran a health and wellbeing event to encourage caseworkers to discuss the issues they faced in their roles.

Ensuring mental health support is available to families can help reduce caseworkers’ workloads. One area brought in a specialised mental health practitioner to support refugees with issues relating to trauma. Caseworkers in this area reported that the role had a positive impact on refugees’ overall support because the mental health practitioner could focus on refugees’ mental health support while caseworkers addressed other support issues. This approach required regular coordination between caseworkers and the mental health practitioner to ensure they were not duplicating or missing support for the families.

4.5 What are the planned future developments in caseworker and integration support?

To further facilitate independence, caseworkers in one case study area planned to hold meetings with newly arrived families in public places, such as, libraries and community centres, to ensure refugees were familiar with these spaces and became comfortable visiting and accessing them. A stakeholder reported this change came from caseworkers realising that conducting in-home visits presented a barrier to refugees becoming more independent. They felt home visits reduced opportunities for refugees to foster connections within the wider community, while also encouraging dependent relationships between refugees and their caseworkers. This relates to findings highlighted in Years 1 and 2, where there was an ongoing need to support refugees to build connections within their community.

One stakeholder felt that providing clarity on changes to their caseworker’s role over time would help manage refugees’ expectations about the support they receive. This stakeholder planned to produce a guidance and briefing document for caseworkers on how their role would change to a ‘community connector’ role (that is, where caseworkers signpost refugees to wider support organisations) as part of the stepdown process.

4.6 How could ongoing issues be addressed in future?

An important issue to be addressed in the future was managing refugees’ expectations for support once they transition from tailored caseworker support to mainstream services. In some areas, local stakeholders were concerned that refugees did not understand that caseworker support would no longer be available to them once they had been in the UK for 5 years. Stakeholders felt it was vital to ensure that refugees did not experience a ‘cliff edge’ once they transitioned from support from specialised refugee services. This was raised as an important barrier to refugee self-sufficiency to be addressed.

5. Housing and welfare support

5.1 Housing support

5.1.1 What are the key changes to securing suitable housing for resettled refugees?

Across case study areas, there were no major changes this year to delivery models for securing housing for refugees. National stakeholders noted that some local authorities and community sponsor groups experienced difficulties holding private rental sector (PRS) properties for refugees whose arrival was postponed due to the pandemic. This was particularly true in areas with high housing pressures and costs.

5.1.2 What barriers were evident in securing suitable housing for resettled refugees?

In one case study area, stakeholders expressed concerns about the impact of ongoing refugee resettlement on community relations, due to housing pressures and a perceived increase in incidences of hate crime. Local stakeholders noted that resettlement needed to consider residents’ attitudes and availability of housing to avoid resettling families in areas where they experience hostility and hate crime. They also raised concerns about resettling families in areas where they lack the means to create social connections and may find themselves isolated. These stakeholders felt this would increase the likelihood that the families would become potential targets for racist attacks. This was a growing challenge with hate crime reportedly rising in several of the case study areas (explored further in Chapter 11).

5.1.3 What helps refugees to access suitable housing?

In areas with high housing pressure, local authority housing leads continued to increase the number of properties available for resettled refugees through building and strengthening networks of local PRS landlords. Stakeholders described how local authority delivery staff built trust with local landlords and made renting to refugees more attractive by acting as an intermediary between refugee tenants and landlords, for example, ensuring correct handling of tenancy and maintenance issues.

Minimising the risk of refugee families’ exposure to hate crime and hostility remained a concern this year. National stakeholders highlighted the value of seeking advice from people with local community knowledge about which areas to avoid resettling families. In one area, through working closely with local delivery partners to understand community concerns, local authority staff discovered perceptions that refugees were being unfairly prioritised for housing. Mindful of these perceptions and the risks they posed for refugee families, the local authority paused resettlement to this ward. In another case study area, caseworkers built up their knowledge of the community through working closely with the local authority housing team. In this area, caseworkers supported a refugee family to move house within the same locality following harassment from neighbours. The family was satisfied because the new area was more welcoming to refugees, and they valued the support from caseworkers to register for schools and set up utilities in their new property.

According to a national stakeholder, Reset supported new community sponsor groups to ensure private sector properties earmarked for refugees were available when resettlement resumed. This involved groups asking landlords to rent these properties as short-term lets, or introduce break-clauses into new contracts, so that they were available at short notice for refugees if required.

5.1.4 What are the planned future developments in securing suitable housing?

One local authority case study area planned to increase available housing stock by offering to pay landlords 12 months’ rent upfront as an incentive to rent to resettled refugees. Refugee tenants would then pay their Housing Benefit directly to the local authority. The local authority was also exploring offering grants to PRS landlords and housing associations to decorate properties for resettled refugees.

An urban local authority case study area, with limited availability of suitable and affordable housing, was exploring collaborating with surrounding local authorities (where rents were lower and there were more 3- or 4-bedroom houses available) to accommodate resettled families.

5.1.5 How could ongoing issues be addressed in future?

One national stakeholder noted that greater opportunities to live in social housing may provide a solution to the shortage of affordable housing in the longer term. This was because social housing may be more affordable, and therefore sustainable, over the long term for refugees. Local delivery staff and national stakeholders continued to report that Local Housing Allowance rates (used to calculate the Housing Benefit component of Universal Credit (UC)) did not cover private rental costs in some areas, notably in urban areas and southeast England. Stakeholders also suggested that providing suitable social housing could be a solution for the difficulties faced by refugees living in accommodation poorly suited to their health and mobility needs, such as, a lack of step-free access or in locations with poor connections to health services.

5.2 Welfare support

5.2.1 What are the key changes to supporting refugees to access benefits?

The shift to online provision of welfare support presented both barriers and opportunities for refugees to access benefits. Some national stakeholders felt the shift to managing benefits online provided some refugees with easier access to Jobcentre support. In addition, the decreased expectation for welfare claimants to look for work during the pandemic reduced the burden on refugees to find employment and the risk of benefits sanctions. However, stakeholders and refugees also highlighted barriers to accessing and managing their benefits online for refugees with low literacy (both digital and written English comprehension). As such, many refugees continued to require caseworker support to access their benefits, especially if their entitlements changed.

5.2.2 What barriers were evident in supporting refugees to access benefits?

Losing face-to-face welfare support due to the pandemic meant many refugees struggled to access their benefit payments. Some refugees who had lost their job, for instance, because of the pandemic, reported difficulties reapplying for UC and Housing Benefit without face-to-face caseworker support (either because the support had ended or was only available remotely). One family experienced a disruption in their benefits appeal process due to the pandemic, which they found distressing. Having identified new challenges such as, these, some community sponsor groups stepped up financial support for families experiencing financial hardship due to the pandemic.

There were also several ongoing issues, as identified in Years 1 and 2, including:

• challenges accessing UC
• Jobcentre staff not sufficiently equipped to support refugee clients due to poor understanding of refugee entitlements and needs
• lack of consistent interpreter provision at Jobcentres
• the benefits cap, which affected families who had another child post-arrival, causing unexpected additional hardship and distress according to stakeholders

Section 5.2.4 discusses these issues in more detail.

Many refugees’ low literacy and digital literacy levels meant continued reliance on resource-intensive support from caseworkers or other support staff to understand communications related to welfare payments. While there were examples of refugees managing their benefits online independently, stakeholders also cited instances of refugees who found this difficult, resulting in stopped payments.

5.2.3 What helps refugees access welfare support?

Strong relationships between local authority resettlement staff, community sponsor group members and Jobcentre staff promoted a smooth process for refugees to access welfare and manage their benefits. In one local authority, the lead caseworker developed links with local Jobcentre staff, based on their previous experience working with vulnerable people. They knew refugees were likely to have mental health needs and therefore instructed caseworkers to apply for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) for families on arrival, rather than Job Seekers Allowance (JSA). Recently arrived families were signposted to a bespoke mental health practitioner, who assessed their readiness to move to JSA and actively seek employment. Local stakeholders saw this approach as better suited to the needs of the refugees resettled in their area. In one community sponsor case study, local authority resettlement staff introduced group members to key Jobcentre staff. Group members reported that this smoothed the process of registering the family for benefits.

Ensuring Jobcentre support was accessible for refugees supported smoother access to benefits in this final year. In one case study area, the Jobcentre decreased the frequency of appointment requirements for refugees until their caseworker considered them to be ready for work. Jobcentre staff also conducted appointments with refugee clients in private rooms where it was easier to use interpreting services. Stakeholders in the area felt that enhanced use of translation apps had made communication easier and improved relationships with refugees, due to ease of use and enabling a less formal and more comfortable approach to meetings.

Across all case studies, caseworkers and stakeholders valued staff at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and Jobcentres who understood refugee needs and could support them appropriately, reducing reliance on caseworker support. For example, in one case study area, the local Jobcentre classified ESOL training as a job preparation activity for adult refugees. A national stakeholder highlighted how single points of contact in Jobcentres acted as ‘refugee leads’. Alongside their main work coach role, the leads provided expert advice and support for colleagues in matters relating to refugees^{[footnote 4]}.

Advice and support from people with experience and knowledge of the benefits system helped refugees’ access to welfare support. In one area, caseworkers valued the expertise of a welfare rights officer who completed the families’ benefit claims on their behalf. Stakeholders reported this ensured forms were completed correctly and therefore reduced delays for families accessing benefits. Similarly, one community sponsor group volunteer ‘employment lead’ accompanied the resettled family to the Jobcentre with an interpreter and helped to explain the welfare system to them. Group members also praised the responsive advice from Reset when they had questions about the families’ eligibility or access to benefits, and online resources such as, the Turn2Us website which helped them understand and calculate the family’s benefit entitlement.

Work was ongoing to encourage refugees to take greater ownership in managing their welfare entitlements, with the aim to reduce reliance on caseworkers and promote independence. In one area, a refugee training, entrepreneurial and employability support officer worked to empower families to contact the Jobcentre directly, rather than through caseworkers. This stakeholder organised group sessions for refugees at Jobcentres to answer questions about benefits, allowing the opportunity for discussion about issues they faced, and setting up individual appointments between refugees and work coaches to improve accessibility if required.

The provision of smartphones or laptops helped refugees to access their benefits online. In one area, caseworkers showed families – who were not familiar with or struggled to use a computer – how to make benefit claims over the phone using interpreters. This helped overcome the digital literacy issues that several stakeholders and caseworkers cited as barriers to refugees easily accessing benefits online.

5.2.4 How could ongoing barriers be addressed in the future?

Stakeholders suggested that more could be done to develop refugees’ IT skills pre-departure. They considered this important due to shift to accessing services online.

Caseworkers in one area felt that resettled families needed more information about the welfare support system, to understand the broader concept of welfare as a ‘stepping stone’ to employment, and increase families’ aspirations for employment, financial independence and integration.

Some community sponsor group members suggested actions that the Home Office could take to address barriers to setting up bank accounts, to help avoid delays to welfare payments. Stakeholders highlighted the challenge that UC applications required a bank account, but some banks required proof of income to open an account. To increase the chance of a successful application, stakeholders suggested the Home Office could provide evidence to banks about refugees’ entitlement to benefits. Another suggestion was for the Home Office to transfer refugees’ biometric residence permits (BRP) a few days prior to the family’s arrival (for example, on confirmation of their journey with UNHCR and border control). The BRP would then be available on their arrival and used as evidence to speed up their application.

Community sponsor group members requested clearer guidance on refugees’ welfare eligibility and information on benefit caps so that they could better support the family’s access to welfare. Stakeholders reported ongoing challenges due to UC bureaucracy, such as, the inability to backdate UC claims to refugees’ arrival. Also, the UC requirement to provide evidence of a signed tenancy agreement continued to cause delays to payments once families arrived. Sometimes this had resulted in community sponsor groups supporting families financially until UC payments came through.

There was an ongoing need for more consistent and high-quality interpreter provision at Jobcentres. While families mostly felt able to access Jobcentre appointments, many struggled to fully understand the process without interpreter support. There were also examples of miscommunication between Jobcentre staff and refugees, resulting in refugees receiving the wrong benefits. Furthermore, across the case studies, resettled parents continued to rely on their children to interpret, mirroring ongoing evidence of children interpreting for parents during healthcare appointments (see Chapter 10). A national stakeholder maintained that interpreters should be made available, even when refugees called up the Jobcentre by phone, or visited without an appointment.

