Abused No More? Challenges Faced by Refugee and Asylum-seeking Women
Asylum and refugee support: civil society filling the gaps? · society filling the gaps? What is...
Transcript of Asylum and refugee support: civil society filling the gaps? · society filling the gaps? What is...
ASYLUM.WELFARE .WORK
Asylumandrefugeesupport:civilsocietyfillingthegaps?
October2017
Dr.LucyMayblin&PoppyJames
UniversityofWarwick,Coventry,CV47AL,UK
Asylumwelfarework.com
2
Asylumandrefugeesupport:civilsocietyfillingthegaps?
What is the scale of the refugee third sectorresponse to gaps in the support regime for asylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees?
This report estimates the financial cost to therefugee third sector of poverty and destitutionamongthesegroups.It looksatwhererefugeethirdsectororganisationsare,howmanypeopletheyaresupporting, which groups they are supporting, howtheyarefunded,andsupportthatishardtocost.
3
TableofContents
Listoffigures..............................................................................................................................4
Listoftables...............................................................................................................................4
Listofabbreviations................................................................................................................5
Executivesummary..................................................................................................................6
1Settingthescene.................................................................................................................171.1Introduction................................................................................................................................171.1.1TheAsylum.Welfare.Workproject..............................................................................................171.1.2Thisreport.............................................................................................................................................18
1.2Asylumsupport:thepolicycontext....................................................................................211.3Howmanypeoplereceiveasylumsupport&whatisthecostthegovernment?241.4Theclientgroup:whatisknownabouttheirneeds?....................................................281.4.1Destitution.............................................................................................................................................31
1.5Therefugeethirdsectorresponse:scaleandscope.....................................................331.6Researchmethods.....................................................................................................................37
2Thirdsectororganisationsfillingthegap:scale.....................................................432.1HowmanyTSOssupportasylumseekersandrefugees?.............................................432.2Whereareorganisationslocated?.......................................................................................472.3Howmanypeoplearerelyingoncharitablesupport?.................................................492.4Supportthatishardtocost....................................................................................................542.5Thecostofthisthirdsectorresponse................................................................................572.5.1Sectorwidefunding...........................................................................................................................572.5.2Sizeoforganisations..........................................................................................................................572.5.3Incomesources....................................................................................................................................59
3Conclusion............................................................................................................................62
4PolicyRecommendations................................................................................................66AsylumseekersinreceiptofSection95support..................................................................66RefusedasylumseekersinreceiptofSection4support....................................................66Thosegrantedleavetoremain(refugees)..............................................................................67Refusedasylumseekerswhoarenotknowntohavedeparted.......................................67
NotesandReferences...........................................................................................................69
4
ListoffiguresFigure1.AsylumseekerssupportedunderSection95...........................................................................26
Figure2.NumberofRTSOsinvolvedwithdestituteforcedmigrants1990-2017..................44
Figure3.RTSOsthathaveceasedoperating1990-2017.....................................................................44
Figure4.CumulativerefusedandtotalRTSOs...........................................................................................46
Figure5.NumberofRTSOswithlocal,nationalandinternationaloperations............................47
Figure6.BritishRedCrossbeneficiariesbyimmigrationsstatus2015..........................................51
Figure7.BritishRedCrossbeneficiariesbystatutorysupporttype................................................52
Figure8.BritishRedCrossdestitutebeneficiariesbyreasonfordestitution..............................53
Figure9HoursworkedbyvolunteersandstaffindifferentsizeNACCOMmemberorganisations...................................................................................................................................................56
Figure10.PercentageofRTSOsregisteredwiththeCharityCommissionineachincomeband.....................................................................................................................................................................58
Figure11.TypeofhousingprovidedbyNACCOMmembers...............................................................61
ListoftablesTable1.Asylumsupportcosts...........................................................................................................................25
Table2.Increasingasylumsupport.................................................................................................................27
Table3.PlaceswithhighestnumberofRTSOs...........................................................................................48
Table4.RTSOsindifferentareas......................................................................................................................49
Table5BritishRedCrossWelfareInterventions2015..........................................................................57
5
Listofabbreviations
ASSIST AsylumSeekerSupportInitiative
JRF JosephRowntreeFoundation
NACCOM NoAccommodationNetwork
NAO NationalAuditOffice
NCVO NationalCouncilforVoluntaryOrganisations
NINO NationalInsuranceNumber
RCO RefugeeCommunityOrganisation
RTSO RefugeeThirdSectorOrganisation
TSO ThirdSectorOrganisation
6
Executivesummary1Settingthescene
1.1Introduction
Thisreportlooksatthescaleoftherefugeethirdsectorresponsetofailuresinthe
asylum support system. Asylum support policies have been subject to extensive
criticism from third sector organisations, who oftenwork at the grass roots with
various categories of people who have been, or are going through, the asylum
system.This isbecausepovertyanddestitutionamongst theirclientscreatesextra
demand for their services. However, successive UK governments since 2002 have
argued that restrictionsonbothwelfare andworkarenecessary to avoid ‘pulling’
disingenuousasylumapplicants(economicmigrants)tothecountry.
1.1.1TheAsylum.Welfare.Workproject
Thepolicieswhichrelatetotheeconomicrightsofasylumseekers(boththoseinthe
systemandthosewhohavebeenrefusedorgrantedrefugeestatus)arethefocusof
a three year research project currently being undertaken at the University of
Warwick. This research involves three workpackages, this report is part of the
second:
Workpackage1:Analysisofpolicyrationaleandpolicymakingprocesses
Workpackage2:Costingthepolicy-costtogovernmentandcoststothethirdsector
Workpackage3:Impactsofasylumsupportpolicyonasylumseekers
1.1.2Thisreport
In this reportwe look at the impact on the third sector of the policy regime. The
systemof economic supportwhich is in place for those going through the asylum
systemshould,intheory,meanthatRefugeeThirdSectorOrganisations(RTSOs)are
onlysupportingrefusedasylumseekerswhoaredestitute.Othergroupswouldnot
beexpectedtobeaccessingfoodbankvouchers,receivingfoodparcels,secondhand
clothes,buspassesorhardship funds.Much isknownabout thescopeof the third
7
sector response (such as the types of services being provided), but very little is
knownaboutthescale.Thisreportthereforeseekstoanswerthreequestions:
1. What is the scale of the refugee third sector response to this asylum supportpolicy regime (i.e. financially, geographically, and in terms of the numbers of
thirdsectororganisationsinvolved?)
2. Howhasthescaleandscopeoftherefugeethirdsectorresponsechangedovertime,andhowdoesthischangerelatetothechangingpolicycontext?
3. Whatcanthescaleoftherefugeethirdsectorresponsetellusabouttheextenttowhichpolicies relating toasylumandrefugeesupportareworkingas intended
(i.e.adequatelysupportingallwhoareinneed,excludingthosewhonowhaveno
recoursetopublicfunds)?1.2Asylumsupport:thepolicycontext
OverthepasttwodecadessuccessiveUKgovernmentshavesoughttodecreasethe
numbers of asylum seekers who are able to travel to the country, make an
applicationforasylum,andwhoseapplicationsaresuccessful.Whilehishasinpart
involvedborder controls, since theearly2000s it has also involved restricting the
welfare and working rights of asylum seekers in order to reduce economic ‘pull
factors’ which are thought to attract disingenuous applicants. Researchers have
describedthedifferenteconomicrightsaffordedtodifferentgroupsonthebasisof
immigrationstatusasa ‘stratifiedrightsregime’.Forthosewhoaregoingthrough,
orhavebeenthrough,theasylumsystem,thisstratifiedrightsregimeisorganisedas
follows:
Refugees and those with Indefinite Leave to Remain, Temporary Leave to
RemainorHumanitarianProtection:havefullaccesstothemainstreambenefits
systemandthelabourmarketuntiltheirstatusisreviewed(usuallyafter5years).
Asylum seekers: if demonstrably destitute, receive £36.96 per week in financial
support (known as ‘Section 95’ support) plus accommodation provided on a no
choicebasisinvariousurbanareasaroundtheUK.
8
Refused Asylum seekers: If they are unable to return, have a judicial review
pending,and/oriftheyarecomplyingwithprocessesaimedatreturningtheminthe
future, may apply to receive £35.39 per week in non-cash financial support plus
accommodation provided on a no choice basis in various cities around the UK
(knownas‘Section4’support).Ifnoneofthesecriteriacanbemet,orifindividuals
cannotmeetthethresholdofproofrequired,theyreceivenosupportfromthestate.
1.3Howmanypeoplereceiveasylumsupport&whatisthecostthegovernment?
The UK spends about £146 billion on means-tested benefits to help the poorest
membersofUKsociety.AsylumsupportcosttheHomeOffice£234millionin2014-
15.At31March2015,around4,900personsweresupportedunder‘Section4’ofthe
ImmigrationandAsylumAct1999:in2014-15,suchsupportcostanestimated£28
million.Recently releasedHomeOffice figures indicate that thenumberof asylum
seekersandtheirdependentsreceivingSection95Supportincreasedby17percent
betweenMarch2015andMarch2016,with35,683peoplenowsupported.Although
thisnumberhasrisensince2012,thefigureremainsconsiderablybelowthatforthe
endof2003(thestartofthepublisheddataseries),whentherewere80,123asylum
seekersinreceiptofSection95support.
If asylumseekerswereentitled to the full levelof incomesupport, the costwould
increaseby£72.4million,whichwouldadd0.05%tothetotalwelfarebill.Bringing
asylum support up to approximately 70% of Job Seekers Allowance would add
0.02%ontothetotalwelfarebill.Suchamove–increasingasylumsupport-would
only be necessary if the current levels of asylum support paid were deemed
inadequate.
1.4Theclientgroup:whatisknownabouttheirneeds?
Researchhas foundboth thatasylumseekerscanbecomedestituteatall stages in
theirasylumjourney,includingwhileintheasylumsystem,andafterbeinggranted
leave to remain, and that thosewhoare in receiptof asylumsupport are living in
poverty and have needs which exceed state provision. Researchers have found
povertytobepresentamongsomeofthemostvulnerablepartsoftheasylumseeker
9
population. This is a finding which is supported by a wide range of different
stakeholders. The 2013 Parliamentary Inquiry into destitution among asylum
seekingfamiliesfoundthatasylumsupportrateswereatthatpointjust20%ofthe
JosephRowntreeFoundation’s (JRF)Minimum IncomeStandard. It concluded that
‘the current levels of support provided to families are too low tomeet children’s
essentiallivingneeds’.Expertwitnessessuggestedthatlowlevelsofasylumsupport
were contributing to malnutrition, high infant and maternal mortality rates,
disruptededucation for children,mentalhealthproblems,healthproblems related
to living in dirty damp conditions and having inadequate clothing, risk of
exploitation, and domestic violence. In short, the impacts identified were all
symptoms of living in poverty compounded by forced dispersal and histories of
persecution. In legal terms,and for third sectororganisations seeking to challenge
governmentpolicy,theconceptof‘destitution’iscentraltothisdebate.
1.4.1Destitution
Theword ‘destitution’ isusedmorecommonlythan ‘poverty’withinthecontextof
asylumpolicy, advocacy and research but different definitions of destitution exist.
The legal definitionof destitutionderives fromSection95of the Immigration and
Asylum Act 1999 and was devised for the purposes of determining eligibility for
HomeOfficeaccommodationandfinancialsupportforasylumseekers.Legally,then:
“Apersonisdestituteif—
(a)s/hedoesnothaveadequateaccommodationoranymeansofobtainingit
(whetherornothis/herotheressentiallivingneedsaremet);or
(b)s/hehasadequateaccommodationorthemeansofobtainingit,but
cannotmeethisotheressentiallivingneeds.”
Othershavetakenamoreexpansiveapproach.WithintheJRF’sdefinitionallasylum
seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees who are dependent on charitable
support are destitute. A key issue is the fact that for those in the asylum system
destitutionisnotapermanentstate–there isclearevidencethatdestitutionoften
arisesbecauseoferrorsanddelayscausedbygovernmentserviceproviders.
10
1.5Therefugeethirdsectorresponse:scaleandscope
Lookingattheresponseofthethirdsectortotheplightoftheirclientgroupsisan
alternative, complementary, method for investigating whether asylum policy
relating to the economic rights of asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugees, is working. There is a growing body of knowledge about the scope of
activities undertaken by refugee third sector organisations. Organisations are
providing housing, legal advice,welfare advice, food and clothes banks, and small
subsistencepayments.Themajorchangesreportedoverthepast15yearsareinthe
areasofclientdemand(increasing)andavailablefunding(decreasing).
The extent of this civil society response does indicate that there is a significant
demandforsupportfromasylumseekers,refugees,andrefusedasylumseekers,and
thatthestate isproviding inadequatesupport.Nevertheless,whilewehaveagood
ideaoftherangeofactivitiesundertakenbyRTSOs,aswellasthechallengesfaced
bythem,whatisnotknownisthequantitativescaleofthethirdsectorresponse.
1.6Researchmethods
Exploringthescaleofthethirdsectorresponsetorefugeeandasylumseekerneeds
presents a significant methodological challenge. In response, we have designed a
researchapproachwhichbringstogetherfourdatasets.
