Optimising Refugee Resettlement in the UK:
Well-being, intra- and inter-group contact
Dr Linda Morrice (Education)
Dr Linda K. Tip (Psychology)
Dr Michael Collyer (Geography)
Prof Rupert Brown (Psychology)
Sussex Centre for Migration Research
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.
Sheffield
Norwich
Manchester
Brighton and Hove
Aim of the project
 Investigate the integration of resettled refugees along
several different life domains, for example:
Employment
Housing
Education
Health
Well-being
Social relationships
Self-efficacy
Cultural 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
Questionnaires
Interviews
Longitudinal design - 3 stages:
Jan-May 2014
Dec 2014-Jan 2015
Nov-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 problems
 Not enough English classes: currently only twice 2hrs p/w
 Classes not tailored to prior level
 Lack of conversation practice
 Unemployment:
 Language barriers
 Qualifications/experience not valid here
 Trapped: being on benefits while wanting to get an education
 Discrimination:
 The vast majority have experienced racist harassment
 Often seems to be linked to specific geographical areas
Employment
 Levels of employment by location
80
70
60
50
40
Employed %
30
20
10
0
Brighton & Greater
Norwich
Hove Manchester
Sheffield
Refugee UK average
average
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)
Number of times mentioned
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Non-transferrable
skills
Losing benefits
Language barriers Qualifications not Responsibilities at
recognised
home
Well-being
 Well-being of refugees in comparison to UK and EU average
Satisfaction with life
(7 out of 10 or higher)
What I do is worthwhile
(7 out of 10 or higher)
Happiness
(7 out of 10 or higher)
Anxiousness
(3 or lower)
Refugees
44.3%
UK
EU average
77.0%
69.3%
51.9%
80.7%
78.5%
50.3%
71.6%
74.1%
40.7%
61.5%
NA
 Sources:
 UK: Annual Population Survey, Office for National Statistics (2013/14)
 EU: Third European Quality of Life Survey (2011)
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
.22**
Perceived
discrimination
.42***
Negative
feelings
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.