Some Jobcentre staff wanted further training in supporting refugees to access welfare, and in other areas stakeholders also felt this was needed. In one urban area, local stakeholders cited instances of work coaches voicing judgemental or racist attitudes towards resettled refugees, which refugees also had complained to their caseworkers about. A stakeholder felt such issues were especially prevalent in less diverse areas.

Stakeholders felt that some refugees with additional needs (including, language barriers and low digital literacy) would continue to require dedicated support to access welfare payments. This is particularly the case for older refugees, who often struggled to manage their benefits independently online once caseworker support decreased and were unsure who to turn to for support. These groups might require ongoing support and were unlikely to be able to access welfare payments independently.

6. English language acquisition

6.1 What are the key changes to ESOL provision?

This year most ESOL delivery moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some refugees reported cancelled classes. Stakeholders across areas suggested it was likely that classes would continue to be offered online for the foreseeable future, including as part of a ‘blended’ online and in-person learning approach.

There was a greater focus in many areas on ESOL for employability. One local authority case study area started providing ESOL classes alongside modules for accredited professional qualifications. In 2 other case study areas, delivery staff planned to focus ESOL content more on employability. In other areas, there was no indication of significant changes to ESOL provision.

6.2 What barriers were evident in the delivery of or access to ESOL?

The move to online ESOL provision due to the COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges for some refugees. As highlighted in other chapters, stakeholders noted that low digital literacy presented a barrier to many older refugees accessing support. Local stakeholders and delivery partners also highlighted challenges during the early stages of the pandemic when some refugees did not have the equipment to access classes (such as, laptops or a stable Wi-Fi connection)^{[footnote 5]}. Some community sponsor group volunteers also struggled with the technology required for online ESOL classes. However, online ESOL provision also presented opportunities, outlined in more detail in the section below.

Most refugees noted the national lockdown had negatively affected their English language acquisition. They reported that there were fewer opportunities for conversation and that it was harder to ask questions in online classes. There were also fewer opportunities for refugees to practise their English informally in a day-to-day community setting. The slow pace of English language acquisition remained a key frustration for many refugees.

“We struggle here, because we don’t go out because of the lockdown, we don’t see anybody, this affects our ability to learn the language.”
Refugee, man, 1 year in the UK, family interview

Some barriers discussed in Years 1 and 2 were still ongoing. For example, childcare remained a barrier to parents, particularly mothers, accessing ESOL provision. A lack of respite support for families with disabled children due to the national lockdown also presented an additional barrier for parents to access ESOL provision. Some refugees continued to mention that it was difficult to access ESOL provision whist having to manage physical and mental health conditions. Several refugees noted they had stopped attending ESOL classes over the last year due to existing health problems becoming more apparent. In some areas, stakeholders felt that mental health was becoming more apparent as a challenge. As refugees became settled and had some of their more basic needs met, deeper mental health issues were coming to the fore, presenting a barrier to participation in activities such as, ESOL classes. According to both stakeholders and refugees, low motivation and a lack of confidence remained a barrier to informal English language practice, despite refugees recognising its importance.

6.3 What helps with delivering and accessing ESOL provision and learning English?

6.3.1 What helps with delivering ESOL provision during the pandemic?

Moving ESOL classes online helped to remove physical accessibility barriers for some refugees, particularly those in rural areas and those with caring responsibilities. In one rural case study area, local stakeholders reported that attendance at ESOL classes increased after classes moved online. Stakeholders attributed this to learners not requiring childcare to attend online classes or to spend time and money travelling to classes. One stakeholder felt the move to online classes could help to address geographical differences in ESOL provision in the future. In one community sponsor group area, furloughed teachers hired by the local authority delivered online classes.

Some case study areas provided refugees with digital devices to access online classes. Several local authority areas provided refugees with laptops, tablets or dongles, while one community sponsor group secured funding from a local charity to purchase tablets for the family. The group also provided tablets to refugees resettled by the local authority who could not access funding themselves. Another community sponsor group paid for a professional Zoom membership to ensure online classes were secure.

Caseworkers and delivery partners provided digital training to refugees and explained how to access digital platforms. In one area, caseworkers set up Gmail accounts for refugees and explained over the phone how to use Google Classroom to help them access online ESOL classes. In one community sponsor group area, members created, printed and delivered physical materials to families to supplement online resources. Stakeholders reported many refugees could access online classes without support, as they were familiar with digital platforms to contact friends and family members abroad.

6.3.2 What helps refugees to learn English?

Initiatives that linked ESOL to skills for employment helped motivate refugees to learn English, as well as make progress towards employment. In one local authority, stakeholders reported that the focus of ESOL for employability classes gave learners a specific goal to work towards. One stakeholder highlighted how the classes led to those taking part progressing to higher levels of English, as well as considering new employment and business opportunities.

Stakeholders and refugees highlighted benefits of ESOL classes with learners from different backgrounds. In 2 areas where refugees attended classes in the community (as opposed to separate classes organised for resettled refugees), stakeholders reported that this helped reduce isolation and encouraged refugees to build social bridges with people from other backgrounds. Stakeholders felt that this was likely to improve refugees’ confidence, encourage them to interact within the wider community and practise their English with people from other backgrounds. While this model was common in other areas, one area reported that they had only adopted this approach that year.

Refugees who used English regularly in the community or online felt this improved their confidence and language skills. Examples included:

• joining online language exchanges
• Facebook groups
• arranging Zoom meetings with friends
• practising English while volunteering in a local charity shop

“Communication with other people, especially English people, is making me learn – it’s better than college. The only way to learn English is to meet with other English people … before COVID, I used to go to Café Nero and listen to people talking.”
Refugee, man, over 2 years in the UK, in-depth interview

6.4 What are the planned future developments for delivering and accessing ESOL provision?

Stakeholders acknowledged the benefit of providing refugees with different options to learn ESOL based on their needs and preferences, as opposed to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. In one case study area, ESOL delivery staff reported they were developing a new model of creating personal learning plans for refugees based on their individual needs. Stakeholders described how the new model would combine formal and informal learning with private tuition based on the needs and goals of individual refugees where appropriate. This brings it into line with best practice set out by the Home Office in their funding instructions for ESOL provision. This contrasted with the current primarily classroom-based model in the area, which stakeholders considered favours refugees with better educational backgrounds. Refugees and stakeholders in other areas echoed the value of one-to-one tuition and individualised approaches to language learning. However, a national stakeholder noted some areas needed to tailor their ESOL offer to better meet refugees’ needs.

Some stakeholders perceived existing schemes that linked ESOL and skills for employment to be a success and prompted some case study areas to look into scaling up or establishing similar initiatives in their areas. For example, stakeholders in one area were exploring the possibility of developing a dedicated ESOL and employment pathway.

Case study example 1: Blending English language skills, employability and other integration activities

In one case study area, a local community support charity collaborated with a local football club to provide refugees with opportunities to learn English, while also supporting multiple, complementary areas of integration.

The organisation initially encouraged adult refugee men to play football and compete in tournaments with people from the local community, later expanding this to include younger refugees and girls. Stakeholders reported they had seen improvements in the refugees’ English, their mental health and in their confidence after attending training sessions and games, as refugees and local people formed friendships while communicating in English. An ESOL facilitator attended early sessions with older refugee men to support them in initial contact with the organisation. Younger refugees who lacked confidence in English language and avoided sessions were encouraged to attend with caseworkers and an interpreter, to build their confidence in speaking to others.

“My … intention for the participants was not only the physical side of the activities, as much as the emotional resilience, [to help them] build confidence in … mixing with the local community, building new relationships, [and] developing their language and communication skills.”
Voluntary sector stakeholder, in-depth interview

The organisation also offered bi-weekly educational trips to local museums, libraries and colleges, enabling refugees to practise English conversation skills in the wider community. It also provided support with job interview techniques alongside links with organisations that facilitated volunteering opportunities for refugees, leading to paid employment for some.

6.5 How could ongoing issues be addressed in the future?

ESOL provision linked to practical skills increased motivation to learn English, as it provided clear and tangible goals for refugee learners. Stakeholders and refugees cited lack of confidence and motivation as key barriers to practising English. Some refugees said they were less motivated to practise because their social circle was predominantly Arabic speakers, or because they could rely on children to translate or interpret on their behalf. Stakeholders reported that this was a difficult barrier to overcome. However, some suggested that linking language learning to practical skills, such as, work-related activity or supporting their children with schoolwork, increased motivation among refugee learners. One refugee couple highlighted how helping their children with their home-schooling during the pandemic had improved their own English language skills.

Several refugees suggested they would value more opportunities to practise conversational skills and vocabulary for everyday interactions in an informal setting. Informal ESOL focused more on developing these skills rather than learning English grammar, but provision was not available in all areas.

Stakeholders and refugees noted that wellbeing was a key factor in individual motivation to attend ESOL and practise English. Refugees who reported feeling stressed or emotionally distressed expressed feeling unable to concentrate and experienced low motivation to attend classes or practise English in day-to-day life. This suggests that initiatives to improve the mental health and wellbeing of refugees could have a positive effect on English language acquisition.

Some areas were making steps to change systems towards a model of provision with different options to learn ESOL based on their needs and preferences, but this was not the case across case study areas. Linked to this, refugees in one area reported that mixed-level classes could not meet the needs of all learners. In this area, ESOL classes were mixed level due to the low number of ESOL learners and a need to fill classes.

Online classes may provide a route for refugees in areas with lower provision, or those who desire more ESOL support, to access provision, as well as addressing childcare and accessibility requirements.

7. Education and training: Children aged 16 and under

7.1 What are the key changes in support for refugee children aged 16 and under in education and training?

This year there was further evidence of rural schools making progress in supporting resettled children, despite having less experience of supporting children from diverse backgrounds than urban schools. A national stakeholder cited instances of schools in rural areas increasing their capacity to support refugee children by accessing Refugee Council training for school staff on supporting refugee children in schools.

7.2 What barriers were evident in education for children aged 16 and under?

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing barriers to refugee children’s education, notably the sense of isolation at school. Some parents felt that a lack of interaction with other children and teachers in the physical school environment hindered their children’s progress in learning English and integrating into schools. Stakeholders highlighted how a lack of digital equipment, a challenge noted in previous years, remained a significant barrier to refugee children’s education, and intensified this year by schools’ greater reliance on digital approaches to teaching and interaction with children^{[footnote 6]}.

Despite some advances noted above, stakeholders continued to cite challenges faced by rural schools supporting refugee children. Stakeholders attributed this to their lack of experience and/or absence of teaching assistants to support children with English as an additional language (EAL) needs. While an issue more widely, local authorities also continued to struggle with suitable placements for refugee children with special educational needs (SEN) requirements, which continued to delay their access to education.

7.3 What helps to support refugee children at school?

Children benefitted from dedicated additional support as they transitioned into school, or additional educational support from primary to secondary school. This included English language support. For example, community sponsor group members in one case study area worked with the local authority to find teachers on furlough to provide English lessons for the children. Other examples of initiatives providing support at key transition points included:

• an orientation programme for young refugees as soon as they arrived in the UK – this included an introduction to the local area to help refugees feel settled and preparatory education support (such as, English language and life skills); this initiative developed partnerships with local schools to facilitate a smooth transition into mainstream school
• a 6-week ‘virtual school’ programme which young refugees could access 3 days a week prior to school placements and provided with an overview of the curriculum

Stakeholders continued to emphasise the value of a welcoming environment for refugee children joining a new school. A national stakeholder was in the process of developing a fact sheet for UK schools and education practitioners, based on the 2019 Global Refugee Forum pledge for schools to support the enrolment of refugee children. This aimed to encourage schools to accept refugee children by providing them with a framework to build an inclusive and welcoming environment for refugee children and develop school-wide approaches to inclusion. Bullying remained an area of focus; for example, one area had received funding to set up ‘champions’ among staff and older pupils.

Stakeholders and young refugees also valued ongoing individualised support to help refugees progress in school. One child spoke positively about the separate class she attended twice a week in her secondary school (sometimes one-on-one and sometimes in a group setting) to develop her confidence in reading, writing and speaking English. Another family attributed their son’s progress in school to the additional one-to-one support he received. Children in a community sponsor group area received weekly, 2-hour English language support from a local charity. Group members felt this additional support helped the children make progress in their education. In another area, by drawing on research that homework clubs support EAL acquisition, the local authority set up a pilot homework club to assist Arabic-speaking refugee children. Personal advocates also improved children’s progress in school (discussed further in Chapter 8). However, stakeholders highlighted the need to balance individualised support against ensuring young refugees integrated well into mainstream education.