1. Data from the Charity Commission, which is the most comprehensive dataset(covering England and Wales) on registered charities and their activities
available.Weusethistoidentifyallregisteredorganisationswhosupportasylum
seekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees,totrackgrowthinthesectorover
time,andmapthegeographyofRTSOs.
2. A survey of member organisations of NACCOM –the No AccommodationNetwork-whichisanationalnetworkofUKbasedorganisationswhichsupport
destitutemigrants,includingasylumseekersandrefugeeswhowouldotherwise
be street homeless.We use this data tolook at spend on accommodation by
RTSOs,andhowaccommodationbasedRTSOsarefunded.
11
3. Data from the British Red Cross, the largest NGO working in this field, withoperations in every major dispersal city.We use this data to explore the
proportionof asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees that are in
needofsupport,thegeographyofdestitutionintheUK,andthetypeofsupport
thatasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugeesneed.
4. Wehaveundertakentwocasestudieswithsmall localorganisationsinEnglandwho support asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees: ASSIST in
Sheffield,andAsylumWelcomeinOxford.Weusethesecasestudiestoexplore
theextentofvolunteerinvolvementinsupportingsuchindividuals,someofthe
broader challenges faced by grass roots organisations ‘on the ground’, and the
extenttowhichthechangingpolicycontextimpactsupontheirwork.
Together,thesedifferenttypesofdataprovideamorecomprehensivepictureofthe
responseof thirdsectororganisations topolices relating to theeconomic rightsof
asylumseekersandrefugeesthanpreviouslyavailable.
2Thirdsectororganisationsfillingthegap:scale
2.1HowmanyTSOssupportasylumseekersandrefugees?
We have identified a total of 142 RTSOs that included alleviating poverty and
destitution in England and Wales in their activities description (from prescribed
options) for the Charity Commission. The total number of charities has increased
over time, from just seven in 1990 to 142whenwe undertook our research. The
increasingnumberofRTSOsdoesappeartoindicatethatthereisincreasingdemand
forvoluntarysectorservices.
2.2Whereareorganisationslocated?
ThegeographyofRTSOsresemblesthegeographyofthewidervoluntarysector,but
themainpredictorofthepresenceofRTSOsisnotpopulationsizeorbroaderthird
sector trends, it isdispersalpatterns.Thegeographyof the refugee third sector is
thusdirectlyrelatedtotheimplementationofasylumpolicyatthenationallevel.
12
2.3Howmanypeoplearerelyingoncharitablesupport?
The British Red Cross is the largest NGOworking in this field with operations in
everymajordispersalcity.Theyprovidedestitutebeneficiarieswithfoodvouchers,
food parcels, second hand clothes, bus passes and hardship funds. Nationally, the
British Red Cross supported 9,138 asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugees,and4,130dependents in2015.Thenumberofasylumseekerssupported
by the British Red Cross nationally in 2015 is roughly equal to 25% of those in
receiptofasylumsupportthatyear.
The local response by smaller organisations is also significant. In 2015/16 there
were 2,000 visits to ASSIST’s Help Desk; 102 clients were provided with small
weekly welfare payments; 62 clients were provided with medium term
accommodation;and49clientswereprovidedwithemergencyaccommodation. In
2015/16, there were 2,976 visits to Asylum Welcome’s main office; 2,321 food
parcels were handed out; in total 1,029 clients received help; including 88
unaccompaniedyoungasylumseekersandrefugees.
TheBritishRedCrossdatashowstheproportionofasylumseekers,refusedasylum
seekers and refugeeswho are supported. Themajority (53%) of people receiving
support from theBritishRedCross in2015were asylumseekers; 25%havebeen
grantedsomeformofprotection;andjust10%arerefusedasylumseekerswithno
further representations to make. The majority (61%) of British Red Cross
beneficiarieswerealsoinreceiptofstatutorysupport:just30%wereinreceiptofno
statutorysupport.Thedatashowsthatdestitutionoftenarisesbecauseoferrorsand
delayscausedbygovernmentserviceproviders.This includesasignificantnumber
ofpeoplewhoaremadedestitutewhengrantedrefugeestatus(26%),orasaresult
ofissueswithNASSsupport(16%ofrespondents).
In2016,thenumberofpeopleaccommodatedbyNACCOMmembersovertheyear
came to1,707, an increaseof29%since2015.Of these,808were refusedasylum
seekersand499wererefugees.Memberprojectswereaccommodating789people
13
per night at the time of the survey, an increase of 34% in the last year. Over 12
months,NACCOMestimatemembersprovided209,250nightsofaccommodation.
2.4Supportthatishardtocost
ThereareanumberoftypesofsupportprovidedbyRTSOswhich(financially)cost
little or nothing. While volunteer time is one key factor which is difficult to
financiallyquantify,servicessuch foodparcels,clothesbanks,advocacyandadvice
contribute to thesupportpackageoffered toclients,whichmaybecomenecessary
because of gaps in statutory provision. In 2015/16 AsylumWelcome handed out
2,321 bags of food to asylum seekers and refugees, valued at £30,869. After cash,
foodparcels,clothingvouchersandhygienepackswerethemostcommontypesof
support the British Red Cross gave out in 2015. In total, the British Red Cross
provided1,535foodparcels,1,370vouchersforRedCrossclothingshops,and1,022
hygienepacks.
The volunteer contribution to the refugee third sector cannot be overstated. For
example,weestimatetheretobemorethan218volunteersacrossASSISTteamsin
Sheffield,spendingonaverageatotalof463hoursaweekvolunteering–thisisthe
equivalent of 13 full time roles at minimum wage levels. In a given week 45
volunteers spent a combined total of 189 hours volunteering across Asylum
Welcome’s destitution services -this is the equivalent of 5 full time roles. The
NACCOMsurveyshowsthatsmallerorganisationsrelymoreonvolunteerstodeliver
services.
2.5Thecostofthisthirdsectorresponse
2.5.1Sectorwidefunding
ThetotalincomeofoursampleofRTSOsin2015/16was£33.4million.Inthesame
year,expenditurestoodat£31.8million,95%oftotalincome.Theincomereported
here is for a range of services, not solely those that try to alleviate destitution,
thoughtheBritishRedCrossportionofthisincome/expenditureisspecificallyon
destitution.
14
2.5.2Sizeoforganisations
The sector is dominated by a high number of small and medium sized charities.
Organisationswithanannualincomeofover£1millionmakeuponly3%ofthetotal
numberofRTSOs registeredwith theCharityCommission, yet account for70%of
thesector’stotalincome.Thisresemblesthewidercharitysector.
2.5.3Incomesources
Twenty-fourmembersoftheNACCOMnetworkanswereddetailedsurveyquestions
abouttheproportionoftheirincomereceivedfromdifferentsources.Twentyoutof
24NACCOMmembersreceived individualdonations in2015/16andorganisations
receivedanaverageof50%of their incomefromcharitable trustsorothergrants,
making grants the largest source of income for the organisations sampled. Much
fewerreceivedanyformofincomefromstatutorysources.Governmentfundinghas
a huge impact on the incomeof largerRTSOs: of the eightRTSOswith an income
over£500,000thatareregisteredwiththeCharityCommission,threeareoperating
withasignificantlyreducedincomecomparedtofiveyearsago,asadirectresultofa
reduction in statutory funding. Over £11million of government funding contracts
haveleftthesectorinrecentyears.Governmentfundingisthereforeprecariousand
subjecttowidertrendsinstatespending.
3Conclusion
Thestratifiedregimeofrightsaffordedtodifferentgroupswhoaregoingthroughor
havebeenthroughtheasylumsystem,resultsindifferentvulnerabilitiestopoverty
anddestitutionaspeoplemovethroughtheprocess.Theupshotof thispatchwork
picture of poverty anddestitution is that the third sector are playing a significant
roleinsupportingthosewhohavebeenfailedbythestate.
It is hard to be certain aboutwhether the demandwhich these organisations are
respondingtoismainlybeingcreatedbytherefusedasylumseekerpopulation,who
arenotsupportedbythestate,orwhetheritisalsobeingcreatedbydemandfrom
asylumseekersandrefugees,bothofwhomshouldhavesufficientaccesstosupport.
Nevertheless,thenumberofasylumseekersbeingsupportedismuchhigherthanwe
15
mightexpectif levelsofasylumsupportwereadequateformeetingessentialliving
needs.Thetwomaingroupswhoarebeingsupportedbythethirdsectorareasylum
seekerswhoare,orshouldbe,receivingSection95support,andrefugeeswhohave
receivedapositivedecision.
We identifieda totalof142UKbasedRTSOs thatworkonalleviatingpovertyand
destitutioninEnglandandWales,andthesectorisgrowingyearonyear.Therateof
increasewithinthesectormayindicatethatthecharitablesectorisrespondingtoa
significant social problem. In relation to policy, the increase in the number of
organisations correlates notwith the numbers of asylum applications received by
the UK government, but with an ever more restrictive approach to the economic
rightsandentitlementsofforcedmigrantsintheUK.
Inlightoftheincreasingnumberoforganisationsforming,thepressuresonfunding,
and the precariousness of available funding sources, it seems likely that current
ratesofexpansionwithinthesectorarenotsustainableunlesspublicdonationscan
keeppacewithcharitableneed.Thisinitselfisunlikely,particularlysincedispersal
areas,where there is greater demand for charitable support for these groups, are
oftenlocatedinareasofhigherdeprivation.Whatisneeded,wesuggestareaseries
ofpolicychanges,whichwedetailbelow.
4PolicyRecommendations
AsylumseekersinreceiptofSection95support
1. Grantasylumseekerstherighttoworkoncetheyhavebeenwaiting6months2. Increase levelsofSection95support toat least70%of JobSeekersAllowance,
andincreaseannuallyinlinewithinflation.
3. AddressadministrativedelaysandmistakesrelatingtoSection95support.
RefusedasylumseekersinreceiptofSection4support
1. IncreaselevelsofSection4support(soontobechangedtoSection95Asupport)inlinewithSection95levels.
16
2. Address administrative delays and mistakes which leave refused asylumapplicantswhoareentitledtoSection4supportdestitute
3. MakeSection4acash-based,ratherthanvoucher-basedsystem.4. Remove the 21 day deadline for applying for Section 95A support when
introducedtoreplaceSection4support.
5. AllowappealsonSection95AapplicationdecisionswhenintroducedtoreplaceSection4support.
Thosegrantedleavetoremain(refugees)
1. Introduce a national refugee integration strategywhich starts fromDay 1 thatleavetoremainisgranted.
2. Extendthe28day‘movingon’period.3. Acknowledgethelinktoasylumpolicy.
Refusedasylumseekerswhoarenotknowntohavedeparted
1. Introduce a humane, realistic, and evidence informed strategy for supportingsuchindividuals,whichlooksbeyonddetentionandremoval.
2. Increaseaccesstolegaladvice,andlegalaid,forrefusedasylumseekers.3. Section 95 support should not end 21 days after a negative decision is
administered.
4. Keep pregnant women and families with children on Section 95 support,regardlessoftheirstatus.
5. Open up access to Section 95 support for refused asylum seekerswho cannotreturnhomeduetoalackofdocumentationand/or…
6. Grantdiscretionary leave toremain topeoplewhocannotbereturned throughnofaultoftheirown,afteraperiodof12months
7. Introduceanenhancedpackageoffundingforthirdsectororganisations8. Conduct a review of procedures within the asylum system which can lead to
wrongfuldecisions
17
1Settingthescene
1.1Introduction
Thisreportlooksatthescaleoftherefugeethirdsectorresponsetofailuresinthe
asylum support system. The vast majority of asylum seekers in the UK are not
permitted to enter the labourmarket. In the absence of the right towork asylum
seekers receive welfare support from the Home Office which is delivered
independently of the income support system for unemployed citizens (and,
currently, EUmigrants). The level of financial support is low –around 50%of Job
SeekersAllowance.Whenanindividualreceivesapositivedecisionontheirasylum
applicationtheyaregiven28daysto leavetheirasylumaccommodationandenter
themainstreamwelfareandemploymentsystem.This‘moveon’periodisformany
peoplenotlongenoughtosecureanationalinsurancenumber(NINO)andenterthe
mainstream system, and many people find themselves destitute1. Those who are
refused asylum, and who have exhausted their appeal rights, are left with no
recoursetopublicfunds.
These policies have been subject to extensive criticism from third sector
organisations2.This is, inpart,becausetheseorganisationsoftenworkatthegrass
rootswith various categories of peoplewho have been, or are going through, the
asylum system, and poverty and destitution amongst their clients creates extra
demand for their services. However, successive UK governments since 2002 have
argued that restrictionsonbothwelfare andworkarenecessary to avoid ‘pulling’
disingenuousasylumapplicants(economicmigrants)tothecountry3.
1.1.1TheAsylum.Welfare.Workproject
Thepolicieswhichrelatetotheeconomicrightsofasylumseekers(boththoseinthe
systemandthosewhohavebeenrefusedorgrantedrefugeestatus)arethefocusof
a three year research project currently being undertaken at the University of
Warwick. This research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council,
involvesthreeworkpackages,thisreportispartofthesecond:
18
Workpackage1:Analysisofpolicyrationaleandpolicymakingprocesses
Workpackage 2: Costing the policy -cost to government and costs to the
thirdsector
Workpackage3:Impactsofasylumsupportpolicyonasylumseekers
Inworkpackage1weidentifiedthattheideaofthe‘pullfactor’hasbeentheprimary
justification for limiting the economic rights of asylumapplicants since20024.We
were,however,unabletoidentifyanyresearchevidencewhichsupportsthisclaim.
