Optimising Refugee Resettlement in the UK:Well-being, intra- and inter-group contact

Sussex Centre for Migration Research

Dr Linda Morrice (Education)

Dr Linda K. Tip (Psychology)Dr Michael Collyer (Geography)Prof Rupert Brown (Psychology)

Outline of presentation

UK context and Gateway Protection Programme (GPP)

Aims of our project and methodology Key findings from first phase of data collection Well-being and effects of intra- and inter-group

contact on well-being

Resettled refugees in the UK

Not asylum seekers Selected for resettlement by potential host states in their

country of 1st asylum Arrive in groups of between 60 – 100 individuals/family groups Arrangements are made for their settlement and they receive

on-going support Social rights equivalent to citizens on arrival Sudden and dramatic transition (chosen on the basis of

vulnerability) Managed under the Gateway Protection Programme (GPP):

started in 2004 (500) to 750 in 2011.

Focus of the project

Integration of resettled refugees in:Brighton & Hove Greater Manchester and Sheffield Norwich

Those who have arrived in the UK in 2010 or earlier.

Brighton and Hove

NorwichSheffield

Manchester

Aim of the project

Investigate the integration of resettled refugees along several different life domains, for example:EmploymentHousingEducationHealthWell-beingSocial relationshipsSelf-efficacyCultural understanding/competence

Theory

The relationships formed by resettled refugees are of significance in promoting well-being (Collyer, 2010; Morrice, 2011).

Social Capital: Intra-group ‘bonding’ vs inter-group ‘bridging’ Ethnically diverse areas associated with lower inter-group trust and reduced

intra-group solidarity ‘turtling effect’ (Putnam, 2000)

Contact Theory Inter-group contact better inter-group relations well-being

Research questions

1. How do Greater Manchester, Norwich and Brighton and Hove compare in terms of perceived discrimination and well-being for resettled refugees?

2. Which types of contact predict well-being of resettled refugees, and what is the role of perceived discrimination in this relationship?

Methodology

Data types:Focus groups QuestionnairesInterviews

Longitudinal design - 3 stages:Jan-May 2014Dec 2014-Jan 2015Nov-Dec 2015

New members on the research team: 2 PhD students 11 research assistants who are former resettled refugees living in the UK

Research skills training Brain storming Information exchange

1st data collection (January – May 2014): 8 focus groups 280 questionnaires 31 interviews

1st data analysis

Participants

Satisfaction with life in the UK

Generally happy to be here

Particularly satisfied about: Safety (but…) Education (for both children and themselves) Healthcare

Generally very positive about the support they received upon arrival, although many indicate it stopped too early/too abruptly

Most people have developed a strong sense of belonging to their city and have no wish to live elsewhere.

Challenges to integration

Language: Language barriers linked to many other problemsNot enough English classes: currently only twice 2hrs p/wClasses not tailored to prior level Lack of conversation practice

Unemployment: Language barriersQualifications/experience not valid hereTrapped: being on benefits while wanting to get an education

Discrimination:The vast majority have experienced racist harassmentOften seems to be linked to specific geographical areas

Employment

Levels of employment by location

Brighto

n & Hove

Greater Manch

ester

Norwich

Sheffield

Refugee average

UK average

01020304050607080

Employed %

Effect of past employment/education

Literacy before arrival: Literate: 33.5% employed Illiterate: 9.3% employed

Education before arrival: University: 41.2% employed A-levels/college: 38.5% employed Secondary/GCSEs: 31.2% employed Elementary: 17.2% employed No education: 2.7% employed

Job back home: Yes: 35.8% employed No: 18.5% employed

Main difficulties in finding work (self-reported)

Non-tran

sferra

ble ski

lls

Losin

g ben

efits

Langu

age b

arrier

s

Qualifica

tions not r

ecogn

ised

Responsib

ilities

at home

05

10152025303540

Num

ber o

f tim

es m

entio

ned

Well-being

Well-being of refugees in comparison to UK and EU average

Sources: UK: Annual Population Survey, Office for National Statistics (2013/14) EU: Third European Quality of Life Survey (2011)

Refugees UK EU averageSatisfaction with life(7 out of 10 or higher)

44.3% 77.0% 69.3%

What I do is worthwhile(7 out of 10 or higher)

51.9% 80.7% 78.5%

Happiness(7 out of 10 or higher)

50.3% 71.6% 74.1%

Anxiousness(3 or lower)

40.7% 61.5% NA

Method Materials:

1. Well-being (PANAS; Thompson, 2007):Thinking about yourself and how you normally feel, to what extent do you generally feel:…alert; ...inspired; ...determined; ...attentive; ...active (positive affect: α = .81); …upset; …hostile; …ashamed; …nervous; …afraid (negative affect; α = .72).

2. Perceived discrimination:The next questions are about how you are treated by British people, based on how they see you. When they see me in that way... E.g., “I feel that British people treat me unfairly or negatively”; “I feel that I did not get a job because of the way they see me” (α = .77).

3. Positive/negative contact:When talking to people of the same cultural background/people in your home country/British people, how often is the experience:...positive; negative; helpful; unhelpful; friendly; unfriendly (α ranging .69 -.86).

Effects of contact on well-being

Contact, discrimination, and well-being

Contact, discrimination, and well-being

Negative contact with people of the same cultural background

Negative contact with people back home

Negative contact with British people

Perceived discrimination

Negative feelings

.16*

.22**

.23***

.42***

.30***

Conclusions

Importance of relationships (contact) for well-being: Not just negative contact with majority UK population which influences perceived

discrimination and therefore more negative well-being Also negative contact with others from same cultural/ethnic background in UK,

including those family/friends in refugees’ country of origin

Suggests that more positive contact with those from same cultural/ethnic background in UK and overseas has potential to reduce discrimination and improve well-being.

Cannot assume that same ethnic/cultural group will have positive intragroup relations (supported by our qualitative data)

Suggests mixed neighbourhoods with positive intragroup (including those ‘back home’) and positive intergroup contact would lead to best well being.

Both bonding and bridging capital are important.

Policy implications

Support for international contact for resettled refugees

Greater emphasis on support for community activities, community building and conflict resolution in resettled refugee communities

? ...perhaps better to resettle refugees in same city where opportunities for bonding and support , but not necessarily in same small neighbourhood thereby encouraging bridging/relations with majority.