Multi-agency working and coordination between resettlement support teams and schools continued helping support refugee children in schools. A national stakeholder valued the role of school liaison officers working in some areas, who attended monthly meetings with other relevant delivery partners to discuss the resettled children’s progress and any safeguarding issues. These officers worked closely with schools and refugee support charities to promote co-ordinated support for refugee children. There was evidence of community sponsorship group members playing a key role liaising between schools and advocating for children, ensuring their needs were recognised and addressed.

To support the mental health and wellbeing of young refugees in schools, a national stakeholder highlighted the success of a Children and Families Wellbeing pilot service, designed to support refugee families, children and young people deal with trauma, emotional and behavioural issues, and support children finding it hard to thrive in schools. An internal evaluation of this pilot indicated some success and the stakeholder felt such support should be standardised and rolled out further.

8. Education and training: Young people aged 16 to 25 years old

8.1 What are the key changes in education and training opportunities for 16 to 25-year-olds?

There was more evidence this year of local resettlement team staff working closely with third-sector organisations to provide employment and volunteering support for young refugees. In one case study area, a local organisation conducted a consultation with young resettled refugees to explore and address their needs, leading to a strategy for change based on their reported experiences (discussed more in the next section). Young refugees felt positive about this exercise and a second consultation was in development.

8.2 What were the barriers to education and training for 16 to 25-years-olds?

The new barriers reported this year around accessing education or training opportunities related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many in-person training and education activities and schemes were put on hold, while others moved online. One national stakeholder expressed concerns about the additional strain the pandemic would place on mental health provision and the implications for young refugees accessing support. The lockdowns and pandemic also resulted in fewer employment or volunteering opportunities for young refugees, and there was evidence of several young refugees working in the hospitality sector who lost their jobs. This fuelled stakeholders’ concerns around young refugees’ progress with English and into employment.

Stakeholders and delivery partners also raised concerns about the social isolation of young refugees due to the national lockdown restrictions and the impact on their ability to form social bridges and bonds (covered further in Chapter 11). Caseworkers and local stakeholders felt this was particularly a concern for young refugees living in rural areas. In interviews, young refugees in these areas spoke of ongoing difficulties in accessing educational, training or vocational opportunities due to a lack of transport. A local stakeholder felt that young women were at higher risk of social isolation and expressed concern that their needs were being overlooked.

Some young refugees reported that the transition to online training and education negatively impacted their ability to learn English, as they lacked interaction with people outside their family. However, young refugees experienced barriers differently; one young adult reported that engaging in online language exchange opportunities and language learning apps had improved his English. Another young woman felt that one benefit of online classes was that she did not feel as embarrassed when she made a mistake. That said, the downside of this online learning was not being able to ask for clarifications from her teacher in the same way, which had implications for her learning.

There remain barriers for young refugees related to ESOL provision and a shortage of suitable education, training and employment support tailored to their needs, as was identified in Years 1 and 2 of this study. National stakeholders and delivery staff across case study areas felt that mainstream support was not always suitable for young refugees as it did not cater sufficiently to their additional needs. Many agreed that more work was required to develop tailored support for this age group to better facilitate and encourage independence. Furthermore, stakeholders and delivery partners felt there was a widespread need for ESOL provision tailored to fit around young refugees’ other commitments including education, employment, health conditions and caring responsibilities. Stakeholders felt there was a risk of young refugees receiving less attention and support than their parents and school-aged refugees due to an assumption that they were better placed to understand and pick up English. However, stakeholders continued to report that young refugees’ lower English language levels prevented them from accessing FE, HE and employment. Examples of such support were limited to individual case study areas. In the areas that lacked additional tailored support, stakeholders felt that young refugees found it more difficult to progress in their education or access employment opportunities. Ongoing barriers and how they may be addressed in the future are discussed further at the end of this chapter.

Young refugees with health conditions and caring responsibilities faced additional barriers to education and employment. One family felt that their son’s college could provide more support and guidance for people with health conditions that affected their ability to work, or signpost them to organisations who could provide support. Another young refugee described how they could only work part-time due to caring responsibilities, which meant they could only work in certain jobs and not full-time.

Eligibility criteria for education and training opportunities (including, age restrictions, requirements for previous qualifications or a minimum length of time in the UK) affected young refugees’ access to funding, benefits and support services. Many young refugees may not be undertaking educational and training qualifications at the usual age due to their experience as a refugee and/or language barriers causing gaps in their education. For example, a young adult refugee in one case study could not access a FE course as funding was not available to those aged 18 and over. In addition, one caseworker described resettled 16- and 17-year-olds who were not eligible to receive UC, but who may not be able to access mainstream education due to language barriers, as being in “no-man’s land”.

8.3 What helps to support young refugees to access education, training and employment opportunities?

8.3.1 What helps to support young refugees to access education opportunities?

Support and advocacy which addressed refugee needs (such as, bilingual teaching support) and took individual aspirations into account was felt to be beneficial for young refugees. It was also important that this support was available and sustained over the relevant transition period. Such support was especially beneficial in facilitating transitions from secondary education to FE due to the range of options available to young people and the support they required in making decisions and developing the required skills. National stakeholders felt that ongoing, individualised support for young refugees also meant that additional needs such as, language, SEN or support with any behavioural issues would be addressed, which mainstream educational support settings may miss. A national stakeholder highlighted the example of the Scottish Guardianship Service, delivered by the Scottish Refugee Council and Aberlour Childcare Trust, as a successful example of an initiative providing consistent support and advocacy to young refugees. This stakeholder stressed the importance of young refugees having this dedicated source of support – someone who was sympathetic to their needs, could support them to navigate relevant policies and easily communicate with them.

Good practice for refugees accessing education included FE and HE institutions ensuring relevant information is available in an accessible format. National stakeholders noted that application processes for FE and HE could be complex even for native English speakers. Several universities were cited as having recognised these challenges, and examples of good practice to make the process more accessible to refugees included:

• providing support and information for prospective refugee students on the services available to them and how to apply; one example included a university that had developed on online listing of services that would be accessible to refugees once accepted
• having refugee student ‘role models’ at open days who could answer questions and help refugees understand the application processes, while embodying a positive example of someone from a refugee background who could access HE or FE
• universities signposting potential refugee applicants to available funding or offering scholarships for full- or part-time undergraduate degrees for refugees; a national stakeholder felt that funding helped overcome barriers relating to the ‘hidden costs’ refugees may face when applying for HE or FE, such as, travel costs

Young refugees benefitted from education providers allowing for flexibility in the eligibility criteria for education and training opportunities. Stakeholders provided examples of educational institutions making allowances for young refugees to access opportunities normally only available to those aged 18 and over. Another example included an organisation that typically offered informal English language support for adults (aged 18 and over) but which allowed 16- and 17-year olds not in FE (often due to their low level of English) to attend the lessons. Similarly, in a one case study area, a few young adult refugees accessed education classes provided by a charity catering to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. This flexibility was often possible due to multi-agency partnership working and good communication. For example, in one case study area, close partnership working between the local authority’s children and education services and the local FE college resulted in additional EAL lessons for young resettled refugees in the area.

To support young refugees to stay in education and training, education institutions and other support services require adequate mental health support to be in place. A national stakeholder described how trauma could sometimes manifest in challenging behaviour, which put young refugees at risk of exclusion from HE and FE programmes. Stakeholders cited the benefits of resources and training for teachers and staff about how to work with young refugees, such as, the Refugee Education UK training (formerly Refugee Support Network). In one area, youth organisations were aware of the gap in support available for 16- to 25-year-old refugees and were therefore running specific programmes for this age group, including theatre groups, youth parliament programmes and volunteering opportunities. One theatre group that encouraged refugees to discuss their experiences ensured there was always a trauma specialist present during activities. A local stakeholder felt that involving young refugees in community-based projects could have mental health and wellbeing benefits, which was particularly important in areas lacking mental health provision. There was agreement among local stakeholders across case study areas that practitioners required further support and training to meet the mental health needs of young refugees, including a better understanding of the different needs based on gender.

8.3.2 What helps to support young refugees to access training and employment opportunities?

As detailed in Chapter 9, initiatives that incorporated ESOL support and training allowed young refugees to develop skills in a field aligned to their interests, while also equipping them with relevant language skills. Stakeholders perceived these programmes as particularly beneficial for young refugees leaving formal education with low English language skills and few formal qualifications. One external stakeholder noted that employability programmes for young people aged 16 to 25 that incorporated ESOL training had facilitated successful routes into employment or FE for young refugees.

Case study example 2: A tailored employability service for young refugees

In one case study area, a UK-wide third-sector organisation supported young refugees locally to overcome the barriers to employment such as, poor English language skills, a lack of qualifications, and not fitting well with mainstream schooling in the UK.

The organisation ran employability programmes for all young people aged 16 to 24, widening eligibility to the age of 30 to include refugees who experienced interruptions to their education. Programmes encouraged the development of existing vocational interests, such as, barbering or mechanics, and interpreters supported attendees. The service enabled the young refugees to attain qualifications or volunteer experiences leading to work, while also improving their English language.

“It works really well because at the same time as they’re getting their vocational qualification and personal development, they are also getting their ESOL accreditation.”
External stakeholder, ESOL support role, in-depth interview

One young refugee completed a 4-week course on working in retail, which involved work experience at a major supermarket chain, ultimately securing a job there. He found the courses offered by the organisation preferable to others he had encountered because they did not require a level of English proficiency and provided interpreter support.

“I learned a lot and I had fun… it was competitive… so I was very, very happy when I got the opportunity to work. After you solve the problem which is the language, you get past the barrier and you can do whatever you want in this country.”
Refugee, man, in UK for over 2 years, in-depth interview

Programmes that combined social activities with education and training proved popular and helped young refugees to practise English, integrate into the community and connect with other people their age. One local delivery partner highlighted the work of a project that offered young people (including refugees) help with interview techniques and other skills relevant to employment and volunteering, alongside opportunities to play football at the local football club.

Some caseworkers signposted young refugees to local opportunities and explained the employment and training options available to them. Good practice included where caseworkers took the individual needs and aspirations of young refugees into account and signposted them to relevant organisations. However, young adults in resettled families rarely mentioned examples of caseworkers providing this support.

8.3.3 What helps to provide young refugees with social opportunities?

Social opportunities tailored to young refugees’ needs and that supported their wellbeing continued to be highlighted as good practice in supporting this age group. In one area, caseworkers undertook a consultation ‘away day’ and workshop attended by the resettled young people in the area, aged between 13 and 17 years old, to better understand their needs while facilitating an opportunity for them to socialise. This was in response to a view among caseworkers that mental health issues and feelings of isolation were prevalent among young resettled refugees, especially young women. Feedback from the consultation was positive and the caseworks planned a further online engagement event. The area was also developing a ‘strategy for change’ based on the young refugees’ reported experiences. Delivery staff in this area also worked with a local youth service to set up a youth club for resettled female teenagers. This exercise also received positive feedback from the young refugees, and a second youth club was in development.

Initiatives that were open to all young people provided an opportunity for young refugees to mix with native English speakers their age. In one area, caseworkers encouraged young refugees to attend events organised by an association of girls’ and boys’ clubs, including sports programmes and day trips for young people. Caseworkers arranged for parents and children to meet the organisers with an interpreter present, to help them understand what taking part would entail and overcome any fears or cultural expectations families may have (for example, about girls socialising in mixed-gendered groups).

Social media helped young refugees engage with social activities and volunteering opportunities. An organisation that worked with the community to welcome and support refugees reported that their social media presence helped young refugees find volunteering opportunities. The organisation cited an uptake in engagement with the organisation by local refugees, which they attributed to social media tags in the welcome packs for new refugee arrivals.

8.4 What are the planned future developments in education and training for young refugees?

Case study areas were preparing to invest in ESOL provision targeted at young refugees. To address difficulties faced by 16- to 18-year-old refugees accessing regular ESOL provision, a local stakeholder in one area planned to fund intensive online ESOL lessons to help young refugees build confidence and reach the required level of English to access a mainstream college ESOL provision.

A specialised college programme for refugees and asylum-seeking children aged between 15 to 21 years old was planned to be rolled out more widely, according to a national stakeholder. The programme focused on developing pupils’ personal resilience and confidence and their understanding of national culture and systems, while also providing ESOL support. The stakeholder felt a key benefit of this programme was the strong peer-support system that it provided for refugee and asylum-seeking young people.