Ofthe23peerreviewedstudiesonpullfactorsundertakeninthepast20years,none
havefoundalongtermcorrelationbetweenwelfareorworkpolicies,andnumbers
ofasylumapplicationsreceivedinagivencountry5.ResearchinterviewswithHome
Officeofficials,formerHomeSecretaries,ImmigrationMinistersandspecialadvisors
alsofailedtounearthsuchevidence.
Aspartofworkackage2ourworkingpaper,publishedinNovember2016,estimated
thecost to thepublicpurseofvariouspolicychangescenarios, including ifasylum
supportwasbrought in linewith JobSeekersAllowanceandasylumseekerswere
permittedtowork.Thisscenario,wesuggested,couldleadtomodestsavings(of£10
millionannually)fortheTreasury.Intheforthcomingthirdworkpackagewewillbe
interviewing asylum seekers to find out about the impacts of thepolicies on their
lives.
1.1.2Thisreport
In this report we turn to the impact on the third sector of the policy regime.
Following theNationalAuditOffice (NAO) ‘third sector organisations’ (TSOs)here
refersto:
…therangeof [not-for-profit]organisations thatareneitherpublic sectornor
private sector. It includes voluntary and community organisations (both
registered charities and other organisations such as associations, self-help
groupsandcommunitygroups),socialenterprises,mutualsandco-operatives6.
19
In this report the category ‘refugee third sector organisations’ (RTSOs) covers all
organisations,ofanysizewhospecificallyfocustheircharitableworkonsupporting
thosewhohavebeen,oraregoing through, theasylumsystem.We investigate the
costsbornebyRTSOsacross theUK insupportingasylumseekers, refusedasylum
seekersandrefugees.Thesystemofeconomicsupportshould,intheory,meanthat
RTSOs are only supporting refused asylum seekers who are absolutely destitute.
Othergroupswouldnotbeexpectedtobeaccessingfoodbankvouchers,receiving
food parcels, second hand clothes, bus passes or hardship funds. We would not
expect to see the numbers of grass roots organisations necessarily growing, nor
largeorganisationsspendingmoreyearonyearonsupportingnewclients.Even if
the numbers of new organisations, and funds required just to support destitute
refusedasylumseekerswereincreasingyearonyear,thisinitselfwouldpointtoa
policyfailure,theworstimpactsonsocietyofwhichwouldbebeingamelioratedby
suchorganisations.
Much is known about the scope of the third sector response to the conditions
createdbythispolicyregime(suchasthetypesofservicesbeingprovided),butvery
little is known about the scale. There has been in recent years a selective, but
nevertheless growing, literature on the extent of destitution amongst asylum
seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees, but there is little that looks to the
responding organisations as an alternative window on the problem. This report
thereforeseekstoanswerthreequestions:
1. Whatisthescaleoftherefugeethirdsectorresponsetothisasylumsupportpolicyregime(i.e.financially,geographically,andintermsofthenumbersof
thirdsectororganisationsinvolved?)
2. How has the scale and scope of the refugee third sector response changedovertime,andhowdoesthischangerelatetothechangingpolicycontext?
3. What can the scale of the refugee third sector response tell us about theextenttowhichpoliciesrelatingtoasylumandrefugeesupportareworking
as intended(i.e.adequatelysupportingallwhoare inneed,excluding those
whonowhavenorecoursetopublicfunds)?
20
Answering these questions presents a significantmethodological challenge. There
arenocomprehensivesecondarydatasetstodrawupon,andmanyofthegrassroots
organisationsthatwouldbeincludedwithinthisstudyaresmallscale,possiblyeven
operating ‘below the radar’7of standard monitoring methods. In response to this
methodological challenge we have designed a research approach which brings
togetherdifferentdatasourcesinordertobuildapictureofwhatishappening.This
is not a comprehensive, or definitive, picture, but it does provide a better
understandingof the scaleof the thirdsector response to the refugeechallenge in
theUK thanofferedpreviously.The researchdesign isdescribed inmoredetail in
section1.6buttosummarisehere,wehavebroughttogetherfourdatasets:
1. DatafromtheCharityCommission,whichisthemostcomprehensivedataset(covering England and Wales) on registered charities and their activities
available.We use this toidentify all registered organisations who support
asylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees,totrackgrowthinthe
sectorovertime,andmapthegeographyofrefugeethirdsectororganisations
(RTSOs).
2. A survey of member organisations of NACCOM –the No AccommodationNetwork- which is a national network of UK based organisations which
support destitute migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees who
would otherwise be street homeless.We use this data tolook spend on
accommodationbyRTSOs,andhowaccommodationbasedRTSOsarefunded.
3. Data fromtheBritishRedCross, the largestNGOworking in this field,withoperations in every major dispersal city.We use this data to explore the
proportionofasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugeesthatare
in need of support, the geography of destitution in theUK, and the type of
supportthatasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugeesneed.
4. We have undertaken two case studies with small local organisations inEnglandwhosupportasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees:
ASSIST in Sheffield, and Asylum Welcome in Oxford. We use these case
studies to explore the extent of volunteer involvement in supporting such
21
individuals,someofthebroaderchallengesfacedbygrassrootsorganisations
‘ontheground’,andtheextenttowhichthechangingpolicycontextimpacts
upontheirwork.
Together,thesedifferenttypesofdataprovideamorecomprehensivepictureofthe
responseof thirdsectororganisations topolices relating to theeconomic rightsof
asylumseekersandrefugeesthanpreviouslyavailable.
1.2Asylumsupport:thepolicycontext
OverthepasttwodecadessuccessiveUKgovernmentshavesoughttodecreasethe
numbers of asylum seekers who are able to travel to the country, make an
applicationforasylum,andwhoseapplicationsaresuccessful8.Whilehishasinpart
involvedborder controls, since theearly2000s it has also involved restricting the
welfare and working rights of asylum seekers in order to reduce economic ‘pull
factors’whicharethoughttoattractdisingenuousapplicants.Aseriesof legislative
actshavethusbeenpassedwhichhaveremovedlabourmarketaccess,havemoved
asylumseekersoutofthemainstreambenefitssystem,andhavesteadilydecreased
thelevelsoffinancialsupportpaidtothem.
The Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) removed the responsibility for meeting
asylumseekers’basicfinancialandhousingneedsfromlocalauthoritiesandplaced
it with the newly created National Asylum Support Service (NASS), thus taking
asylum seekers out of the mainstream benefits system. From this point onwards
asylum seekers had two support options: financial assistance only (where they
sourcetheirownaccommodation),or financialassistanceplushousing. Inorderto
accesssupportindividualsmustbeabletodemonstratethattheyaredestitute,and
accommodation isofferedona ‘no choice’basisaround theUK.Earlyon, financial
support was delivered through a cashless voucher system. However, following
extensive criticism of this system, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
(2002)phasedoutthevouchersystemandreplaceditwithentitlementcards,with
22
which asylum seekers can collect their support at post offices (or latterly cash
points).
Section55of the2002Actstatedthat individualsmustapply forasylumstatus ‘as
soonasisreasonablypracticable’(within72hoursofenteringtheUK), inorderto
be eligible for asylum support. Section55washighly controversial, pushingmany
asylumseekersintopovertyanddestitution,andwassuccessfullychallengedinthe
HighCourtbyrefugeeandhomelessnessorganisations.In2004theHouseofLords
held that forcing an asylum seeker into destitutionwas a breach of human rights.
Section 55 has therefore rarely been used in recent years, though there are
indicationsthat it isusedmoreindenyingsubsistenceonlysupportrequests9.The
European Council’s 2003 Reception Conditions Directive (2003/9/EC) determines
thattheHomeSecretaryhasadutytoprovidesupportinrespectofessentialliving
needs, thoughwhatmight count as ‘essential’ is at the discretion of theMinister.
Until2008,increasestotheratesofasylumsupportweremadeonanannualbasis
and were broadly in line with increases to Income Support. In 2008 the link to
IncomeSupportendedandfrom2009theseparaterateforsingleadultsaged25and
overwasremoved.
Levels of asylum support paidwere then increased annually in linewith inflation
until2012,whensuchincreasesstopped.Therateofsupport(knownas‘Section95’
support)hasbeenfixedat£36.95perpersonperweekforallcategoriesofasylum
seeker since August 2015. This was a substantial reduction in support for single
parentsandfamilieswithchildrenwhopreviouslyreceivedalargersum.Extraone
offpaymentsareprovidedtopregnantwomen,womenwithnewbabies,andthose
with children under 3. If refused asylum seekers are unable to return to their
country of origin, have a judicial review pending, or if they are complying with
processes aimed at returning them in the future (such as applying for travel
documents),thentheycanapplyforaccommodationandwhatisknownas‘Section
4’supportof£35.39perpersonperweekwhichisloadedontoapaymentcardvalid
inselectshops.
23
Researchers have described the different economic rights afforded to different
groupsonthebasisofimmigrationstatusasa‘stratifiedrightsregime’10.Forthose
who are going through, or have been through, the asylum system, this stratified
rightsregimeisorganisedasfollows:
RefugeesandthosewithIndefiniteLeavetoRemain,TemporaryLeave
toRemainorHumanitarianProtection:havefullaccesstothemainstream
benefitssystemandthelabourmarketuntiltheirstatusisreviewed(usually
after5years).
Asylum seekers: if demonstrably destitute, receive £36.96 per week in
financial support (known as ‘Section 95’ support) plus accommodation
providedonanochoicebasisinvariousurbanareasaroundtheUK.
RefusedAsylumseekers:Iftheyareunabletoreturn,haveajudicialreview
pending, and/or if they are complying with processes aimed at returning
them in the future, may apply to receive £35.39 per week in non-cash
financial support plus accommodation provided on a no choice basis in
variouscitiesaroundtheUK(knownas‘Section4’support).Ifnoneofthese
criteria can be met, or if individuals cannot meet the threshold of proof
required,theyreceivenosupportfromthestate.
The ImmigrationAct 2016makes key changes to the existing support framework,
thedetailofwhichwillbearticulatedinforthcomingregulations.Itisknownthatthe
Actwill repeal Section 4 support for single adults, and allows for refused asylum
seekerswho face a “genuine obstacle” to leaving theUK, to be supportedunder a
newprovision,Section95A.Thisnewstatutorysupportwillbepaid incashat the
same level as Section 95 support (£36.95 perweek) but the criteria for accessing
Section95A supportwill bemore restrictive than those currently inoperation for
Section4.Singleadultswillneedtoapplywithina21daysofrefusaloftheirasylum
claim,andtherewillbenorightofappealonrefusalofsupport.
24
TheBritishRedCrosshaveraisedconcernsaboutthesetwocriteria,observingthat
veryfewSection4applicationsarecurrentlymadewithin21days,andthatin75per
cent of appeals in 2014 the Home Office’s decision to discontinue support was
overturned or reconsidered at tribunal11. The Home Office states that these
measureshavebeenframedcarefullytoavoidpassingthecostofsupportingfailed
asylumseekersandtheirfamiliesontolocalauthorities,butnomentionismadeof
thethirdsector,whoarelikelytostepin.
1.3Howmanypeoplereceiveasylumsupport&whatisthecostthe
government?
Inthissectionwedetailhowmanypeoplearereceivingasylumsupportunderthe
current Section 95 / Section 4 system, and howmuch such support costs the UK
government. The figures provided here are based on analysis of Home Office
statisticsobtainedviaa freedomof informationrequest.Thisperhapssoundshigh
yet asylumsupportat current levels in fact costs the state relatively little.TheUK
spendsabout£146billiononmeans-testedbenefitstohelpthepoorestmembersof
UKsociety12,whileasylumsupportcosttheHomeOffice£234millionin2014-15,
The vast majority of asylum seekers are supported under ‘Section 95’ of the
ImmigrationandAsylumAct1999.AttheendofMarch2015,30,476asylumseekers
and theirdependantswerebeing supported in theUKunder Section95 (either in
supportedaccommodationorreceivingsubsistenceonlysupport).Intheyear2014-
15, accommodation and cash payments provided under Section 95 and Section 4
costanestimated£174million13; in2013-14suchsupportcostanestimated£154
million (see Table 1). Payroll and administration costs associated with asylum
support cost an estimated £60 million in 2014-15; in 2013-14 payroll and
administration costs an estimated £56 million. In total, asylum support cost an
estimated£234millionin2014-15;and£210millionin2013-14.
25
Whererefusedasylumseekershavechildrenbornbeforeafinaldecisionwasmade
ontheasylumclaim,theyandtheirdependentsgenerallycontinuetoreceiveasylum
support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act (i.e. the same as they received whilst
waitingforadecisionontheclaim)untiltheyoungestchildturns18orthefamilyis
removed from theUK. In 2014-15, £45million, around a third of the total cost of
Section 95 support, was spent supporting families14. In addition, Section 4 of the
1999Actprovidesforsupportforothercategoriesofrefusedasylumseekerwhoare
unable to leave the country. At 31 March 2015, around 4,900 persons were
supported under ‘Section 4’ of the 1999 Act: in 2014-15, such support cost an
estimated£28million.
