Optimising Refugee Resettlement in the UK: Well-being, intra- and inter-group contact Sussex Centre...
-
Upload
roderick-reeves -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Optimising Refugee Resettlement in the UK: Well-being, intra- and inter-group contact Sussex Centre...
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.