8.5 How could ongoing issues be addressed in the future?

National stakeholders and local delivery partners highlighted how additional, tailored ESOL support for young refugees was critical to improving young refugees’ progression into education and employment. Both stakeholders and delivery partners suggested that FE institutions should offer more ESOL support targeted at this age group. Resettled families agreed with this, including those who had arrived within the past year.

Stakeholders and delivery partners felt FE and HE institutions could do more to communicate the different routes to employment and education available for young refugees, as well as provide further guidance and support for refugees to access these. A national stakeholder suggested that having links with local employers or careers guidance services for young refugees could help them access education and training opportunities. Young refugees participating in the research commented that they were unsure of the best way to progress their education and training, and they requested more support around this.

“[The education system] is sort of accessible but you have to make the effort to access everything. People don’t take into consideration that you struggle and the language barrier, so you always have to keep on trying to contact them. It’s a lot of effort on your part.”
Refugee, woman, over 2 years in UK, in-depth interview

Stakeholders and local delivery partners suggested that greater flexibility in terms of eligibility criteria for funding, courses and benefits (such as, age, qualifications and length of time in the UK) would remove barriers for young refugees accessing education and training opportunities. Stakeholders felt that relaxing the eligibility criteria around qualifications required for apprenticeships would help support young refugees to access training opportunities. Despite services such as, the National Recognition Information Centre (NARIC), caseworkers reported ongoing difficulties in transferring young refugees’ qualifications across to the UK equivalent, especially as the refugees may not have physical evidence of these.

9. Employment and volunteering support

9.1 What are the key changes to the delivery of employment support?

Planned developments for employment support were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in little change over the past year. This contrasts with Year 2 findings, where there had been evidence of multiple case study areas implementing employment support tailored to meet the needs of individual refugees. The main changes included some employment services moving online during the first national lockdown, while others were moving online at the time of the research. Stakeholders also highlighted several examples of sector-specific support that offered refugees an opportunity to gain relevant training and qualifications. However, the pandemic had adversely affected many of these sectors.

Stakeholders participating this year were more aware of the Refugee Employment Network and reported that it provided a useful forum to share evidence of good practice.

9.2 What barriers were evident in accessing employment support?

As above, the main barrier to refugees accessing employment support was initiatives and events needing to be paused or delayed due to the pandemic, at both a local and national level, while other employment support services moved online.

As with accessing other forms of support, caseworkers and employment officers reported that refugees who lacked language skills or had low digital literacy faced barriers to accessing services online. Caseworkers and refugees said a lack of digital literacy was particularly the case for older working-age refugees (aged 55 to 65), supported by interviews with this age group:

“I know a bit of computers, but since we don’t have many chances to work with them, I know very little.”
Refugee, man, over 2 years in UK, in-depth interview

Some services struggled to move online: in one area, a delivery partner was unsure how to operate their CV support course online as they foresaw challenges interacting online in a group for people with low English language skills. Staff were considering how to run the programme in an accessible and meaningful way online. While this stalled progress towards employment for some refugees, for others (such as, those with caring responsibilities) virtual delivery of support reduced barriers to accessing it, such as, childcare, travel costs and travel time.

9.3 What barriers were evident in finding employment and volunteering opportunities?

Stakeholders expressed serious concerns about the impact of the pandemic on refugees’ ability to seek and gain employment. Some of these anxieties related to refugees experiencing job losses and reduced opportunities in the short term. Indeed, there were very few examples of refugees securing employment this year, while several refugees reported losing their jobs or volunteering roles or being furloughed. This was particularly true of those working in the hospitality sector. Refugees also highlighted delays to starting their own businesses. The pandemic also reduced opportunities for refugees to form social connections and build networks, which were previously a means of identifying local employment and volunteering opportunities.

Stakeholders also expressed concern about the longer-term disadvantages to refugees due to increased competition in the job market and economic recession. Stakeholders feared refugees would be one of the worst affected groups due to the intersection of multiple disadvantages in the job market, including their minority status, lower English skills, lack of UK qualifications and length of time out of the job market. Stakeholders were also concerned that the pandemic would reduce job opportunities that were suitable for refugees; the closure of shops and hospitality businesses, coupled with hiring freezes, meant many jobs previously considered suitable for people with lower English language skills were now unavailable.

Provision of programmes and initiatives promoting positive volunteering and employment outcomes was inconsistent. Some areas lacked adequate support, which may link to wider contextual factors. For example, in one case study area, a local stakeholder and a delivery partner reported that regional employment support was insufficient for refugees. In an asylum dispersal area, support for resettled refugees focused on short-term needs (such as, orientation support, access to services and ESOL) over support into employment. Few refugees interviewed across case study areas were in employment, despite aspirations to find work.

Some refugees reported being unable to access training and volunteering opportunities due to minimum residency requirements. For example, some refugees reported that they were unable to access jobs or volunteering roles that required a DBS check as they had not been resident in the UK for 2 years, highlighting a need for clearer advice around this.

There were several ongoing barriers to accessing employment support, including a lack of employment support tailored to the needs of different groups and those with additional needs (such as, those with low literacy, disabilities or health conditions); and ongoing issues with the accessibility of Jobcentre support, specifically relating to interpreter provision and the expectations of work coaches. Cultural approaches to volunteering also played a part, in that not all refugees saw value in such unpaid volunteering work without sufficient introduction to the role and value of volunteering in UK society. Stakeholders expressed ongoing concerns about the risk of exploitation for refugees with low awareness of employment rights and/or low English language levels. Section 9.6 discusses how some of these ongoing barriers could be addressed in the future.

9.4 What helps to overcome barriers to employment and volunteering?

9.4.1 What helps enable effective employment and volunteering support?

Stakeholders praised initiatives that involved mentor and peer-mentor approaches for encouraging employment and volunteering among refugees. A national charity delivering a programme to prepare refugees for work trained members of the public as volunteer mentors to help refugees navigate the job market, plan their career and practise English. Stakeholders highlighted how this approach built the confidence of mentees and encouraged them to draw on their own experience, which was an area where national stakeholders felt refugees required more focused support. National stakeholders also felt peer-mentor approaches helped build trust with refugees, which they felt was important and helped to sustain engagement of refugees with support. The project also promoted positive role models of refugees in employment, which stakeholders felt helped refugees feel more confident and raised their own aspirations. Senior strategic stakeholders promoted peer mentorship at a national and local level as a model of employment support for refugees.

Support that incorporated local expertise helped to address barriers to employment faced by refugees. In one case study area, an employment support delivery partner ran a workshop for refugees on employment rights and how to avoid exploitation, in response to perceived high risks of exploitation in factories in the area. National stakeholders also cited the example of an employment support provider that used local community contacts to facilitate work experience placements for refugees. Stakeholders also highlighted how Jobcentre staff developed ‘place-based plans’ identifying barriers to employment and gaps in support for different groups (including but not limited to refugee communities) and solutions to address them.

Relationships between support providers and employers also provided routes to employment for refugees. Stakeholders highlighted examples of employment support services working with large companies to encourage them to hire refugees through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Another project matched refugees who had relevant qualifications and English language skills with engineering and accounting companies. One local stakeholder suggested that employer engagement should be promoted at a national level to improve understanding among employers about the benefits of employing refugees, which they felt would increase the engagement of employers with these types of initiatives.

Stakeholders reported how support that addressed both English language and employability needs together helped refugees build skills for employment faster. One stakeholder cited the Welsh Government-funded REACH project ‘ReStart’ service, which offers advice and access to education and employment support for refugees alongside formal ESOL lessons. As highlighted in Chapter 6, stakeholders considered the goal of gaining employment as providing refugees with added motivation to learn English.

Across case study areas, women’s groups provided support to women refugees in overcoming common barriers to employment, including childcare responsibilities and cultural expectations around women earning money outside the home. Stakeholders reported that attending women’s groups helped to increase women refugees’ confidence, while also signposting refugees to FE, employment and community projects with volunteering opportunities. Some stakeholders felt that women’s groups provided holistic support that could address various areas of integration for refugee women, such as, their employability, wellbeing, English language and social bridges, particularly for women who were reluctant to attend support in a mixed-gender setting. However, stakeholders did not see this as the only form of potential employability support for women, noting that women’s groups could also work well in tandem with other forms of employment support not solely aimed at women.

Stakeholders reported that support, which focused on the individual aspirations and needs of refugee clients, helped build refugees’ understanding of the job market and confidence to seek employment. Examples of initiatives include the North East Employment Routeway digital document, which aims to help delivery staff plan employment pathways for refugees. Stakeholders reported that this helped structure conversations between refugees and Jobcentre work coaches about their expectations and options for employment and felt that these structured conversations improved refugees’ confidence about their ability to work in the UK. This initiative also aimed to link up Jobcentres with local organisations providing employment or childcare support to mitigate barriers to employment faced by refugees. Stakeholders hoped to roll out this initiative nationally. Stakeholders reported that refugees who took part in a pilot of a similar IOM tool offered pre-departure, LINK IT, arrived in the UK with a good understanding of the training they wanted to do. Stakeholders felt that without the tool, this usually took weeks of discussion between refugees and staff.

9.4.2 What helps to ensure sustainable employment outcomes?

Self-employment continued to be seen as a valuable route to employment for refugees. Stakeholders also noted that self-employment helped refugees build community links, thereby further improving their integration. However, stakeholders felt that refugees required dedicated support to achieve self-employment. This was seen in one case study area where an employability coordinator (in place since 2019) had supported refugees to identify volunteering placements and open their own businesses over the past year^{[footnote 7]}. Another case study area hired a business adviser to help refugees understand how to set up and run a business in the UK. Stakeholders cited several examples of refugees starting their own businesses because of this support.

Stakeholders highlighted how access to mental health support for refugees preparing for employment was critical to successful employment outcomes. A national stakeholder working to support refugees into employment reported instances of refugees turning down job opportunities due to mental health issues. This refugee employment programme employed a wellbeing officer to support refugees and facilitate better take-up of employment opportunities alongside improving refugee wellbeing. National stakeholders highlighted the importance of ensuring that employment programmes considered the wellbeing of refugees and provided appropriate support, for example, after losing a job. They felt this was especially important given the context of increasing unemployment.

9.4.3 What helps refugees gain employment in specific sectors?

This year, national stakeholders mentioned several initiatives that provided sector-specific employment support and an opportunity for refugees to gain relevant training, qualifications and experience in a specific field. These opportunities were often facilitated by partnership working between local resettlement team staff and sector-specific organisations (such as, the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)) as well as wider stakeholders such as, DWP, Jobcentres, training providers and local employers. These initiatives drew on the following approaches to prepare refugees to work in a specific sector:

• offering support and funding for refugees to gain qualifications required for certain sectors to address that their qualifications and experience were unrecognised in the UK
• identifying opportunities that did not require high levels of English language
• facilitating pathways into employment through work placements and guaranteed job interviews
• providing advice alongside these practical placements was also necessary to address concerns around changes to benefit support, or any accessibility issues
• targeting support to address shortages within specific employment sectors, such as, construction
• providing sector-specific ESOL classes, for example, providing vocabulary for working in the construction industry or childcare roles

One employment programme supported resettled refugees through the sector-based work academy programme to gain work experience with large restaurant chains, and they had plans to expand this programme to other sectors such as, retail and construction.

9.4.4 What helps overcome digital barriers to employment and training?

There was an increased focus on the importance of refugees’ digital literacy, as the COVID-19 pandemic had increased reliance on digital forms of communication and support. Some stakeholders felt that high digital literacy: increased employability; improved access to training, information and job opportunities; reduced reliance on caseworker support; and could facilitate refugees building support networks. Stakeholders shared various examples of projects addressing digital literacy gaps, including an initiative run by a refugee forum with links to the regional SMP, promoting the North East Employment Routeway to refugees with low digital skills with the help of a support worker, or through a more accessible version of the document.

9.4.5 What helps manage refugees’ expectations around employment?

National stakeholders emphasised the importance of managing refugees’ expectations about finding a job in line with their skills and aspirations. Several stakeholders highlighted DWP’s ‘ABC model’ (standing for ‘Any job, Better job, Career’). This model encourages people to gain employment in any field while developing skills and identifying and preparing for their next step in line with their wider aspirations. Stakeholders felt this approach was also appropriate for refugees with existing qualifications and experience in higher-skilled occupations, who may hold expectations about the jobs they want to access on arrival, but where it would take time to transfer qualifications or learn English. The Employment Routeway document aimed to build understanding among refugees of the ABC model by helping them to identify and record their existing skills, which could then be used to plan a route to a career.