Table1.Asylumsupportcosts
Source:HomeOffice,FreedomofInformationrequest
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
S95
ACCOMMODATION
£80,520,346 £80,155,529 £66,806,029 £83,096,387
S95CASH £50,029,415 £48,142,140 £59,374,347 £63,132,564
S4
ACCOMMODATION
£14,935,077 £16,568,366 £16,638,139 £18,126,125
S4CASH
VOUCHERS
£6,554,715 £10,826,446 £10,826,446 £9,310,122
TOTAL: £152,039,553 £155,692,481 £153,644,961 £173,665,198
STAFFPAYROLL - - £45,220,092 £48,176,279
ADMINISTRATION - - £10,931,603 £11,736,334
COMBINED
TOTAL:
- - £209,796,656 £233,577,811
26
Recently releasedHomeOffice figures indicate that thenumberof asylumseekers
andtheirdependentsreceivingSection95supportincreasedby17percentbetween
March 2015 andMarch 2016,with 35,683 people now supported15. Although this
numberhasrisensince2012,thefigureremainsconsiderablybelowthatfortheend
of 2003 (the start of the published data series), when there were 80,123 asylum
seekersinreceiptofSection95support(seeFigure1).
Figure1.AsylumseekerssupportedunderSection95
Source:HomeOffice,ImmigrationStatisticsJanuarytoMarch2016
Currently, asylum support is capped at approximately 50 per cent of the income
support rate. With no changes to the rules on working, if all asylum seekers in
receiptofsupportwereentitledto70percentoftheincomesupportrate(assuming
noneareworking),theasylumsupportbillfor2014/15wouldbe£29millionhigher
(seeTable2).Ifasylumseekerswereentitledtothefulllevelofincomesupport,the
costwouldincreaseby£72.4million16.Whensetwithinthecontextofa£146billion
welfarebill these figures appear relatively low, £72.4millionwould add0.05% to
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2004Q2
2004Q4
2005Q2
2005Q4
2006Q2
2006Q4
2007Q2
2007Q4
2008Q2
2008Q4
2009Q2
2009Q4
2010Q2
2010Q4
2011Q2
2011Q4
2012Q2
2012Q4
2013Q2
2013Q4
2014Q2
2014Q4
2015Q2
2015Q4
Membersoffamilygroups
Singleadults
27
the total welfare bill. Bringing asylum support up to approximately 70% of Job
SeekersAllowancewouldadd0.02%ontothetotalwelfarebill.
Table2.Increasingasylumsupport
ASYLUMSUPPORT
SETAT50%OFJSA
ASYLUMSUPPORT
SETATAPPROX70%
OFJSA
ASYLUMSUPPORTSET
ATAPPROX100%OF
JSA
TOTALCOST: £72.4MILLION £101.3MILLION £144.8MILLION
INCREASEIN
COST:
- £29MILLION £72.4MILLION
Such amove –increasing asylum support- would only be necessary if the current
levels of asylum support paid were deemed inadequate. In 2015 Refugee Action
brought a judicial review case against the Home Secretary in order to argue that
proposed(nowactual)levelsofasylumsupportwereindeedinadequate.Thejudge
decided that a numberof itemswere left out of the calculationof asylum support
levelsbytheHomeOffice,andthat theyshouldrevisit theircalculations.However,
no changes were made to support levels following review, and the Home Office
representative had argued during the judicial review that the proposed levels of
asylum support would be adequate to meet the essential living needs of asylum
seekers.Theselevelsweremodelledontheweeklyspend,onessentialitemsonly,of
thepoorest10%ofBritishcitizens.
Therearevariouswaysinwhichwemightrevisitthequestionofwhethersupport
levels(andindeedothertypesofnon-monetarysupport)areadequate,notonlyfor
asylumseekersbutalsoforrefugeesandrefusedasylumseekers.Inthenextsection
welookattheevidencethatthisneedisplacingasignificantburdenonthirdsector
28
organisations, who are filling potentially significant gaps in the provision of state
support.
1.4Theclientgroup:whatisknownabouttheirneeds?
Refugeesand thosewhoare still in theasylumsystemare supposed tohave their
essentiallivingcostscoveredbytheUKgovernment,andwouldnotbeexpectedto
be placing a significant burden on third sector organisations in relation to food,
clothing, covering expenses, or accessing accommodation if support levels were
adequate. Refused asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights,
meanwhile,havenorecoursetopublicfundsandareleftdestitute.Becausealarge
proportionofthisgroupdonotrespondtothisnudgeandleavetheUK(weprovide
someindicativestatisticsusingHomeOfficedatainsection2.1),wecanassumethat
theyaregrowingyearonyear,increasingpressureonthethirdsectororganisations
who support them.TheBritishRedCross explored themany reasons that refused
asylumseekersdonot,orcannot, leavevoluntarily intheir2017report ‘Can’tStay
Can’t Go’17. However, the divide between refugees, asylum seekers and refused
asylumseekers isnot sosimple.Researchhas foundboth thatasylumseekerscan
becomedestituteatallstagesintheirasylumjourney,includingwhileintheasylum
system,andafterbeinggrantedleavetoremain18,andthatthosewhoareinreceipt
of asylum support are living in poverty and have needs which exceed state
provision19.
Wediscussdestitutioninmoredetailinthenextsectionbutitshouldbenotedhere
thatthelinebetweenlivinginpovertyandbeingdestitutecansometimesbeblurred,
withthosewhohaveaccommodationandsomeaccesstofinancialsupportbeingso
pooras to still be classedas ‘destitute’ (dependingon thedefinitionofdestitution
used,seebelow). In theirreviewofresearch intopovertyamongstasylumseekers
andrefugeesAllsoppandcolleagues20foundpoverty ‘tobepresentamongsomeof
the most vulnerable parts of the asylum seeker population, including pregnant
women and newborn babies […] children […] LGBTI individuals […]and torture
29
survivors’. This is a finding which is supported by a wide range of different
stakeholders.Forexample, the2007Inquiry intotheTreatmentofAsylumSeekers
by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the 2013 Parliamentary Inquiry into
destitution among asylum seeking families, and the 2013 Home Affairs Select
Committee Inquiry in to theasylumsystemallhighlightedpovertyanddestitution
amongasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekers,andrefugees21.
The 2013 Parliamentary Inquiry into destitution among asylum seeking families
foundthatasylumsupportrateswereatthatpoint just20%oftheJRF’sMinimum
IncomeStandard(a figurebasedonwhatmembersoftheBritishpublicthinkpeople
need foranacceptableminimumstandardof living). Itconcludedthat ‘thecurrent
levelsofsupportprovidedtofamiliesaretoolowtomeetchildren’sessentialliving
needs’22. Expertwitnesses (academic researchers, socialworkers, local authorities
and health professionals) suggested that low levels of asylum support were
contributing to malnutrition, high infant and maternal mortality rates, disrupted
educationforchildren,mentalhealthproblems,healthproblemsrelatedtolivingin
dirty damp conditions and having inadequate clothing, risk of exploitation, and
domestic violence. In short, the impacts identifiedwere all symptoms of living in
povertycompoundedbyforceddispersalandhistoriesofpersecution.
ThereportoftheHomeAffairsCommitteeinquiryintoasylumnotedthatinsurveys
ofasylumseekersreceivingsupport,50%ofrespondentshadreportedexperiencing
hunger;70%wereunable tobuyessential toiletries;and94%wereunable tobuy
clothing23. In July2013thecharityFreedomFromTorture,whichsupports torture
survivors,publishedaresearchreportonpovertyamongstasylumseekers,refused
asylum seekers, and refugees. In his foreword Juan E. Mendez, United Nations
SpecialRapporteuronTortureandotherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentor
Punishment,wrote:
The research [documented in this report]demonstrates that torture survivors
livinginexileintheUKarepushedintopovertybygovernmentsystemsthatare
meanttosupportthemastheypassthroughtheasylumdeterminationsystem
30
andbeyond.Iknowthroughtheworkofmymandateinternationallythatmany
torturesurvivorswhomanagetoreachandclaimprotectioninStatessuchas
the UKmay not have directly experienced these levels of absolute or relative
povertybefore24
Lacking resources to participate in normal social activities causes social isolation
whichisassociatedwithfeelingsofshame,stigmaandembarrassment25.Themental
health issues associated with destitution are thoroughly explored in Dumper and
colleague’s research, funded by the Department of Health. Interviews with 80
destituteasylumseekerssuggestahighprevalenceofmentalhealthissues;nearlyall
(83%) stated that they suffered from depression 'often' or 'usually', two thirds
(63%) often or usually experienced loss of sleep26. RTSOs are known to be an
important source of support for destitute asylum seekers and refugees, though
qualitative research has found that dependency on charity can experienced as
demeaningforrecipients27.
Qualitativetestimoniescapturetherangeofstrategiesthatareemployedbyasylum
seekersandrefugees to copewithdestitution.Fordestituteasylumseekers, social
relationships can be an important livelihood strategy, and may be overtly or
implicitly transactional in nature.Destitute asylum seekers havebeen found to be
providingchildcare,cooking,houseworkandsometimessex inorder tomeet their
mostbasicneedsincludingfood,shelter,cashanddaytodaynecessities28.Thereis
evidencethattheyarevulnerabletoexploitationandeventoforcedlabour29,which
isnotonlydangerousforindividuals,butalsocreatessafeguardingrisksforchildren
andfamilies30.
There is, then,significantevidencethatboththose inreceiptofasylumsupport,as
well as thosewhohavebeen refusedasylum, are living inpoverty in theUK.This
suggeststhatlevelsofsupportarenotadequate.Inlegalterms,andforthirdsector
organisationsseekingtochallengegovernmentpolicy,theconceptof‘destitution’is
centraltothisdebate.Weexplorewhyinthenextsection.
31
1.4.1Destitution
Theword ‘destitution’ isusedmorecommonlythan ‘poverty’withinthecontextof
asylumpolicy, advocacy and research. It is here that the connections between the
impactsofgovernmentpoliciesandthirdsectoreffortstoamelioratethoseimpacts
aremostclearlyarticulated.Differentdefinitionsofdestitutionhavebeensupplied
by the government, RTSOs, citizens panels, and refugee research participants31.
Thesedifferent definitions are important because thenumbers of individualswho
are destitute will vary significantly depending on the definition used. The legal
definitionofdestitutionderivesfromSection95oftheImmigrationandAsylumAct
1999 andwas devised for the purposes of determining eligibility forHomeOffice
accommodationandfinancialsupportforasylumseekers.Legally,then:
“Apersonisdestituteif—
(a)s/hedoesnothaveadequateaccommodationoranymeansofobtainingit
(whetherornothis/herotheressentiallivingneedsaremet);or
(b)s/hehasadequateaccommodationorthemeansofobtainingit,butcannot
meethisotheressentiallivingneeds.”32
Similarly, in research for theRefugee Survival Trust and the BritishRed Cross on
destitution in Scotland,Gillespie33definesdestitution (in relation to those in, or at
theendof theasylumsystem)asbeingwhenonehas ‘noaccesstobenefits,UKBA
support or income and were either street homeless or staying with friends only
temporarily, or had accommodation but no means of sustaining it’. Others have
taken amore expansive approach andwhen destitution is thought of in a general
sense, and not limited to those who are going or have been through the asylum
system (i.e. in relation to citizens), the threshold tends to be lowered. A study
commissionedbytheJosephRowntreeFoundation34soughttodefinedestitutionby
interviewing key informants and testing out their definition with focus groups. It
concludedthat:
Peoplearedestituteifthey,ortheirchildren,havelackedtwoormoreofthese
sixessentialsoverthepastmonth,becausetheycannotaffordthem:
32
• Shelter(havesleptroughforoneormorenights)
• Food(havehadfewerthantwomealsadayfortwoormoredays)
• Heatingtheirhome(havebeenunabletodothisforfiveormoredays)
• Lightingtheirhome(havebeenunabletodothoseforfiveormoredays)
• Clothingandfootwear(appropriateforweather)
• Basictoiletries(soap,shampoo,toothpaste,toothbrush)
[...]Peoplearealsodestitute,eveniftheyhavenotasyetgonewithoutthesesix
essentials, if their income is so low that they are unable to purchase these
essentialsforthemselves
Theauthorsnotethat‘amajorityofthepublictooktheviewthatpeoplewhowere
onlyabletomeettheiressentiallivingneedswithhelpfromcharities,forexample,
should be considered destitute’35. Within this definition, then, all asylum seekers,
refusedasylumseekersandrefugeeswhoaredependentoncharitablesupportare
destitute.Thereportnotesthatthisdefinitionmeansthat‘certaingroupssupported
bytheUKwelfaresystem[includingasylumseekers]are,bydefinition,destituteas
their current weekly allowances (excluding housing costs) fall below these
thresholds’. Yet they also note that asylum seekerswho are living inHomeOffice
accommodationdonothavetopayforheatingandlightingwhichmayormaynotbe
enough to lift themout of destitution. A key issue is the fact that for those in the
asylum system destitution is not a permanent state – there is clear evidence that
temporary destitution often arises because of errors and delays caused by
government service providers. This includes apparent difficulties that the Home
Office andother serviceproviders such as JobcentrePlus have in keeping to their
owntimescalesatkeytransitionpoints36.
TheJRFstudyinvolvedasurveyofdestitutepeopleofvariousbackgrounds.Within
theasylumgroup46%hadleavetoremainorrefugeestatusand41%werestill in
theasylumsystem37.Thosewhoweregoingthroughtheasylumsystemexperienced
33
longer periods of destitution than other groups, and respondents who were
supportedbytheHomeOfficeonSection95andSection4benefitshighlightedthe
lowlevelsofsupportratesasthemainexplanationfortheirsituation.Notably,while
essential needsmight routinely be covered, periodic expenseswhich low levels of
supportcouldnotcoveroftentippedthemintobeingunabletobuybasicessentials,
thus leadingtodestitution.This isparticularlythecaseforthosewithoutfamilyor
friendstofallbackon.
1.5Therefugeethirdsectorresponse:scaleandscope
Lookingattheresponseofthethirdsectortotheplightoftheirclientgroupsisan
alternative, complementary, method for investigating whether asylum policy
relating to the economic rights of asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugees, isworking. If there is littledemand for theservicesofferedbycharitable
organisations,thenwewouldnotexpecttheretobeagrowingnumberofthem,for
themtobereportinggrowingdemand,orfortheirsupportservices(e.g.foodbanks,
clothesbanks)tobecoveringsuchgroupsasSection95recipientswhoseessential
living needs are covered by the state. In this section we explore what is already
knownaboutthescaleandscopeofthisthirdsectorresponse.
Asstatedinthe introduction, thecategory ‘refugeethirdsectororganisations’here
covers all not-for-profit organisations, of any size who specifically focus their
charitable work on supporting those who have been, or are going through, the
asylumsystem.Atthesmallestendofthescalearerefugeecommunityorganisations
(RCOs)whicharerefugeeled,areoftenformedaroundnationalgroupings,andform
in response to changing international events, as well as national asylum policy38.
TheseorganisationsareoftentoosmalltomeettheCharityCommissionmandatory
registration threshold (having an annual income of £5,000), which is part of the
reason why identifying them is so difficult. Larger organisations tend to serve
asylumseekers,refugees,refusedasylumseekers,orallthree,andworkonacityor
countywidescale.Theseareeasiertoidentify(theyareusuallyregisteredwiththe
34
CharityCommission)andareoftenmorewellestablished.Thelargestorganisations
arenationallybased,withlargerincomesandoperationsinmultipleurbancentres,
and undertake many projects –often only a fraction of their work is focussed on
destitution.TheseincludetheBritishRedCross,RefugeeCouncilandRefugeeAction.
There isagrowingbodyofknowledgeabout thescopeofactivitiesundertakenby
RTSOs. Much of the information on the scope of activities comes from relatively
small scalequalitativestudies,oftenproducedbyor for thirdsectororganisations.
Theseactivities,detailedbelow,haveremainedconsistentovertimeaccordingtothe
research. The major changes reported over the past 15 years are in the areas of
clientdemand (increasing) andavailable funding (decreasing)39.Organisations are
oftensmall, local,heavilydependentonvolunteers,manyareeither faithbasedor
rely on churches for service provision support, and are often located in asylum
seeker dispersal areas40. The services provided include housingmanagement and
provision,legalandwelfareadvice,financialandothertypesofsubsistencesupport
suchasclothesandfoodbanks,andrights-basedadvocacy41.Asthoseintheasylum
system have become excluded from accessingmainstream benefits,more of them
are relying on friends, family, third sector organisations, communities and local
authorities for support42. At the same time, available funding for third sector
organisations and local authorities has dwindled. Organisations have therefore
increasingly focused on short-term activities which seek to ameliorate the most
severe impacts of the policy environment, rather than playing a ‘community
cohesion’, integration, or campaigning role43, though it appears that the coalitions
mentionedbelowhavetakenupasignificantcampaigningrole.
Existingresearchsuggeststhatfundingisnotonlydwindling,butisalsoprecarious
for organisations that provide services for asylum seekers and refugees44. For
example, Jonathan Price’s recent qualitative research conducted with sixty-two
individuals,representing51organisationsinBirmingham,LondonandNottingham
found that services have insufficient funding to meet demand45. RTSOs find that
securingfundingandmeetingtherisingdemandforservicesdivertsresourcesaway
fromotheractivities46.TheRefugeeCouncilfoundin2003thatinordertodealwith
35
the increased number of families needing destitution support following the
withdrawal of Section 55 support in 2002, organisations suspended serviceswith
longer term goals, such as helping refugees access healthcare and settle into the
community. Many RTSOs want to lobby local authorities and government on
important issues around destitution, but may prioritise front-line delivery over
policy work and campaigning47. Academics have also raised concerns that some
organisationsfeeltheyarenotabletochallengegovernmentpolicybecauseoftheir
relianceongovernmentfunding48.
Akeyareaofprovision ishousingandhousingadvice, both for individual refused
asylum seekerswho are destitute, and thosewho should be supportedwithin the
system,suchasrefugeesand familieswithchildrenatanystage in theprocess.As
well as providing information on accessing housing, RTSOs are providing night
shelters and longer term accommodation. Studies have reported families
experiencing difficulties securing the local authority support to which they are
entitled(underSection17oftheChildrenAct1989)49.Thismayresultinincreasing
reliance on support from TSOs to plug that gap. Accommodation provided to
destituterefugeescandrawincomefromtheirhousingbenefit(therenttheypay)in
ordertofundprovisionforasylumseekersandrefusedasylumseekersinthesame
building. Meanwhile, organisations who solely provide housing to refused asylum
seekers do not have access to such funding, which has acted as a catalyst for
innovation in funding accommodation services for refused asylum seekers. A
number of the case study organisations selected by the JRF50as examples of good
practice have developed innovative income generating projectswhich are used to
cross-subsidise the supportprovided todestitutemigrants, for example,providing
housingforrentordeliveringcommissionedservices.
Partnershipworkingbetweenorganisationsisincreasinglycommonand,according
to Price is often facilitated, for example, by foundations51. The accommodation
networkNACCOMwasfoundedin2006andhelpstocoordinateasylumseekerand
refugeehousingprojectsin28citiesintheUK.StillHumanStillHere(nowAsylum
Matters), a coalitionof over60organisations that campaigns to enddestitutionof
36
refusedasylumseekersintheUK,wassetuparoundthesametime.Furthermore,a
StrategicAllianceonMigrantDestitutionwasformedin2015,fundedbytheJoseph
Rowntree Foundation and hosted byHomeless Link and involving theBritishRed
Cross, Housing Justice, Migrant Rights Network, NACCOM, Refugee Action and
Refugee Council (amongst others). City of Sanctuary, a network that encourages
people to show solidarity with refugees and asylum seekers in their own
communitiesthroughlocalvoluntaryrunsupportandadviceservices,music,sports,
education,healthandarts initiativeshasgrownsince itbeganinSheffield in2005,
andnowhasgroupsestablishedorstartingupinalmost80cities,townsandvillages
acrosstheUK.
The extent of this civil society response does indicate that there is a significant
demandforsupportfromasylumseekers,refugees,andrefusedasylumseekers,and
thatthestate isproviding inadequatesupport.Nevertheless,whilewehaveagood
ideaoftherangeofactivitiesundertakenbyRTSOs,aswellasthechallengesfaced
by them,what is not known is the quantitative scale of the third sector response.
Various sources suggest thatdemand for services isveryhigh, andcannotbemet.
For example, a London based organization surveyed by Price52described having
queues outside its door from 6am. The representative of another organization
suggestedthatsecuringanadviceslotwiththemwasa‘goldenticket’. Yetasidefrom
suchanecdotalaccounts,wedonotknowhowmanyorganisationsthereare,orhow
muchtheyarespendingonsupportingtheirclientgroups.
Itisextremelyhardtoquantify,withanyaccuracy,thenumberofRCOsoperatingat
any given time53but it is likely that since the financial crisis the number of these
smallprecariousorganisationshasreduced.TheendoftheMigrationImpactFund,
as well as changes to government funding in 2010 which moved away from
focussing on single ethnic or national groups and instead favoured multi-
national/ethnicityorganisationsarelikelytohavehadasignificantimpact54,though
the research does not exist currently to confirm this. We have developed an
approachtocountingRTSOs,describedinthenextsection,buttherawnumbersof
organisations,andofpeoplebeingsupportedbythemarenotnecessarilyindicative
37
ofdemand.Indeed,thefactthatRTSOsaredifficulttocountisperhapswhysomuch
is known about what they are doing (the scope of their response) but so little is
known about the scale of the response, though this is of course central to the
questionofwhetherthestateisadequatelysupportingasylumseekers,refugeesand
refusedasylumseekers.
1.6Researchmethods
Asnotedabove,RTSOsaredifficulttocount,whichmayexplainwhymostresearch
inthisareatakesaqualitative‘deepdive’casestudyapproachinparticularlocales.
This means that exploring the scale of the third sector response to refugee and
asylum seeker needs presents a significantmethodological challenge. In response,
we have designed a research approachwhich brings together four datasets. Even
whencombined,thesedatasetscannotprovidedefinitiveanswersinrelationtothe
scaleof the thirdsectorresponse to thissocietalchallenge,but theycanprovidea
morecomprehensivepictureoftheresponseofthirdsectororganisationstopolices
relating to the economic rights of asylum seekers and refugees, than previously
available.
First,wedrawondatafromtheCharityCommissiondatabase(coveringEnglandand
Wales)whichprovidesthemostcomprehensivedatasetonregisteredcharitiesand
their activities currently available. The Charity Commission is the government
regulatorofcharitieswhoseannuallypublishedstatisticsreportthefinancialreturns
of thecharities that theyregulate.Registeredcharities inEnglandandWalesmust
provide information about their activities to the Commission. This information is
thenpubliclyavailableandsoweusedtheCharityCommission’sonlinedatabasein
order to identifyorganisations supporting refugeesand/orasylumseekersand/or
refusedasylumseekers.
Tomeetour inclusion criteria charitiesmustuse theword ‘asylum’or ‘refugee’ in
their‘activitiesdescription’onthedatabase,anddescribetheiractivitiesasworking
‘forthepreventionorreliefofpoverty’or‘providesaccommodation/housing’(from
38
prescribedoptions).Wereviewedeachcharityandremovedreligiousorganisations
andcharitiesthatdonotserveasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersorrefugees
as their primary group (for example, charities whose activities focus on different
types of asylum such as psychiatric asylums, or charities that provide services
primarilytovictimsofdomesticviolence,orpeoplewhoarehomeless).
Thedatasetof142charitiesidentifiedincludesthefollowinginformationabouteach
organisation,downloadedinanExcelspreadsheetbytheresearchers:
Ø Name
Ø Charitynumber
Ø Reportedincomein2015/16
Ø Expenditurein2015/16
Ø Financialyearenddate
Ø WebsiteURL
Ø Whatthecharitydoes
Ø Whothecharityhelps
Ø Howthecharityworks
Researchersaddedthefollowinginformationforeachcharityintothedataset:
Ø Operationallocations
Ø Yearestablished
Ø Yearremovedfromtheregister(whereapplicable)
CharitiesinEnglandandWaleswithanannualincomeofover£500,000arelegally
obliged to provide the Charity Commission with more detailed income and
expenditureinformation.Forthesewelookedforinformationaboutthetotalincome
fromcharitableactivities,donations,andtrading,aswellasinformationaboutstaff
and volunteers employed. This data is comprehensive, in that charities are legally
required to register with the Commission. However, as with most administrative
datasets, therearegapsandlimitations.TheCommissionreportsthatupto20per
centofcharitiesareliabletomissthesubmissionsdeadline.Forcharitiesthathave
39
notyetsubmittedforthe2015/16financialyear,dataforthepreviousfinancialyear
isusedinthisreport.
Some charities are not required to register with the Commission. These include
charities with an annual income of under £5,000 and places of worship with an
annual income of under £100,000. Many faith based organisations are known to
offersupporttoasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees,particularlyin
providingcrisisaccommodation55.Faithbasedorganisationsalsotendtobefunded
differently; receiving a higher proportion of funding from individuals56. Places of
worshipservemultiplepurposesandgroups;disaggregatingcostsalongtheselines
is (understandably)beyond thescopeofmanyorganisation’saccountingpractices.
Forthisreason,faithbasedorganisationshavenotbeenincludedinoursample.
The exclusion of faith based organisations and charitieswith an annual incomeof
under£5,000willmean thatour researchsignificantlyunderestimates the levelof
support provided to asylum seekers by non-state actors. The omission of small
‘belowtheradar’organisations,whichasMcCabe&Phillimorehighlightconstitute
the largest proportion of civil society organisations, also suggests that our
calculationsareanunder-estimate57.
OurseconddatasetrelatestoasurveyundertakenincollaborationwithNACCOM–
the No Accommodation Network- which is a national network of members
preventing homelessness amongst asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants.