As in previous years, stakeholders and refugees spoke of the multiple benefits of volunteering, including improving English language skills, gaining relevant work experience and building social networks. Refugees particularly valued volunteering where it helped them build experience and skills aligned with their career aspirations. For example, an ESOL tutor supported one refugee participant to volunteer at the college welcome desk as preparation for a future job in customer service. In another area, a refugee volunteering in a charity shop felt the skills they developed would help towards their aspiration to run a grocery shop.

9.5 What are the planned future developments in employment support?

Several areas aimed to appoint designated employment workers to provide tailored employment support for refugees. In one case study area, the local authority resettlement team hired support workers to help refugee women into employment, education opportunities and English language development. Local delivery staff stated they intended these roles to address the gender-specific barriers faced by some resettled refugee women.

Stakeholders highlighted plans to focus more on building refugees’ existing skills, while identifying how these could be transferable to new, sustainable career paths where appropriate. This included upskilling refugees with experience in sectors impacted by the pandemic to work in new sectors. For example, one stakeholder discussed the benefits of raising awareness of roles available within the social care sector among refugee women with relevant interests and skills in family and social care.

One third-sector employment support organisation was developing case studies to illustrate different pathways into work for refugees. This included a handbook and testimonies from refugees already working to highlight the different processes and options available. The aim of this initiative was to inspire and empower refugees by providing role models and promoting refugee voices.

9.6 How could ongoing barriers be addressed in future?

Evidence from refugees highlights a need for employment support that caters to additional needs they may have, such as, low education and literacy levels or health conditions. For example, delivery staff in 2 case study areas stressed that local employment support services should be accessible for disabled refugee clients. Similarly, some resettled refugees with physical and mental health conditions wanted Jobcentre staff to be more understanding of the additional barriers they faced in finding work.

“When I used to go [to the Jobcentre] every 2 weeks, they would say things like ‘Why aren’t you working?’, like I had a choice. They make you feel like you have to find a job.”
Refugee, man, over 2 years in UK, in-depth interview

Stakeholders felt that mainstream employment support could be tailored to better meet the needs of refugees through additional staff training for Jobcentre staff who lacked experience of working with refugees. This was especially evident where refugees had not received support to access training, understand the UK job market or transfer qualifications. While some refugees reported feeling that their local Jobcentre work coaches were sympathetic and understanding of their needs, a national stakeholder also felt that some work coaches needed to better recognise refugee clients’ need to acquire sufficient English before they can attend interviews. They felt work coaches should prioritise these needs over internal targets. To ensure refugee needs were being considered in providing employment support, national stakeholders pointed to having a single point of contact in Jobcentres who would be responsible for refugee client issues and supporting other work coaches to embed this knowledge, a DWP initiative which is underway.

Stakeholders also highlighted the need for better interpreter provision in Jobcentres, to improve the relationships between refugees and Jobcentre work coaches, and to raise work coaches’ expectations around refugees’ job aspirations.

10. Healthcare

10.1 What are the key chances to health and social care support?

Local authorities and community sponsor groups took further steps in the past year to address issues around refugees’ access to mental health support. For example, local authority resettlement teams in some areas commissioned therapeutic support from specialised mental health practitioners. Delivery staff and national stakeholders stressed the importance of supporting refugees to have their views heard to address barriers to accessing healthcare and improve the support available. One area had consulted refugees on their experience of accessing healthcare.

In some areas, refugees and stakeholders reported that due to the transition from face-to-face to telephone consultations, there was a greater availability of telephone interpreters for GP appointments than before the COVID-19 pandemic. This reduced delays to refugees attending appointments in areas that had previously relied on face-to-face interpreting. Stakeholders reported that some GP surgeries were now more comfortable using 3-way telephone interpreter services due to the move to remote health services during the pandemic, although as outlined below this was not the case in all areas.

10.2 What barriers were evident in accessing health and social care?

The pandemic increased existing barriers to accessing suitable interpreters to access health and social care. For example, in one case study area, caseworkers reported that the move to initial telephone assessments for GP appointments (from in-person assessments) presented a barrier for refugees with low levels of English, as interpreters were not routinely available for this initial meeting. Similarly, delivery partners reported fewer opportunities for gender-matching telephone interpreters, which stakeholders and refugees said prevented some women from accessing healthcare, particularly for gynaecological issues. Where interpreters were now unavailable, refugees who could previously attend appointments independently became more reliant on support from caseworkers or family members. In one area, a refugee delayed accessing healthcare as they did not think the GP surgery would provide an interpreter via the telephone.

As discussed in relation to Years 1 and 2 of this research, ongoing barriers to refugee mental health needs were still evident. Despite examples of therapeutic services for refugee children and young people identified in Year 2 of this evaluation, in some areas this support provision was still not available. Additionally, stakeholders reported that among refugees, stigma and reluctance in accessing mental health support continued to limit the take up of support for some. Consistent access to interpreters during health appointments also remained an ongoing barrier for refugees.

10.3 What helps with accessing health and social care support?

Some refugees valued the increased anonymity offered by telephone interpreting during healthcare appointments. In previous years of this evaluation, some refugees reported feeling uncomfortable disclosing health information through interpreters who they associated with a particular ethnicity or religion. One stakeholder attributed this to a fear among some refugees that the interpreters may share information disclosed during consultations with people in their home country and endanger their relatives. This stakeholder reported that refugees felt more comfortable discussing health issues with their GP using telephone interpreters as ethnic differences were less apparent.

There was further evidence this year of the value of dedicated mental health support for refugees to overcome stigma surrounding access to mental health support. One case study area had employed a mental health practitioner to support refugees. As well as providing one-to-one therapeutic support, the practitioner accompanied refugees to GP appointments to help them explain their mental health needs. Stakeholders reported that this support helped to ensure GPs clearly understood the all-round health needs of refugees. In one community sponsor group case study area, where the group had a close working relationship with the local authority resettlement team, a group member with mental health training could provide support to wider resettled refugees in the area. Group members highlighted this as an example of the benefits of joint working with the local authority to improve the overall support available to resettled refugees.

Areas used several approaches to encourage refugees to engage in mental health support and overcome the cultural stigma surrounding mental health. One of these was having a mental health practitioner who taught refugees exercises such as, relaxation, meditation and guided imagery to help process their trauma. The practitioner felt that consistent engagement from refugees and re-referrals during stressful period indicated these techniques were helpful to their clients. Another example was caseworkers sought to tackle the stigma by talking openly with refugees about mental health and the possible impact due to the pandemic. This area also sent out information packs in Arabic about COVID-19 guidelines, including helplines for mental health services, breathing techniques and other mental health resources.

A further example was that stakeholders in one area worked with healthcare professionals to update information packs provided to refugees with additional information on how the dental healthcare system in the UK operates and how to access dental care. The information was also circulated among previously resettled families to reiterate key information.

Case study example 3: A women’s wellbeing group building empowerment and skills

A local delivery partner worked in partnership with therapists to set up a weekly refugee women’s wellbeing group. This ran as an 8-week project, and it aimed to offer holistic support across a range of concerns, including physical and mental wellbeing, employability, ESOL and social connections. It placed mental and physical wellbeing at the forefront of its approach to support. Prior to setting up the group, the therapists and delivery partner ran a consultation with local refugee women to ensure it would provide the right support.

The group then provided access to therapists, massages, ESOL learning and crafting classes. It was based at a local children’s centre, enabling childcare during the sessions. Local stakeholders noted that women began discussing their mental health issues more openly over time, while the massage classes and conversations with the masseuse encouraged women to open up about physical injuries.

“It was a growing understanding of ‘this isn’t your fault, when scary things happen, it changes the way your body feels, and your mind works’. For them that was a new concept.”
Voluntary sector stakeholder, in-depth interview

Through the group, therapists explained the concept of anxiety and focused on the importance of wellbeing and self-care, which stakeholders noted were often new to participants. The delivery partner hoped that this understanding would help women make the most of other therapeutic services they might access. This was identified as a useful approach to communicating what health services women can access, and what they can seek support with.

10.4 What are the planned future developments in the health and social care service for refugees?

Some areas commissioned monitoring and evaluation initiatives to understand refugees’ experiences of accessing the healthcare system and inform the design of future healthcare services. Delivery partners in one area worked in partnership with an academic to conduct research into the mental health needs of refugee children to address barriers that refugee children and young people experienced accessing mental health support through Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). They intended the research to feed into a new service to identify mental health issues among refugee children and provide therapeutic services in schools. In another area, stakeholders commissioned a support service to help refugees provide feedback about the healthcare system. The service was informed by focus groups and case studies with refugees to understand their perceptions of the healthcare system. Findings were intended to be used to increase awareness of the needs of refugees and asylum seekers among local healthcare providers and to lead to improvements to healthcare services.

Some areas were planning to train or recruit new staff to help build stronger therapeutic relationships. This was particularly important due to the move to remote healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a rural case study area, a local stakeholder planned to recruit Arabic-speaking mental health professionals, who they felt would be better able to build trust with refugees, bridge cultural gaps and help overcome language barriers. Stakeholders hoped this would help to overcome the stigma felt by refugees and facilitate discussion on mental health issues. To overcome potential challenges to recruiting for these positions, staff were considering training local Arabic speakers to become counsellors. Within a case study area with a diverse population, some GP practices began training local students as face-to-face interpreters. A delivery partner in this area felt that refugees would feel more comfortable with a younger person acting as the interpreter because they were perceived as less likely to judge the refugee. Some surgeries had trialled this approach but had to pause due to the pandemic.

10.5 How could ongoing issues be addressed in the future?

Local stakeholders felt specific training for school staff is needed to ensure trauma among refugee children is recognised and addressed. Stakeholders across case study areas highlighted how trauma experienced by refugee children could manifest as challenging behaviour, which mainstream schools often lacked the capacity and expertise to recognise and address.

More work is needed to combat the limited take-up of mental health support by some refugees, which stakeholders attributed to the ongoing stigma surrounding mental health. In one area, few refugees followed up referrals to CAMHS or to a family trauma centre. In another area, a counselling service for resettled refugees closed after 6 months due to limited interest.

More interpreters are required to ensure refugees have language support when attending healthcare appointments. Refugee participants continued to rely on their children and other family members to interpret for them when booking or attending healthcare appointments. There was a mixed response from parents when asked how they felt about their children making appointments on their behalf. Some parents felt uncomfortable, particularly where sons were interpreting for mothers about sensitive healthcare issues, while others reported not having experienced problems with this. Some refugees and those supporting them also reported having received conflicting advice from healthcare staff. In one case, an important hospital appointment had to be rescheduled because an interpreter had not been booked and hospital staff did not accept an independent interpreter. In another area, a community sponsor group could bring their own interpreter to attend an appointment.

11. Social bonds and social bridges

11.1 What are the key changes in refugees developing social bridges and bonds?

This year, there was further evidence of some areas moving towards a co-ordinated approach to supporting refugees to develop social bridges and bonds^{[footnote 8]}, in some cases, drawing on the voluntary sector to lead this work. Co-ordinated approaches involved:

• detailed local needs assessments
• consultation with refugees about available community activities and perceived gaps
• pooling resources across multiple local authorities to fund services

Still, some national stakeholders felt that most local authorities were not yet undertaking sufficient proactive work to encourage social connections, with much of this work typically being led by voluntary and community sector (VCS) groups, without centralised coordination or support.

Geographic differences in social integration were more apparent this year; social bonding appeared most successfully in urban areas, while rural areas showed more evidence of social bridging. In urban areas, as resettlement numbers increased, refugee interviews highlighted that social bonds among the resettled refugee community, and those with a similar cultural background, were easy to forge, for example, in places of worship. However, building links with the wider community was more challenging due to a lack of support to facilitate connections or to address hostility from local host communities. Stakeholders felt that in urban areas with a large resettled refugee community, refugees could lack the motivation to make wider social connections, a sentiment also apparent to some extent in refugee interviews. In contrast, in rural areas, forming social bonds with refugee families was more difficult due to the physical distances between households. In these areas, refugees were seen to make more efforts to build links with the wider community, which was well-received in smaller, close-knit host communities.

This year, community sponsor group members and stakeholders better understood the diversity within the resettled refugee community and the importance of applying this knowledge locally. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of paying close attention to cultural sensitivities when matching families to community sponsor groups, acknowledging families’ potential hesitation in forming relationships and the role that historic trauma may have played in this. They also reported that transgender refugees avoided mixing due to fears of transphobia from the wider resettled refugee community.