NACCOM exists to promote best practice in and support the establishment of
accommodation projects that reduce destitution amongst asylum seekers. In
addition, theymayalsosupportmigrantswithnorecourse topublic funds(NRPF)
and/orrefugeesfacingbarrierstoaccessingaffordablehousing.NACCOMhasbeen
a national charity since 2015 and an informal network of voluntary organisations
since 2006. It has 38 full members, and there are new organisations developing
housinginitiativesinthisfieldindifferentpartsofthecountryeveryyear.
In2016NACCOMconductedtheirfourthannualsurveyofmemberaccommodation
projects. In total 36 projects completed the survey. In 2016, NACCOM members
40
accommodated an estimated 1,707 people, an increase of 28.5% since 2015. Of
these, 808 were destitute asylum seekers and 499 were refugees with leave to
remainintheUK.Theinauguralsurveyin2013wascompletedby20projects,which
were accommodating 374 people, around 270 of whom were destitute, refused
asylum seekers.NACCOM is therefore a keynetworkwithin the sector, suggesting
datafromtheirmemberscanofferinsightsintothescaleofhousingoperationsand
spendonhousingandaccommodationnationally.
In spring 2017 we collaborated with NACCOM to conduct a survey of member
accommodationprojects.Thesurveywassenttoall38NACCOMmembers,andwas
completed by 24 projects. The questions covered a range of financial information,
including income and expenditure, funding sources, subsidised costs, staff and
volunteercapacity,andtheaccommodationandotherservicesprovided.Weusethis
datatolookathowRTSOsoperate,intermsoffundinganduseofotherresources.
ThethirdsourceofdatacomesfromtheBritishRedCross.TheBritishRedCrossis
thelargestNGOworkinginthisfieldandhasalongtraditionofprovidingpractical
and emotional support to vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. The
BritishRedCrosssupportsrefugees,asylumsseekersandrefusedasylumseekersin
awidevarietyofways.Theseincludeofferingemergencyfood,clothesandcashto
those facing severe hardship, and giving advice about how to access services. The
BritishRedCross co-ordinateprojects inhundredsof locationsacross theUK,and
routinely collectmanagement information fromeachproject.This includesagreat
deal of information about beneficiaries, including numbers, and demographic
information such as age, gender, nationality and immigration status as well as
information about the type of support provided. All of this information may be
disaggregatedbyproject location.This richsourceofdata is routinelyusedby the
BritishRedCrossinpressreleases,reportsandpublications.Itisrareforthisdatato
beusedbyacademicresearchers,orthoseexternaltotheBritishRedCross,butthey
havegrantedusaccesstosomekeydatawhichoffersfurtherinsightsintothescale
of thethirdsectorresponsetotherefugeeandasylumchallenge. Inthisreportwe
presentdataon:
41
Ø TheannualBritishRedCrossbudgetforUKdestitutionservicesin2015/16
Ø The number of asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees
supportedindifferentlocations
Ø Theformsthatdestitutionsupporttakes
Ø Thegeographyofdestitutionservices
Ø Thenumbersofstaffandvolunteersprovidingdestitutionservices
We use this data to explore the proportion of asylum seekers, refused asylum
seekersandrefugeesthatareinneedofsupport,thegeographyofdestitutioninthe
UK, and the type of support that asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugeesneed.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthereareinbuiltlimitationswithin
thisdatasetinthatnotallclientinformationisrecordedin100%ofcases.
The fourth and final data source moves from the national to the local scale. We
conducted qualitative interviews and observationswith staff and volunteers from
two medium-sized charities that are involved in alleviating the poverty and
destitution experienced by forced migrants: ASSIST in Sheffield and Asylum
WelcomeinOxford.Thoughweareinterestedinthenationalscale,therearemany
gaps in the data obtained from the sources discussed above, including difficult to
quantifyresourcessuchasfoodparcelsmadeupofdonatedfood,andvolunteertime
spentworkingatthelocallevel.
ASSISTisavoluntaryorganisationthatofferssupporttopeopleinSheffieldwhoare
homelessanddestituteasaresultofbeingrefusedasylumintheUK.Sheffieldisan
asylumseekerdispersalcity,hasalargeandgrowingpopulationofasylumseekers,
refusedasylumseekersandrefugees,andwasthefirstCityofSanctuaryintheUK.
The data presented in this report was accessed via semi structured qualitative
research interviews with team leaders from nine ASSIST frontline and support
teams.We also observed activities and spoke to volunteers during the delivery of
twofrontlineservices.Thesequalitativemethodswerecombinedwithdocumentary
evidence from ASSIST’s own internal monitoring, and data from their financial
accounts.
42
Asylum Welcome is a voluntary organisation that tackles suffering and isolation
among asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers, refugees and detainees in Oxford
andOxfordshire58.Oxfordisnotadispersalcity,andisrarelysingledoutasacase
study forexploring the third sector response to theasylumandrefugeechallenge.
Yet Asylum Welcome has a significant asylum seeker and refugee client group,
makingitaninterestingcomparatortoASSIST.Thedatapresentedinthisreportwas
accessedviasemistructuredqualitativeresearchinterviewswithsixvolunteersand
staff from AsylumWelcome. AsylumWelcome collect data for their own internal
monitoring,andfinancialaccountswhichhavecontributedtothisreport.
Weusedthedatafromthesetwocasestudiestoidentifyhowlocalorganisationsare
funded,andtheextentoftheroleofvolunteersinlocalorganisations.Thisgivesus
vital insights in to the ways in which small local organisations are managing the
increasingdemandplacedonthemasaconsequenceofgovernmentpolicy.
43
2Thirdsectororganisationsfillingthegap:scale
Inthischapterwelookat:
Ø HowmanyRTSOssupportasylumseekersandrefugeesinEnglandandWales
Ø Wheretheseorganisationsarelocated
Ø Howmanypeoplearerelyingoncharitablesupport
Ø Whatthescaleofhardtocostsupportmightbe
Ø The financial cost of the third sector response to poverty and destitution
amongstasylumseekinggroups
2.1HowmanyTSOssupportasylumseekersandrefugees?
This section provides an overview of the number of refugee third sector
organisations (RTSOs) supporting asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugees. We have developed an approach to counting RTSOs that are registered
withtheCharityCommission,describedinsection1.6.Usingthisapproach,wehave
identifieda totalof142RTSOs that includedalleviatingpovertyanddestitution in
EnglandandWales in theiractivitiesdescription(fromprescribedoptions) for the
Charity Commission. All 142 RTSOs work primarily with asylum seekers, refused
asylumseekersorrefugees,andallatleastpartlyworktoalleviatepoverty.Asnoted
previously,theapproachfailstocaptureRTSOsthathaveanincomeofunder£5,000,
as such organisations are too small tomeet the Charity Commission’smandatory
registrationthreshold.Withinthewidervoluntarysector54%oforganisationshave
annualincomesoflessthan£10,000(thoughtheymakeuponly5.5%ofthesectors
total income)59.ThismeansthenumberofRTSOswouldbemuchhigher ifsmaller
organisationswerecounted.
TheCharityCommissionrecordsthedatecharitiesregistered,andthedatecharities
whichhaveceasedoperatingwere removed from the register.Figure2presentsa
breakdown of the number of new charities and the total number of charities
44
supportingdestituterefugeesandasylumseekersineachyearsince1997.Thetotal
numberofcharitieshas increasedover time, fromjustseven in1990to142when
weundertookourresearch.
Figure2.NumberofRTSOsinvolvedwithdestituteforcedmigrants1990-2017
Figure3.RTSOsthathaveceasedoperating1990-2017
Figure3 presents a breakdownof thenumber of charities involvedwithdestitute
forcedmigrants thathaveceasedoperating ineachyearsince1990. In thedecade
since 2007, 86 charities have ceased operating. In the preceding decade, just 13
charitiesceasedoperating.Thelastdecadehasbeenaperiodoffinancialinstability
0102030405060708090100110120130140150
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Newcharities Totalcharities
051015202530
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
45
forthevoluntarysectorasawhole,encompassingboththe financialcrisis in2007
andcutstopublicspendingunderthecoalitiongovernmentfrom201060.
The increasing number of RTSOs does appear to indicate that there is increasing
demandforvoluntarysectorservices.Whilethisincreaseinorganisationscorrelates
with the increase in asylum applications seen in the early 2000s, numbers of
applications dipped around 2005 and stayed at significantly decreased levels for
overadecade.Furthermore,intheoryasylumseekersandrefugeesshouldnotneed
toplacesuchdemandonthethirdsectorsincetheirsupportlevelsaresupposedto
be sufficient. If the number of RTSOs is increasing in response to an increasing
population of refused asylum seekers, this also raises concerns over the
effectivenessofdestitutionasapolicytooltoencouragerefusedasylumseekersto
leavetheUK.
There is currently no national estimate available of the size of the population of
refused asylum seekers in the UK. The most recent estimate was offered by the
NationalAuditOfficein2005.However,theHomeOfficehavepublisheddataabout
the final outcomes for thosewho havemade an application for asylum in a given
yearsince2004.Thisdatashows40percentofasylumseekerswhowererefused
asylum in 2004 are still not known to have departed. In each year since 2004,
around a third of asylumapplicants are refusedprotection, and are not known to
havedepartedtheUK.Whilethereisnowayofknowinghowmanyasylumseekers
departedwithout the Home Officemaking a record, it is clear there is a growing
population of refused asylum seekers in the UK. The ‘Can’t Stay Can’t Go’ report
published by the British Red Cross in 2017 draws particular attention to the
challengesfacedbythisgroup–ineitherremainingintheUK,ordeparting.
Figure4usestheHomeOfficefigurestopresentanestimationoftherateatwhich
thepopulationofrefusedasylumseekersisgrowing.Ourapproachtocalculatingthe
cumulative total population of refused asylum seekers is rudimentary – we start
from the obviously incorrect assumption that the population of refused asylum
seekers in 1990was zero, and assume that in each subsequent year one third of
46
initialapplicantshaveremainedintheUKfollowingrefusal.Despitethesimplicityof
the approach, the figures are in the same region as a peer reviewed study,which
estimates there to be 280,000 refused asylum seekers living in the UK in 2001,
increasingto500,000by200961.
Figure4alsochartsourestimateofthepopulationofrefusedasylumseekersagainst
the total number of RTSOs. The relationship between the population of refused
asylum seekers and the number RTSOs is both intuitive and borne out in this
illustration. This raises questions about the sustainability of both the use of
destitutionas apolicy tool, and in the capacityofRTSOs to continue toeffectively
respondtodestitution.Thereare,however,otherfactorsthatmaycontributetothe
growthinthenumberofRTSOs,andmanyorganisationsworkonotherissues,not
simplydestitution,meaningthatweshouldbecautiousaboutsuggestingthatthisis
acausalrelationship.
Figure4.CumulativerefusedandtotalRTSOs
Insection2.3weexplore indetail thesupportprovidedbyRTSOs torefugeesand
thosewhoare still in theasylumsystem.Peoplewithin theasylumsystemshould
notbeexpectedtoneedtorelyoncharitiestomeetbasicneedsinrelationtofood,
clothing, covering expenses, or accessing accommodation; on the JRF’s terms that
would constitute living indestitution.RTSOs supportinghighnumbersof refugees
050000100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017Totalcharities Cumulativerefused
47
and asylum seekers suggest a policy failure regarding the system of support for
asylumseekersandrefugees:thatlevelsofsupportareinadequate.
2.2Whereareorganisationslocated?
This sectionprovidesanoverviewof thegeographyofRTSOsworking toalleviate
poverty and destitution. The Charity Commission register records the location or
locations in which a charity operates. As expected, the geography of RTSOs
resemblesthegeographyofthewidervoluntarysector.Asisthecaseforcharitiesin
general, the vastmajority of RTSOs operate in one region (see Figure 5); and the
numberofcharitiesinanarealargelymirrorsthenumberofpeoplewholivethere.
Densely populated local authorities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester,
Lambeth,Sandwell,BradfordandCroydonhavehighnumberofRTSOs(seeTable3)
(andcharitiesingeneral).
Figure5.NumberofRTSOswithlocal,nationalandinternationaloperations
Table3recordsthe10placesinthecountrywiththehighestnumberofRTSOs,and
showsthepopulationsizeineachlocation.HomeOfficedatarecordsthenumberof
applicantssupportedunderSection95indifferentareasacrosstheUK.Asshownin
82%
8%
78%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Local National
RTSOs Widervoluntarysector
48
Table 3, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Stockton-On-Tees and Middlesbrough have a high
numberof applicants supportedunderSection95andalsohaveahighnumberof
RTSOs.Aside fromhavinghighnumbersofapplicantssupportedunderSection95,
thereisnoreasonwhyNewcastle-upon-Tyne,Stockton-On-TeesandMiddlesbrough
havesomeofthehighestnumberofRTSOsinthecountry.Thesearenotmajorurban
areas; they are located in the North East of England –which has the lowest
concentrationofcharitiesofanyregionintheUK;andinareasofhighdeprivation
suchasthese,wewouldusuallyexpecttoseefewer–notmore-TSOs62
Table3.PlaceswithhighestnumberofRTSOs
CITY/BOROUGHNUMBEROFRTSOS
OPERATING
POPULATIONSIZE APPLICANTSSUPPORTEDUNDER
SECTION95
BIRMINGHAM 11 1,111,307 1,451
LEEDS 8 774,060 537
MANCHESTER 7 530,292 926
LAMBETH 7 324,431 44
SANDWELL 7 319,455 698
NEWCASTLEUPONTYNE 7 292,883 509
STOCKTON-ON-TEES 7 194,803 753
MIDDLESBROUGH 7 139,509 765
BRADFORD 6 531,176 524
CROYDON 5 379,031 166
Thanet, Aylesbury vale and Medway closely resemble Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Stockton-On-Tees and Middlesbrough in terms of population size. However, (like
many affluent Southern districts) there are not any applicants being supported
underSection95here,andtherearenoRTSOs(seeTable4).Thegeographyofthe
49
refugeethirdsectoristhusdirectlyrelatedtotheimplementationofasylumpolicyat
thenationallevel.Increasingly,newdispersalareasarebeingused,whichisleading
tonewdemandforRTSOsinareaswithoutahistoryofsuchactivity63.