The development of strong ‘bonding capital’ among already resettled refugee families was evident this year. In several areas, stakeholders cited examples of refugees helping older local volunteers with food shopping during the COVID-19 lockdown, and refugees reported their children using increased English fluency to encourage social contact (for example, introducing their schoolfriends’ parents to their family). There was an appetite for ongoing support with community integration; several refugees who had been in the UK for 2 or more years reported they would like opportunities to socialise to be available after the initial post-arrival period.

11.2 What barriers were evident for refugees developing social bridges and bonds?

The COVID-19 pandemic created several new barriers to refugees developing relationships in the wider community:

• social distancing restrictions led to postponement or cancellation of many initiatives, notably sporting activities, community classes and events, and extra-curricular activities in schools
• with many social activities moving online in response to the pandemic, poor digital access (notably the cost of home broadband, mobile data and access to suitable hardware such as, laptop computers) and poor digital literacy among refugees was an important new barrier
• many refugee families reported they could not take driving lessons or driving tests due to the pandemic, exacerbating their isolation, particularly in rural areas
• the economic climate and competing priorities caused by the pandemic constrained longer-term funding of social integration initiatives

Several stakeholders expressed concern due to a perceived increase in hostility and hate crime from host communities in their areas, which they felt accounted for some refugees’ fear of mixing with other communities. They attributed this to existing deprivation within communities where refugees had been resettled, as well as Brexit and related narratives on race and immigration, citing the counter-protests to Black Lives Matter as one example. Challenges in encouraging resettled families to report hate crime, such as, mistrust of the police, were also ongoing, which contributed to poor refugee experiences in communities. However, some stakeholders reflected that refugees may feel more comfortable reporting these instances when they had been living in the UK for longer.

“In the first 6 months you don’t hear about hate crime because refugees feel they have to be grateful and not complain. Six months later, they may flag issues that they’ve had. It’s still a huge problem – and Brexit has made that worse”
External stakeholder, voluntary sector, in-depth interview

Several important ongoing barriers to the development of wider community integration remained in this final year:

• stakeholders noted that poor progress in learning and low confidence in speaking English continued to hinder social mixing (see Chapter 6)
• gender barriers to social mixing were also profound and ongoing; stakeholders noted that women typically had poor English, attributed to an expectation that the men would speak on behalf of the household
• serious health problems in families were a barrier to mixing
• stakeholders noted that the barriers to integration for older refugees, such as, lack of opportunities to mix and poor English skills, were ongoing
• some participating refugees also reported a lack of awareness of social events, suggested that this barrier to participation was also ongoing

11.3 What helps to facilitate positive relationships between refugees and their local communities?

11.3.1 Collaborative and participant-led community activities

Stakeholders considered integration activities that were collaborative and responsive to refugee needs and those of the wider community to be a strong driver of success. Stakeholders noted that participant-led approaches, where local refugees were consulted during the planning phase, were particularly effective. Examples included a local authority supporting a Syrian community café that fostered links in the local community, and a local authority developing a refugee and asylum seeker advisory group to advise on charity service delivery.

Case study example 4: A refugee-led social enterprise to support integration

In one case study area, a group of refugees created a not-for-profit social enterprise, aimed at supporting other members of the refugee community and promoting integration opportunities. To develop their offer, they conducted focus groups with the wider Syrian refugee community to ensure the initiatives were grounded in the community’s needs.

They established links with local community organisations and the local council. This helped in securing funding to provide laptops and tablets with internet access to those most digitally isolated during COVID-19. Tackling digital exclusion was one of the organisation’s key priorities. They explained that the Syrian community can often struggle to access digital technology, which can reinforce vulnerability in an increasingly digital world.

“Technology has improved throughout this period and we had to flee the war and our lives were so bad in this time… that’s why people are not really comfortable with technology.”
Refugee, man, over 2 years in UK, case study interview

The organisation undertook many other activities – for example, providing food parcels for families in need, in partnership with supermarkets and local churches; increasing awareness among refugees about life in the UK; and running Arabic classes for resettled children.

This year, many local authorities had developed a strong model for engaging established resettled refugees to support newly arrived families. Caseworkers introduced families to each other, sometimes through a structured volunteer scheme, to help them understand and navigate the local area. Stakeholders highlighted how these introductions helped refugees build social networks and provided newly arrived refugees with practical assistance, for example, in booking healthcare appointments. Stakeholders noted how involving refugees in volunteering promoted civic participation and mutual support. Resettled refugees reported benefiting from the experience, particularly in widening their social networks. However, in some case study areas, stakeholders felt that refugees were not equipped to support new families, as they had not made sufficient progress towards integration themselves.

Case study example 5: Involving resettled refugees in providing orientation

In one case study area, the local authority resettlement caseworkers set up an initiative to enable resettled refugees who had been in the area for some years to volunteer and support newly arrived refugee families.

Caseworkers approached resettled refugees who had stronger English language skills. Selected volunteers undertook training to enable them to provide this support effectively, including communicating the need for confidentiality. Caseworkers assigned roles in a personalised manner to ensure the best support for new families. For example, some volunteers were better placed to accompany newly arrived families to hospital appointments, whereas, others provided signposting advice to relevant support organisations, took newer arrivals shopping or offered general orientation support around the area.

“They supported me to help switch energy suppliers when we moved house. They helped me also to communicate with the new school when I wanted to enrol my children.”
Refugee, woman, over 2 years in UK, wife of family, case study interview

Stakeholders reflected that these volunteers could provide new arrivals with a more detailed, tailored and realistic picture of resettlement in the area and what to expect. The initiative helped newer arrivals feel more comfortable and gave them an opportunity to ask questions of people who had been in similar situations about settling somewhere new.

One couple who had provided orientation support had remained in contact with the families they supported after their formal support ended, feeling that the initiative created a better sense of community and safety for refugees. Another volunteer also noted the difference his involvement had made:

“The volunteer job helped me to improve my English language, to change my environment so I’m not at home all the time, and maybe it will help me to find a job and help people which is a good thing.”
Refugee, man, over 2 years in UK, case study interview

11.3.2 Refugee-focused community integration activities

As more social activities moved online this year, refugees and stakeholders highly valued initiatives to foster digital literacy and access. In one case study area, the refugee support team created an online Facebook group for resettled families, which quickly thrived as a source of social connection. In another area, a social enterprise supporting resettled families provided refugee households with tablet computers, internet dongles and support to develop digital skills. Caseworkers and community sponsor group members were an important source of support to help refugees access wider support groups and services online.

Stakeholders noted the importance of ‘mainstreaming’ integration activities to generate social connections with other communities. They highlighted how both refugees and the wider community might perceive tailored and targeted initiatives for refugees as exclusionary, marking refugees as people in special need, rather than ‘welcome citizens of a new country’. Refugees did appreciate these integrated services. Examples of this inclusive approach included:

• a youth organisation that supported more recent migrants (including resettled refugees) to participate in projects working alongside residents
• a charity that organised picnics in local parks each week
• a refugee mentoring project, which recruited and trained volunteers from the wider community to be matched with a refugee or asylum seeker

Stakeholders noted that developing a directory of relevant opportunities to build social connections could help to overcome low awareness among refugees. To address this, resettlement staff in one local authority area had undertaken a mapping exercise of local initiatives, designed to make refugees more aware of the opportunities in their local area.

Supporting faith, educational and language-based networks helped promote relationships between refugees and wider communities with whom they shared cultural touchpoints. Many resettled families felt it was important to maintain their home culture alongside learning about the British or local way of life. Faith and similar networks therefore provided an important source of connections alongside routes to independence. For example, refugees cited examples of finding employment through contacts at the local mosque. Arabic schools also provided a strong network for families and opportunities for children to thrive (for example, in taking Arabic GCSE). In one case study area, a local social enterprise began Arabic classes for younger children to help them maintain the language.

“Our community are growing up. The young people are increasing … so we need Arabic sessions. We need to learn our own language.”
Refugee, man, over 3 years in the UK, in-depth interview

Initiatives were being trialled this year to encourage families to report hate crime. One case study area had been working with Victim Support to share innovations on anonymous online reporting of crimes while acknowledging the potential barriers relating to language, digital literacy and data security concerns. In other areas, further work was undertaken with local police forces to encourage reporting, for example, through the police visiting families to help build trust. One local authority had recently commissioned a hate crime support service for refugees and asylum seekers, targeting demographic sub-groups to address their specific needs

This year, several initiatives supporting women’s integration were flourishing and several targeted initiatives on gender were being developed. These initiatives often focused on creative and practical skills (such as, sewing, cooking and pottery), and discussions about gender-specific integration issues, such as, sexual health, facilitated by specialist practitioners. Community sponsor group members highlighted the importance of offering women the same skills opportunities as men in the family, such as, driving lessons. Group members also noted the importance of ensuring that support for women in the family continued beyond the initial 2-year support period, to ensure they could still take up opportunities once children had settled in school or nursery. Stakeholders noted that women’s integration into British culture could, in a minority of cases, present risks for domestic abuse or exclusion from their own cultural community, citing the example of an assault of a refugee woman for wearing western clothing. They felt that continued work on gender relations between men and women, as well as a focus on women’s participation, were required to address the attitudes leading to constraints on women’s integration.

Targeted initiatives to engage young people socially were also underway this year. Stakeholders noted that resettled parents were typically reluctant to let their children go out unsupervised and mix socially, preferring them to stay at home, including during holidays. Young refugees, particularly those who had arrived more recently, cited difficulties making friends, which they attributed to limited opportunities to interact with others their age due to the pandemic. To address these issues, one area established a WhatsApp group for teenage refugees, engaging a mix of settled and newly arrived young people. Stakeholders noted it was helpful for new arrivals to see the progress of their peers and overcome geographical boundaries for those in more rural areas.

11.3.3 Engaging with host communities to address racist narratives

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of addressing racist narratives to address the social drivers of hate crime. They noted that community-based approaches to support refugees’ integration would be unsuccessful unless activities to address racist sentiments and create awareness of hate crime took place in tandem. Good practice in this respect included holding open meetings to tackle questions, such as, why the community was helping refugees when local people were also struggling. One community sponsor case study took this approach, with group members reporting that it had engaged a wide range of individuals and increased support for the community sponsor group’s aims. Stakeholders also recommended that local authorities communicated clear ownership of the VPRS/VCRS schemes and committed to preparatory work in communities.

“There’s a need for local councils to be public about and take pride in the resettlement scheme, otherwise it can lead to misinformation, tension and refugees feeling like they’re being kept secret … prevent[ing] social bridges being built.”
Stakeholder, community liaison role, in-depth interview

Amplifying the refugee voice and refugee stories was a powerful way to build community bridges. Stakeholders noted that promoting first-hand refugee experiences helped establish buy-in with other stakeholders and the wider population. Examples highlighted by stakeholders included a refugee cookbook which told the stories of Syrian families and resettlement experiences; a filmed poetry project shortlisted for film festivals; and an interactive exhibition created by one refugee which gained a wide audience through schools and conferences.

12. Conclusion

12.1 Progress towards the schemes’ objectives

The evidence from this 3-year qualitative evaluation shows that, based on evidence from key national stakeholders and case studies, the schemes have made positive, sustained progress towards meeting their overall objective of supporting the integration of resettled refugees, meaning that the programme met most of its aims and objectives. However, while there was evidence of positive developments across all areas, some areas require improvement and good practice to be applied more evenly.

Overall, the evidence showed that local authorities and community sponsor groups have adjusted and improved their post-arrival delivery models over time. The areas that appeared most able to meet the immediate and longer-term needs of refugees were those with a flexible and strategic approach. This often involved resettlement staff undertaking local needs assessments, developing multi-agency approaches to supporting refugees, and proactively engaging with other local authorities in their region (including pooling resources in some cases). Areas that included refugee resettlement integration in strategic integration or cohesion plans, actively built and invested in partnerships, and promoted a positive perception of refugees resettled in their area, achieved greater buy-in across relevant stakeholders. This allowed greater scope for innovative practice and more sustainable resettlement models.

Stakeholders commonly attributed the success of the schemes to central government, local government and civil society groups’ openness to collaborating and seeking solutions at a national and regional level, supported by the flexible tariff funding model which afforded opportunities for flexibility and creativity in designing and delivering support to refugees at a local level.

The following discusses key areas of progress and the most persistent barriers to the success of the schemes, organised by key objectives for the schemes^{[footnote 9]}.