Table4.RTSOsindifferentareas
CITY/BOROUGHNUMBEROFRTSOs
OPERATINGPOPULATIONSIZE
APPLICANTSSUPPORTEDUNDER
SECTION95
MIDDLESBROUGH 7 139,509 765
THANET 0 139,772 0
STOCKTON-ON-TEES 7 194,803 753
AYLESBURYVALE 0 188,707 0
NEWCASTLEUPONTYNE 7 292,883 509
MEDWAY 0 276,492 0
2.3Howmanypeoplearerelyingoncharitablesupport?
Inthissectionwelookatthenumberofasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersand
refugees who received support from organisations involved in our research: the
British Red Cross (UK), ASSIST (Sheffield), and Asylum Welcome (Oxford) in
2015/16.TheBritishRedCrossdataoffersanationalpicture,whilefiguresfromthe
other two organisations indicate the scale of the grass roots response in both
dispersalandnon-dispersalareas.
The British Red Cross is the largest NGOworking in this field with operations in
everymajordispersalcity.Theyprovidedestitutebeneficiarieswithfoodvouchers,
food parcels, second hand clothes, bus passes and hardship funds. Nationally, the
British Red Cross supported 9,138 asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugees,and4,130dependentsin2015.Toputthisfigureincontext,thenumberof
asylum seekers supported by the British Red Cross nationally in 2015 is roughly
equalto25%ofthoseinreceiptofasylumsupportthatyear.
50
In 2015/16 there were 2,000 visits to ASSIST’s Help Desk; 102 clients were
provided with small weekly welfare payments; 62 clients were provided with
medium term accommodation; and 49 clients were provided with emergency
accommodation. In 2015/16, there were 2,976 visits to Asylum Welcome’s main
office; 2,321 food parcels were handed out; in total 1,029 clients received help;
including88unaccompaniedyoungasylumseekersandrefugees.AsylumWelcome’s
approach is to prioritise giving asylum seekers and refugees expert advice and
negotiating with other service providers to alleviate destitution. In certain
circumstancesAsylumWelcome alsomakes small direct cashpayments to asylum
seekersand refugees tomeeturgentneeds.Approximatelyhalf of thosepayments
arefundedbyAsylumWelcome’sownfundraising.Theotherhalfarecoveredbya
partnership with the British Red Cross, whereby Asylum Welcome can reclaim
hardshippaymentsmadeaspartoftheBritishRedCross’commitmenttoaddressing
destitution.TheBritishRedCrosssupported76peopleinOxfordshireduring2015,
handingout cash /moneyon161occasions; cash /money for local travel on23
occasions;andprovidingadviceaboutdestitutionon141occasions.
ThenumberofpeoplereceivinghelpfromRTSOsdoesnotnecessarilyequatetothe
number of people experiencing destitution. The number of people that an
organisationhelpsmaybeasmuchanindicationoftheorganisation’scapacityasit
isofthedemandforthatservice;andorganisationsareunlikelytorecordorpublish
informationaboutunmetneed.Moreover,wecannotbesurehowmanypeoplewho
experiencedestitutiondoseekhelpfromvoluntaryorganisations.WhattheBritish
Red Cross data does reveal is the proportion of asylum seekers, refused asylum
seekers and refugees who are supported, which is useful to our enquiry. Only
refused asylum seekers who are not entitled to Section 4 support are made
purposefully destitute by the government, in an effort to encourage departure.
AsylumseekersareinreceiptofsupportwhichtheHomeOfficereportisadequate
for covering living needs. Refugees or thosewith temporary leave to remain have
access tomainstreamwelfarebenefits.Refusedasylumseekerswhoqualifyunder
limited conditions described in the introduction for non-cash support are also
51
accommodated.Thissystemofeconomicsupport,intheory,shouldmeanthatthird
sectororganisationsareonlysupportingrefusedasylumseekerswhoareabsolutely
destitute.
Figure6presentsabreakdownoftheimmigrationstatusofthepeoplesupportedby
theBritishRedCrossin2015attheirrefugeeservices(whererecorded).According
tothisdatathemajority(53%)ofpeoplereceivingsupportareasylumseekers;25%
have been granted some form of protection; and just 10% are refused asylum
seekerswithnofurtherrepresentationstomake.Thefactthatthemajorityofpeople
theBritishRedCrosshelpsareasylumseekersorrefugeesconfirmsthatpeopleare
liabletobecomedestituteatallstagesintheirasylumjourney,includingwhileinthe
asylumsystem,andafterbeinggrantedleavetoremain.
Figure6.BritishRedCrossbeneficiariesbyimmigrationsstatus2015
As presented in Figure 7, in 2015, the majority (61%) of British Red Cross
beneficiarieswere in receipt of statutory support: just 30%were in receipt of no
statutorysupport.Asylumseekerswhoare inreceiptofSection95supportshould
notneedtorelyoncharitiesforfood,clothing,buspassesandhardshipfunds.The
fact that so many are supported indicates that even those in receipt of asylum
53%
25%
10% 6% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Asylumseeker Refugeestatus/humanitarianprotection
Fullyrefused- nofurtherreps
Fullyrefused-furtherrepssubmitted
Other
52
supportliveinpovertyandareforced,atleastonsomeoccasions,torelyoncharities
to meet their basic needs in relation to food, clothing, bus fares and unexpected
financialevents.
Figure8indicatesthereasonsthatbeneficiariesofRedCrosssupportweredestitute.
Destitutionoftenarisesbecauseoferrorsanddelayscausedbygovernmentservice
providers. This includes a significant number of people who are made destitute
whengrantedrefugeestatus(26%),orasaresultofissueswithNASSsupport(16%
ofrespondents).
Figure7.BritishRedCrossbeneficiariesbystatutorysupporttype
Forasylumseekersandrefugeeswhoareunabletoaccessstatutorysupport,akey
areaofprovision ishousingandhousingadvice.A largenumberofRTSOsprovide
information on accessing housing. For example, the British Red Cross are not an
accommodation provider, but supported asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers
andrefugeeswith822accommodationrelatedissuesin2015,includinggivingaway
131sleepingbags,givingadviceandmakingreferralstoaccommodationproviders
aroundthecountry.
61%
30%
7% 1% 0.30% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NASS Nosupport Welfarebenefits
SocialServices Employed Other
53
Figure8.BritishRedCrossdestitutebeneficiariesbyreasonfordestitution
A smaller number of RTSOs are providing night shelters and longer term
accommodation. Members of the accommodation network NACCOM provide
accommodationtoasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugeesin28urban
areasintheUK.In2016,NACCOMpublishedresultsfromthefourthannualsurvey
of NACCOM accommodation projects. NACCOM members hosted people in 165
houses,18flats,9churchproperties,and6nightshelters(2permanentand1winter
only)in2016.ThemajorityofNACCOM’smembersmanagehostingschemeswhich
match asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers or refugees with accommodation
with host families with rooms to share. In 2016, the number of people
accommodated byNACCOMmembers over the year came to 1,707, an increase of
29%since2015.Ofthese,808wererefusedasylumseekersand499wererefugees.
Member projects were accommodating 789 people per night at the time of the
survey, an increase of 34% in the last year. Over 12 months, NACCOM estimate
membersprovided209,250nightsofaccommodation.
Most of the requests forhelp that theBritishRedCross receivewere for financial
support. In2015,mostof thepeoplevisiting theRedCrosswere requesting: cash,
supermarket vouchers, and money for local fares. In total, these three types of
0.2% 0.2%
3% 5% 5% 7%
8% 15% 15% 16%
26%
Leavingcare
Agedisputed
Pre-asylum(intenttoclaim)
Welfarebenefitsstopped
Section4- Application/Decisionpending
NoRecoursetoPublicFunds
FreshClaim- Application/Decision…
InitialorAppealclaimdecisionpending
EndofAsylumprocess- noaction…
IssuewithNASSsupport
Interimperiod- Refugeestatusgranted
54
financial support were awarded on 7,181 occasions in 2015. Those receiving
financial support are given up to £10 perweek for amaximum of 12weeks, and
regular assessments are undertaken to try to address the root causes of the
destitution and to help the client to find away out of their situation. In 2015/16,
ASSIST gave regular financial support to 102 destitute refused asylum seekers in
Sheffield.Clientsreceiving financialsupportchoosetoreceiveeither£20perweek
or£10perweekplusalocalbuspass.
2.4Supportthatishardtocost
InthissectionwedrawonthedatafromtheBritishRedCross,NACCOM,ASSISTand
AsylumWelcome,inordertoexplorethescaleofhardtocostsupport.Therearea
number of types of support provided by RTSOs which (financially) cost little or
nothing. Indeed, it is in the very nature of the charitable sector to do asmuch as
possiblewithaslittleaspossible,andtorelyheavilyonthegoodwillofvolunteers.
While volunteer time is one key factor which is difficult to financially quantify,
services such food parcels, clothes banks, advocacy and advice contribute to the
supportpackageofferedtoclients,whichmaybecomenecessarybecauseofgapsin
statutoryprovision.
In2015/16AsylumWelcomehandedout2,321bagsoffoodtoasylumseekersand
refugees,valuedat£30,869.Access toAsylumWelcome’sFoodBank is forasylum
seekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugeesthathave insufficient incometo feed
them and their families. After cash, food parcels, clothing vouchers and hygiene
packswere themost common types of support the British Red Cross gave out in
2015.Intotal,theBritishRedCrossprovided1,535foodparcels,1,370vouchersfor
RedCrossclothingshops,and1,022hygienepacks.
The volunteer contribution to the refugee third sector cannot be overstated. For
example,weestimatetheretobemorethan218volunteersacrossASSISTteamsin
Sheffield, not counting volunteer hosts who offer accommodation to homeless
peopleintheirownhomes.ASSISTvolunteersprovideessentialadvice,supportand
55
stability to asylum seekers. Their team leaders report that volunteers in frontline
teamsaremost likely tobeBritish citizens, female, andeither retiredor students.
However, there are many volunteers who are themselves refugees or asylum
seekers,particularly in the interpreter’s team.Whenthisresearchwasundertaken
ASSISTvolunteersspentonaverageatotalof463hoursaweekvolunteering–thisis
theequivalentof13fulltimerolesatminimumwagelevels.Ifvolunteerswerepaid
thenationalminimumwageof£7.50perhour,thecombinedwagebillforASSIST’s
volunteers would be £700 a day / £3,472 a week / £180,544 a year (excluding
overheads such as national insurance contributions). Many volunteers, if paid for
whattheydoinASSIST,wouldnotbeontheminimumwagebutahigherrate.Asa
point of comparison, the highest salaries paid to staffwithin the organisation are
currently £28,000 per annum. Paying volunteers at this rate – rather than at
minimumwage –woulddouble the estimatedwagebill (excludingoverheads) for
volunteers–to£364,000peryear.
In Oxford Asylum Welcome receives a new volunteer application most days,
volunteers are expected tomake a commitment of 12months, andhave specialist
skillsandexperience.Forexamplevolunteerteachersareexpectedtohaveteaching
qualifications and experience. The ability to speak a refugee language is desirable
and those who have personal experience of seeking asylum are welcomed as
volunteers. Using the management tool Three Rings, Asylum Welcome took a
snapshot of volunteer time for a single week in March 2016. That week, 45
volunteers spent a combined total of 189 hours volunteering across Asylum
Welcome’s destitution services64- this is the equivalent of 5 full time roles. If
volunteerswerepaidthenationalminimumwageof£7.50perhour, thecombined
wagebillforAsylumWelcome’svolunteerswouldbe£300aday/£1,500aweek/
£78,000 a year. Note the differential burden in Sheffield, a dispersal city, in
comparison to Oxford, which is not a dispersal city. ASSIST is one of many
organisations operating in Sheffield, while Asylum Welcome is the main RTSO
operatinginOxford.
56
NACCOMmember organisations answered survey questions about the number of
staffandvolunteerswhosupporttheorganisation.Figure9presentsabreakdownof
theratioofhoursworkedbyvolunteersandstaff.Smallerorganisationsrelymore
onvolunteerstodeliverservices.Havingahighnumberofvolunteersdoespresent
some challenges for RTSOs including the potential unsuitability of volunteers for
their roles, role creepwhere volunteers are required to take on evermore duties
(particularly in small grass roots organisations), or where they take on
responsibilitieswhichreachbeyondtheiroriginalcommitmenttotheorganisation,
particularlythroughinformalrelationshipswithclients.