The scheme meets the immediate and essential needs of refugees resettled in the UK

Immediate support to refugees was less of a focus in the final year of the evaluation. Adjustments to pre-departure processes and support to refugees in earlier years of the evaluation helped improve refugee experiences upon resettlement. Evidence from the 3 years of the research also showed that adjustments made to the schemes at a local level have enabled areas to better meet the immediate needs of refugees over the evaluation period. Interventions that improved the delivery of these essential services included:

• greater availability of tailored support for refugees to access and engage with mental and physical healthcare services
• new approaches to caseworker workload management

Improvements have come from an increased knowledge and understanding of refugee needs among local and national resettlement staff and delivery partners. This developed because of both ‘bottom up’ learning among dedicated staff and stakeholders working with resettled refugees and delivering the schemes, and ‘top down’ insights shared and promoted through national and international networks (including SMPs, IOM, the Refugee Employment Network and UNHCR).

Across all areas, a key finding was the ongoing importance of a successful initial period of support to build the foundation for refugees’ longer-term integration. Caseworker and orientation support provided to refugees works best with this in mind, including discussing pathways to employment, education opportunities, and introducing refugees to wider support provided by the VCS, as early as possible. Evidence also suggested benefits of beginning this process before refugees arrive in the UK. However, as noted in previous reports, practitioners should be mindful of delivering a manageable volume of accessible information pre-arrival and reiterate key messages post-arrival.

Most refugees continued to require support beyond the initial arrival period, meaning that delivery needed to be flexible to accommodate this, while also engendering independence. Support in building social networks and learning basic English were a crucial foundation for refugees to develop their own support networks to help them access services in the longer term after the step down in caseworker support.

Refugees receive support to assist longer-term integration (ESOL, employment, education and health, adequacy of income)

In the final (third) year of the research, refugees involved throughout the evaluation were increasingly adjusting to life in the UK and becoming more independent. Services continued to evolve to address emerging longer-term support needs. This included a greater focus on support tailored, or flexible enough, to meet the needs of, different demographics (including by gender and age). Schemes to address the needs of different groups were increasingly being piloted in some areas, with promising early signs. This was particularly notable in the provision of ESOL and employability support. This contrasts with findings in the first 2 years of the evaluation, which found a heavy reliance on statutory support provision to meet refugees’ longer-term needs (particularly in the areas of health, welfare and employment). There was also wide variation in areas’ advancement in their planning for refugees’ longer-term needs (such as, pathways to FE, training and employment) and in access to support for mental health.

Despite the progress made, many refugees continued to face multiple barriers to their longer-term integration, mostly related to language acquisition, development and recognition of labour market skills, cultural barriers, mental and physical health issues, and digital exclusion. For both local authority and community sponsor supported refugees, inadequate signposting to longer-term support services prevented refugees moving on from initial support.

Some refugees continued to report that ESOL and employability support were insufficient or not suited to their needs and aspirations. This reflected a widespread desire among resettled families to learn English, find paid work and participate fully in society, and frustration at what they perceived to be slow progress towards these goals. Crucially, slow English language acquisition presented a barrier to other areas of integration, such as, finding employment and social mixing. Some refugees valued more intensive approaches to language and labour market skill support, something that was not available in all areas. Others felt the generic support on offer was not accessible due to their language, health or cultural preferences, such as, a preference for a gender-specific service. This highlights the limitation of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to integration support.

We adjusted the scope of this final year of the evaluation due to fieldwork taking place during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Given the disruption this posed to the evaluation’s longitudinal approach, which aimed to follow the same people over 3 years, the focus in this report shifted to understanding ‘good practice’ that has emerged over time from the VPRS/VCRS. However, given the significant disruption caused by the pandemic to resettlement and integration, and the likelihood of long-term change due to COVID-19, this report includes both positive and negative findings surrounding experiences during a pandemic year. The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of immediate and longer-term support to resettled refugees. This year, social distancing requirements, the move to remote support provision and digital exclusion increased most barriers experienced by refugees. Delivery of almost all caseworker support, and many statutory support services and longer-term integration activities, moved to telephone and online provision. As a result, digital literacy and online access among resettled refugees has become a priority to address to support their longer-term integration. That said, where digital exclusion was overcome or not an issue for households, there were also examples where refugees felt services were more accessible to them when delivered remotely.

Refugees’ experience improved mental and physical wellbeing

In Years 2 and 3 of the evaluation, the mental health support requirements of refugees came to the fore. Refugees felt more able to discuss their mental health, linked to several reasons including: refugees feeling more settled and comfortable discussing and disclosing difficulties with mental health the longer they were in the UK; and increased familiarity with the research team conducting the fieldwork. An increasing recognition of the need for tailored mental health support for refugees (including, but not only for, trauma) was driving several new initiatives to provide support and help overcome stigma in engaging with mental health services.

Insufficient provision of interpreters at health appointments remained a barrier to refugees accessing and engaging with health services. The shift to remote telephone appointments during the pandemic, however, meant that telephone interpreter support was more readily available than in previous years. This was because the supply of interpreter support provided remotely was greater than face-to-face provision, meaning a better service for refugee families.

Where they can, refugees contribute to the labour market

Alongside the barriers mentioned above, there were positive examples of tailored support for refugees to develop workplace skills and experience, including ESOL for employment, mentoring schemes, and structured work placements. However, in Year 3, provision did not yet extend to all parts of the UK, or meet existing demand. Furthermore, the pandemic meant that entry-level employment opportunities reduced, including those suitable for people with limited English language (such as, in hospitality), with greater competition for available roles.

Local authorities and community sponsor groups promoted volunteering among refugees as a route to gain relevant skills for employment (including spoken English), while also supporting social integration into local communities. There were also examples of refugees who had taken this path and praised the approach, although not all refugees saw value in unpaid volunteering work. Another common route to employment was through social networks, often facilitated by community sponsor groups or religious institutions such as, churches or mosques.

Refugees have social networks outside existing networks and connections in their community

At Year 3, evidence demonstrated that many refugees living in the UK had built ties in the wider community, as well as within the resettled refugee community.

Geographic differences in patterns of social integration were more apparent than in previous years. There was more evidence of social bonds between refugees of a similar cultural background in urban areas, due to those communities. Social bridges between refugees and the wider community were more apparent in rural areas, often facilitated by local schools, churches and volunteer support groups.

Nonetheless, many refugees expressed ongoing feelings of social isolation. This was often for individual reasons, including physical or mental health issues limiting their involvement in social mixing activities, and low confidence due to their English language ability. Others lacked awareness of opportunities to meet people in their area or were wary of mixing due to negative experiences.

Greater evidence emerged this year of initiatives to support the involvement of previously resettled refugees in ongoing resettlement activities. These included consultations for new support initiatives undertaken with refugees, and opportunities for refugees to become volunteers or peer mentors to provide support for new arrivals.

In contrast to this progress, the COVID-19 pandemic created new barriers to social mixing. Social distancing restrictions meant many social integration initiatives and activities were temporarily or permanently halted. COVID-19 paused driving lessons, which refugees reported may prolong feelings of social isolation (particularly in rural areas with fewer public transport options). With many social activities moving online, digital exclusion remained a key barrier.

Improved social cohesion and attitudes of local communities towards refugees; refugees feel safe in their local area

In Year 3, racism and hate crime within communities were of increasing concern. Some stakeholders noted growing tensions between refugees and other communities, particularly within areas of higher deprivation. In response, stakeholders called for further funding for initiatives that encouraged social contact between refugees and other groups, to facilitate social connections and build trust and understanding. Stakeholders also called for civic leaders and politicians to act to counter racist narratives in communities. Some stakeholders recommended avoiding resettlement in areas where social issues were prevalent, and where refugees would be a visible minority.

In summary, the evaluation shows that, overall, delivery models in diverse local authorities and community sponsor group areas were maturing, supporting progress towards meeting the schemes’ goals. Areas with strategic plans in place for refugee integration and well-established multi-agency approaches to support were also most likely to be generating examples of innovative and good practice regarding refugees’ longer-term integration.

12.2 Implications of the evidence for the future of resettlement support

The evaluation provides several key implications for future delivery of refugee integration support, some of which are outlined below.

Firstly, the flexible funding model provided great opportunities for local authorities to develop local services that met relevant needs. Stakeholders considered stability of this funding pipeline to be critical to a positive future for resettlement and refugee integration.

Secondly, integration support must recognise and address the overlap between different integration areas and linked to this, the central role of English language acquisition. For example, English language is a barrier to finding work, but sustainable volunteering and employment opportunities to provide an opportunity to learn English.

Thirdly, refugees often benefit from approaches tailored to their needs. This could be needs-related to the refugee’s individual experience (particularly relating to mental health and employment provision), as well as their gender or nationality, or specific learning needs and aspiration, for example, in English language acquisition. Tailored approaches also acknowledge the multiple intersectional barriers refugees can face

Fourthly, it is important not to see refugees as one single group, even for those sharing a similar nationality or culture. Refugee area ‘matching’ and integration support initiatives should endeavour to consider individual needs and aspirations wherever possible.

Furthermore, linked to the above, while a one-size-fits-all approach to delivery may not be suitable due to refugees’ varied needs, there can also be benefits to integrating refugees into mainstream support services. For example, this can foster social bridges between refugees and the wider community, encourage independence among refuges and promote community cohesion.

Finally, resettlement to rural and urban areas can both be successful, but it requires awareness of the different challenges and barriers refugees may face. This has implications for support provided. For example, refugees in rural or suburban areas may require additional support, such as, advice and support to convert or obtain driving licenses and access public transport, a greater focus on support to set up their own business, and more groundwork to prepare the local community for their arrival. In urban areas, refugees may require more orientation support to build social bridges and encouragement to learn English, particularly where there is an existing national or cultural community.

To secure and widen the involvement of local authorities in any future resettlement scheme, it will be important for the Home Office to provide and support opportunities for local authorities and community sponsor groups to share learning, advice and resources with each other. Evidence from across the 3 years of the evaluation showed how knowledge sharing and collaboration supports robust and forward-looking resettlement delivery models. Resettlement staff and community sponsor group members highly value these opportunities, particularly in areas with less experience of resettlement. To date, SMPs have played an important role in bringing local authorities together to share knowledge (as well as acting as a conduit to report issues back to the Home Office). Stakeholders increasingly recognise national stakeholder groups (such as, the Refugee Employment Network) as a useful medium for sharing good practice.

In addition, highlighting the wider community benefits of refugee resettlement will be key to engaging local authorities. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that this could be supported in a number of ways.

Firstly, guidance and examples could be provided to local authorities on how to support community cohesion and integration through VPRS/VCRS funding and what funding is available. The evaluation showed how refugee needs often mirror those of the wider population (for example, access to mental health support, SEN provision and accessible public transport). Therefore, demonstrating how funding can support services and initiatives open to all residents (not just resettled refugees) can help local authorities make a positive case for resettlement and overcome misgivings (for example, due to concerns about local service pressures).

Secondly, the evaluation found evidence of the benefit of supporting and promoting ‘whole community’ approaches to integration. It found that promoting messages of welcome and fostering understanding between groups has benefits for resettled refugees and the wider community – for example, in schools.

Thirdly, there is benefit in continuing to promote a positive and comprehensive narrative around refugee resettlement. Creating distinctions and emphasising differences between resettled and other refugee/migrant populations – an issue raised by stakeholders as a concern in Year 1 of the evaluation – risks undermining the goodwill of local communities fostered through the schemes. The evaluation found evidence that stakeholders welcomed a strong and cohesive civic narrative on resettlement.

In summary, this 3-year evaluation has highlighted the significant progress made against the objectives of the UK’s Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes, and it provides clear evidence of areas to develop further to support refugee resettlement and integration. There was a strong sense from stakeholders that the schemes could meet immediate and longer-term needs of refugees, while balancing the needs of existing refugee and migrant communities and managing service pressures. This demonstrates that local authorities and community sponsor groups can resettle refugees sustainably.

In March 2021, the UK government announced that it had met its target of resettling 20,000 individuals through VPRS (Home Office, 2021b). From March 2021, a new UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), replacing VPRS, VCRS and the Gateway Protection Programme, has begun to resettle refugees. In addition, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy Scheme (ARAP) was launched in April 2021 to relocate or assist staff in Afghanistan who were locally employed by the UK government. In August 2021, the UK government further announced the launch of the Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme (ACRS). Both national and local governments should consider the learning from this evaluation as they develop future plans.

Appendix A. Policy background

The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes (VCRS) are 2 of the 4 UK resettlement schemes. The VPRS launched in January 2014 and expanded in September 2015 to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict by 2020. The VCRS scheme 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.

The VPRS and VCRS 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 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to identify those who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK. The resettlement schemes are not selective based on employability or integration potential. The approach is to take refugees directly from non-European countries where resettlement may be the only durable solution, often from the region near countries with conflicts, such as, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey (Home Office, 2016).

Under the VPRS, 20,319 refugees were resettled from 2015 to 2021, including 239 resettled before the scheme was upscaled, and who are not included in the 20,000 commitment. This includes 484 refugees resettled to community sponsorship groups. Under the VCRS, 1,838 refugees were resettled, including 38 refugees resettled to community sponsorship groups (Home Office, 2021a).

The Home Office managed the VPRS until September 2015, at which point it was expanded and delivered as a cross government programme comprising the Home Office, the Department for International Development (DFID), and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). In late 2018, having supported the UK government’s efforts to expand the VPRS and launch the VCRS, DFID (now FCDO)^{[footnote 10]} drew down its direct involvement in the administration of the UK’s resettlement schemes. Similarly, MHCLG drew down its direct involvement in 2020. Both departments continue to advise and support the development of UK resettlement policy and operations.

Participation in the VPRS/VCRS is voluntary for local authorities^{[footnote 11]}. They 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 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, the 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 provided fact sheets about the local area refugees will move to.

Local authorities who offer 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, 2018a). 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 local orientation and 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 area in place

Following the family’s first year in the UK, the amount of tariff funding reduces in each year and the required use of funding in years 2 to 5 is more flexible. Besides the tariff funding, funding for exceptional costs based on individual needs is also available for local authorities^{[footnote 12]}. Local authority resettlement teams were afforded flexibility in how to spend years 2 to 5 tariff funding to best support resettled refugees’ longer-term integration.

The Home Office centrally coordinates the community sponsorship. In June 2019, the Home Office awarded funding to a new charity, Reset, to provide support to groups across the UK looking to sponsor refugee families as part of the community sponsorship scheme (UKVI, 2018b). 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 sponsor 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 sponsor 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 under the statement of requirements (HM Government, 2018). They must also obtain consent from their local authority, demonstrate robust safeguarding processes, and complete training before to be approved by the Home Office to sponsor a family.

In June 2019, the UK government announced it would merge the VPRS, VCRS and Gateway protection programmes into a new global UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS). The new scheme launched following the completion of VPRS on 25 February 2021, which was affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The UKRS now runs alongside the Community Sponsorship Scheme and the Mandate Resettlement programme. In addition, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy Scheme (ARAP) was launched in April 2021 to relocate or assist staff in Afghanistan who were locally employed by the UK government. In August 2021, the UK government further announced the launch of the Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).

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 the use of resources.

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, 2019), an evidence-based tool for conceptualising and measuring integration across a range of different domains, which fed into development of the research materials^{[footnote 13]}. The outputs of the inception phase included a Theory of Change model for the VPRS and VCRS schemes (see Figure 1 in the Year 1 report).

During Year 1, the evaluation focused on an overview of the delivery models used by local authorities and community sponsorship groups to support resettled refugees through the VPRS/VCRS; and how support through the schemes met the immediate and essential needs of refugees, including key barriers and enablers encountered.

During Year 2, the evaluation focused on key changes in relation to supporting refugees across the case study areas; emerging barriers to support and integration and good practice to overcome barriers; and included consideration of how support provided through the schemes aimed to meet longer-term integration outcomes.

During Year 3, the evaluation focused on key changes in relation to supporting refugees across the case study areas; emerging barriers to support and integration and good practice to overcome barriers, with focus on support to meet and progress towards longer-term integration outcomes.

This final third report brings together progress towards intended integration outcomes for refugees across the 3 years of research.

B.2 Overview of fieldwork during Year 3 of the evaluation

The third year of fieldwork took place between April and October 2020, and included:

• stakeholder panels including central government, third sector and local government stakeholders
• qualitative case study research in 5 local authority areas across the UK (including in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and with 4 community sponsor groups

B.2.1 Stakeholder panel interviews

We interviewed 26 stakeholders. We reviewed the composition of the stakeholder panel following Year 2, and introduced additional representatives involved in refugee resettlement and integration for the third year of the research. These replaced stakeholders who had left or whose role and experience was less relevant to the areas of interest for Year 3. Panel members who had left their role were replaced with another representative of their organisation where possible.

We interviewed over half of stakeholder panel representatives in Year 1 of the research and 25 in Year 2.

• 7 interviews with central government staff (Home Office, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department for International Development (DFID) and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP))
• one interview with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)/ International Organization for Migration (IOM) representatives
• 11 interviews with key third-sector organisations involved in the schemes
• 7 interviews with Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) staff and local government representatives

B.2.2 Local authority case study research

We conducted case study fieldwork in the same 5 local authority areas as Years 1 and 2. We selected case study areas to include a range of approaches to service delivery, a mix of urban and rural areas, and covered all 4 nations within the UK (a more detailed rationale is provided in the Year 1 report. The fieldwork at Year 3 included:

• telephone interviews with 28 local authority staff, including local authority and delivery partner staff responsible for the oversight and delivery of the scheme
• telephone interviews with 18 caseworkers in case study areas
• telephone interviews with 5 local stakeholders who could speak to wider community views about refugees and refugees’ social integration in the area
• telephone interviews (with interpreter support) with 41 family groups, individuals or pairs of resettled refugees. Most refugee participants were also interviewed in Year 1 (57%) and also in Year 2 (70%). Table B1 outlines the refugee sample, including those undertaken in the community sponsorship case studies outlined below

B.2.3 Community sponsor cases study research

We conducted fieldwork with the same 2 community sponsor groups in Years 1 and 2, and 2 new groups in Year 3.

• 6 telephone interviews with key community sponsorship group members and 2 focus groups with wider community sponsor group members
• 5 interviews with refugees by telephone (with interpreter support): family interviews with 2 refugee families, 2 interviews with young adults and one interview with a child from one family

B.2.4 Year 3 refugee interviews: achieved sample

Table B1 provides a breakdown of the refugee sample achieved for each case study area by the length of time in the UK.

Table B1: Length of time of resettlement of participating refugees (individual/family encounters)^{[footnote 14]}

Area	Less than 1 year	1-2 years	2-3 Years	3+ Years	Not Known
1. England (urban/rural)	-	-	1	5	2
2. Northern Ireland (urban/rural)	-	-	5	-	-
3. England (urban)	-	-	6	-	-
4. Scotland (urban)	1	1	4	4	-
5. Wales (rural)	-	-	3	1	2
6. Community sponsor groups (2 rural, 1 urban, 1 urban/rural)	3	-	-	3	-
Total	4	1	19	13	4

B.2.5 Research materials

While we used slightly different techniques according to the audience and type of research encounter, all research materials covered the same key topics outlined in Table B1 above, reflecting the relevant areas of the process and impact frameworks as detailed below.

B.2.6 Analysis

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

We also considered data for each case study individually, again reviewing this against the impact and process evaluation frameworks. This allowed the evaluation to build up a detailed picture of how services were delivered in each of the case study areas, perceptions of how successful these were, and key reasons presented for success or otherwise.

References

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

Bankston, C. L. and Zhou, M. (2020) Involuntary migration, context of reception, and social mobility: The case of Vietnamese refugee resettlement in the United States [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Dagnelie, O., Mayda, A. M. and Maystadt, J.-F. (2019) “The labor market integration of refugees in the United States: Do entrepreneurs in the network help?” [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Fix, M., Hooper, K. and Zong, J. (2017) How Are Refugees Faring? Integration at U.S. and State Levels [Accessed 20 July 2021]

GAO (2012) Refugee Resettlement: Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Gilhooly, D. and Lee, E. (2017) “Rethinking Urban Refugee Resettlement: A Case Study of One Karen Community in Rural Georgia, USA [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Graham-Harrison, E., Giuffrida, A., Smith, H. and Ford, L. (2020) “Lockdowns around the world bring rise in domestic violence” [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Hassan, S. and Phillimore, J. (2020) “Community Sponsorship in the UK: Refugees to citizens” [Accessed 20 July 2021]

HM Government (2018) Community Sponsorship Guidance for prospective sponsor [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Home Office (2016) New scheme launched to resettle children at risk [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Home Office (2019) Home Office Indicators of Integration framework 2019 [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Home Office (2021a) How many people do we grant asylum or protection to? [Accessed 20 July 2021]

Home Office (2021b) Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes Factsheet, March 2021 [accessed 20/07/2021]

Hooper, K., Zong, J., Capps, R. and Fix, M. (2016) Young Children of Refugees in the United States: Integration Successes and Challenges [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Hynie, M., Korn, A. and Tao, D. (2016) Social context and social integration for Government Assisted Refugees in Ontario, Canada

Liverpool City Council (2019) Our Liverpool: Refugee, People Seeking Asylum and Vulnerable Migrant Strategy 2019-2022. [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Martzoukou, K. and Burnett, S. (2018) “Exploring the everyday life information needs and the socio-cultural adaptation barriers of Syrian refugees in Scotland” [Accessed 21 July 2021]

ONS (2020) Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales: November 2020 [Accessed 21 July]

Pachner, T. M., Schuman, D. L. and Parekh, R. M. (2020) “Older Congolese Refugees’ Resettlement Challenges in the US: A Bioecological Convoy Model” [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Perdrix, L., Soupios-David, H., Lefebvre, T., Camp, N., Harrison, C. and Tardis, M. (2015) Resettlement of Refugees in France: State of Affairs and Pathways for Improvement [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Phillimore, J., Reyes, M. and Hassan, S. (2020) Community Sponsorship in the UK: Formative evaluation [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Rodgers, G. and Porter, J. (2020) The Impact of Government-Sponsored Refugee Resettlement: A Meta Study of Findings from Six Countries [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Scottish Government (2018) New Scots: refugee integration strategy 2018 to 2022 [Accessed 21 July 2021]

Tip, L. K., Brown, R., Morrice, L., Collyer, M. and Easterbrook, M. J. (2020) “Believing is achieving: A longitudinal study of self-efficacy and positive affect in resettled refugees” [Accessed 21 July 2021]

UKVI (2018a) Funding Instruction for local authorities in the support of the United Kingdom’s Resettlement Programmes [Accessed 21 July 2021]

UKVI (2018b) “Home Office awards £1 million to help communities support refugees” [Accessed 21 July 2021]

UNHCR (2018) UNHCR Resettlement Handbook and Country Chapters [Accessed 21 July 2021]

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

2. New arrivals through the schemes stopped in March 2020 and restarted in December 2020. ↩

3. The Home Office also provide this information to all groups from the date that they are eligible to apply, although in this research the groups received information from local authorities / RESET. ↩

4. This included complex needs support elements being included in the Jobcentre work coach training, including information on the needs of refugees, how to access external support and signpost clients using the DWP District Provision Tools and Complex Needs plans available to all work coaches, which includes locally and nationally available information. ↩

5. During the first lockdown, the Home Office authorised childcare funding to be used to purchase IT equipment and pay for home broadband or mobile internet to ensure refugee learners could access online ESOL classes. ↩

6. As noted in Section 6.2, during the first lockdown, the Home Office authorised childcare funding to be used to purchase IT equipment and pay for home broadband or mobile internet to ensure refugee learners could access online classes. ↩

7. This was an initiative piloted in some local authorities where the coordinators supported refugees to access employment and training and built relationships with local employers to facilitate routes to employment. Employment support they provided included support with getting qualifications recognised, driving theory tests and job applications. ↩

8. Social bonds are relationships with those who you share a sense of identity, and social bridges are relationships with people from different backgrounds. These dimensions of social integration are described fully in the Home Office’s Indicators of Integration framework (Home Office, 2019). ↩

9. The key objectives are drawn from the Theory of Change for the schemes, created in partnership with the Home Office during the first year of the evaluation and included in Appendix A of the Year 1 report. ↩

10. In September 2020, DFID merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to become the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. ↩

11. 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. ↩

12. 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 ↩

13. Following the initial development of this project, the Home Office has published an updated version of the Indicators of Integration framework (Home Office, 2019), which was drawn upon in the research and analysis of Year 3 of this evaluation. ↩

14. Length of time in the UK was not recorded for a small number of additional interviews. ↩