Figure9HoursworkedbyvolunteersandstaffindifferentsizeNACCOMmemberorganisations
Advocacyandadviceservicesareintendedtohelpasylumseekerstofindawayout
of destitution. Good immigration advice is essential to supporting routes out of
destitution, and a range of services exist, including help with casework, evidence
gathering,legaladministration,legalandimmigrationadvice.Significantresourceis
alsoexpendedbyRTSOsassistingasylumseekersandrefugeestoaccessthewelfare
andbenefits that theyare entitled to.Threeof the fourmost common reasons for
visiting AsylumWelcome’s Advice Service in 2015/16were: to get help accessing
supportasanasylumseeker;becauseofconfusionoverasylumstatus/process;and,
difficultyaccessingmainstreambenefits.
82% 68%
7% 9%
18% 32%
50% 91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
lessthan£10k £10kto£100k £100kto£1million £1millionplusFTEVolunteers FTEStaff
57
Table5BritishRedCrossWelfareInterventions2015
ACTIONTYPE TOTALSECTION95ADMINISTRATION 244SECTION4ADMINISTRATION 223
SECTION95APPLICATION 172SECTION4APPLICATION 153SECTION98APPLICATION 70
SECTION4APPEAL 59JOBSEEKERSALLOWANCEAPPLICATION 48
SECTION95APPEAL 27EMPLOYMENTSUPPORTALLOWANCEAPPLICATION 15
SECTION4REQUESTFORNEWINFORMATION 13INCOMESUPPORTAPPLICATION 9
Table5presentsabreakdownofthemostcommonwelfarerelatedactionsthatthe
BritishRedCrosstookin2015.Therangeofentitlements,appealsandrequestsfor
more informationsuggest that thecomplexityof thesystemisbarrier toaccessing
supportentitlementsforasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees.
2.5Thecostofthisthirdsectorresponse
2.5.1Sectorwidefunding
Thissectionexaminesrefugeethirdsectorincome,expenditureandfundingdrawing
on Charity Commission (England and Wales) and NACCOM (UK wide) data. The
Charity Commission publish the annual income and expenditure of registered
charitiesinEnglandandWales.ThetotalincomeofoursampleofRTSOsin2015/16
was£33.4million.Inthesameyear,expenditurestoodat£31.8million,95%oftotal
income.Theincomereportedhereisforarangeofservices,notsolelythosethattry
to alleviate destitution, though the British Red Cross portion of this income /
expenditureisspecificallyondestitution.
2.5.2Sizeoforganisations
The sector is dominated by a high number of small and medium sized charities.
Organisationswithanannual incomeofunder£5,000arenot required to register
58
with theCharityCommissionandwhile somedo, it isnotpossible toestimate the
total number in operation. Within the wider voluntary sector, the majority of
organisations are very small: 54% have an annual income of less than £10,000.
However,thesesmallandverysmallorganisationsaccountfor5.5%ofthesector’s
totalincome65.
Figure 10 presents a breakdown of the number of RTSOs in each income band
(excluding organisations with an income of under £10,000). Most of the
organisationsaresmallandmediumsized:97%haveanincomeofbetween£10,000
and£1million.Theaverage incomeofRTSOson theCharityCommissionRegister
was£288.3kin2015/16.
Organisationswithanannualincomeofover£1millionmakeuponly3%ofthetotal
numberofRTSOs registeredwith theCharityCommission, yet account for70%of
the sector’s total income. This resembles the wider charity sector, in which
organisationswithanannualincomeofover£1millionmakeup2.8%ofthesector
andreceivejustoverthreequarters(77%)ofthesector’sincome66.
Figure10.PercentageofRTSOsregisteredwiththeCharityCommissionineachincomeband
55%
42%
2% 1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
£10kto£100k £100kto£1million £1millionto£10million
Morethan£10million
59
2.5.3Incomesources
Twenty-fourmembersoftheNACCOMnetworkanswereddetailedsurveyquestions
abouttheproportionoftheirincomereceivedfromdifferentsources.Twentyoutof
24 NACCOM members received individual donations in 2015/16. Of these,
organisationsreceivedanaverageof20%oftheirincomefromindividualdonations.
Donationsappeartobeparticularlyimportanttofledglingorganisations–onesmall
organisationestablished in2016reportsreceivingupto100%of their funds from
individualdonations;anothersmallorganisationestablishedin2017received70%
oftheirincomeindonationsfromphilanthropic/faithbasedorganisations.Similarly,
Asylum Welcome in Oxford receives a significant number of donations from
individualsupportersinOxfordshire,oftensmalldonationsfromalargenumberof
ordinary people. Organisations with an income of over £500,000 are required to
submit details of their funding sources to the Charity Commission. Of the eight
charitiesthatthisappliedtoin2015/16,organisationsreceivedonaveragejust19%
oftheincomefromindividualdonations.
Twentytwooutof24NACCOMmembersreceivedgrants fromcharitabletrustsor
otherorganisationsin2015/16.Ofthese,organisationsreceivedanaverageof50%
of their income from charitable trusts or other grants, making grants the largest
sourceofincomefortheorganisationssampled.Thisisofcourseacompetitiveand
finitefundingsource,whichmakesrelyinguponitrisky.
15 out of 22 NACCOM members received statutory funds in 2015/16. Of these,
organisationsreceivedanaverageof15%oftheirincomefromstatutorysources.All
butoneoftheseorganisationsreceivesstatutoryfundingfromthelocalcouncil;just
oneorganisation iscontractedtoanNHSFoundationTrust toprovide interpreting
services. The NACCOMmember survey sample did not include any organisations
with incomes over £10 million. Within the wider voluntary sector, organisations
with incomes over £10 million received the largest proportion of government
funding(42%in2014/15)andsmallorganisationsreceivedthe lowestproportion
(16%)67.
60
GovernmentfundinghasahugeimpactontheincomeoflargerRTSOs:oftheeight
RTSOs with an income over £500,000 that are registered with the Charity
Commission, three areoperatingwith a significantly reduced income compared to
five years ago, as a direct result of a reduction in statutory funding. The Refugee
Councillost£3millionofHomeOfficefundingin2014/15.RefugeeActionlost£7.7
million ofHomeOffice funding in 2015/16. TheNorth of EnglandRefugee service
lost almost half amillion pounds in government funding since 2011, representing
half of its income.Reduced statutory funding for these organisations is associated
withthelossofaHomeOfficecontract(itshouldbenoted,however,thatdestitution
support is often only one part of the activities of these organisations). In the
examplesgivenabove,thelossoffundingisassociatedwiththeHomeOfficemoving
the administration of a programme internally, or awarding the contract to an
alternative supplier. Government funding is therefore precarious and subject to
widertrendsinstatespending.Losingfundingcanimpactonstaffnumbers,andcan
lead to ‘capacity crunch’ – a term used by the National Council for Voluntary
Organisations (NCVO)68to describe how diminishing income leads to diminishing
staff(capacity),whichcanmakeitdifficulttosecurenewsourcesofincome.
In light of these pressures, it is not surprising that RTSOs are reasonably good at
income generation innovation: 15 out of 22 NACCOM member organisations
generated (rather than raised) a proportion of their income in 2015/16.Of these,
organisationsgeneratedanaverageof13%oftheirincome.NACCOMmembersare
allaccommodationproviders,andtheseorganisationsareinsomecasesabletorent
roomstorefugeestogenerate income, fromhousingbenefit,andrentpaiddirectly
byrefugeeresidents.Theincomefromrefugeehousingherehelpstooffsetthecost
ofhousingdestitutepeoplewithnoincomeorrecoursetopublicfunds.RTSOsthat
provideaccommodationarelikelytoleasehousesthatareownedbysupportersor
thechurchforareducedorpeppercornrent,leadingtoconsiderablesavings.Figure
11 provides a breakdown of the type of housing that NACCOMmembersmanage.
Themajorityofhouses(61%)areprivatelyowned,bytheorganisationssupporters.
61
Figure11.TypeofhousingprovidedbyNACCOMmembers
Ineffect,organisationsthatareabletousethisfundingmodelaresocialenterprises,
withthemostsuccessfulfunding50%oftheirincomeinthisway.Organisationsmay
alsoprovideconsultancyservices.Incomegenerationcanofferasustainableincome
modelforRTSOs,howeveritisuncleartowhatextentmodelsofincomegeneration
are scalable, andwhether RTSOs that do notmanage housing are in a position to
generatesomeoftheirincome.
61%
17%
7% 5% 10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Privatelyowned Churchowned Partnership Housingassociation
Other
62
3ConclusionThisreporthasshownthat:
Ø Third sector oragnisations are spending at least £33.4 million per year on
supportingasylumseekers,refusedasylumseekersandrefugees.
Ø Thatthisspendhasdecreasedbymorethan£10millioninrecentyearsdueto
decreasedgovernmentfunding.
Ø That new organisations are nevertheless appearing (around 7 per year) in
asylumdispersalareasowingtoclientdemand.
Ø Thatthemajorityofthoseinreceiptofsupportshouldalreadybesupported
withineithertheasylumsupportsystem,orthemainstreambenefitssystem.
Thestratifiedregimeofrightsaffordedtodifferentgroupswhoaregoingthroughor
havebeenthroughtheasylumsystem,resultsindifferentvulnerabilitiestopoverty
anddestitutionaspeoplemovethroughtheprocess.Asylumseekersinreceiptofthe
Section 95 support that they are entitled to are living on a highly constrained
income;theyarelivinginpovertyaccordingtomanyobservers,althoughtheHome
Officetakesadifferentposition.Theyarevulnerabletodestitutionwhenunexpected
orunusualcostspresentthemselves,aswellaswhenadministrativeproblemscause
delaysinreceivingsupport.RefusedasylumseekerslivingonSection4supportare
inthesamesituation,whichisthenexacerbatedbytheirlackofaccesstocash.Not
having cash means that essential bus journeys, for example, are impossible.
AdministrativedelaysalsoexacerbatethissituationforboththoseonSection4and
Section95.
Refused asylum seekerswith no recourse to public funds are invariably destitute
and while they remain in the UK, which around a third of each cohort do, and
vulnerabletoexploitationandtoengaginginriskysurvivalstrategies.Forthosewho
have a positive decision on their asylum application the picture should be much
morepositivebutunfortunatelyitisnot.The28dayrulethrowsmanypeopleinto
destitutionsoonafterbeinggrantedleavetoremain.Havingcomefromasituationof
poverty and occasional destitution while in the asylum system, they are already
63
highlyvulnerableandpoorlyequippedtonavigatethemainstreamwelfaresystem,
letalonethelabourmarket.Thisundoubtedlyhampersintegrationoutcomes.
The upshot of this patchwork picture of poverty and destitution is that the third
sectorareplayingasignificantroleinsupportingthosewhohavebeenfailedbythe
state.AnalysisofCharityCommissiondatashowsthatthirdsectororganisationsare
spending at least £33.4 million per year on supporting asylum seekers, refused
asylumseekersandrefugees.Thisfigureiscertainlyanunderestimation,andisalso
notindicativeofdemand,whichorganisationsreportexceedscapacity.Itwouldcost
almostthesameamount-£29millionatourestimation-toincreaseasylumsupport
(includingbothSection4andSection95)to70%ofJobSeekersAllowance69.Inthis
report we have explored the scale of the third sector response. It is hard to be
certainaboutwhether thedemandwhich theseorganisationsare responding to is
mainly being created by the refused asylum seeker population, who are not
supportedbythestate,orwhetheritisalsobeingcreatedbydemandfromasylum
seekers and refugees, both ofwhom should have sufficient access to support. The
formerwouldpointtoapolicyfailureinrelationtorefusedasylumseekers–itisnot
sustainableorsociallydesirabletoallowapopulationofhighlyvulnerabledestitute
peoplewithnorecoursetopublicfundstogrowyearonyear.Thelatterwouldpoint
toapolicyfailureinrelationtoasylumsupport.
Some insight is gained by looking at the numbers of asylum seekers who are, or
shouldbe,inreceiptofSection95support,whoarebeingsupportedbythirdsector
organisations.Thisnumberismuchhigherthanwemightexpectiflevelsofasylum
supportwereadequateformeetingessentiallivingneeds.DatafromtheBritishRed
Cross(whererecorded)showsthatthemajority(53%)ofpeoplereceivingsupport
from this, the largest national charity supporting such individuals are asylum
seekers; 25% have been granted some form of protection; just 10% are refused
asylumseekerswithnofurtherrepresentationstomake.In2015,61%ofBritishRed
Crossbeneficiarieswereinreceiptofstatutorysupport.
64
Thus,thetwomaingroupswhoarebeingsupportedbythethirdsectorareasylum
seekerswhoare,orshouldbe,receivingSection95support,andrefugeeswhohave
receivedapositivedecision. Indeed,29%of thosesupportedwithaccommodation
byNACCOMmemberorganisationsin2016wererefugees.Thiscertainlysuggestsa
policy failure in refugee integration, which is almost certainly related to the very
short time (28days) that new refugees have to find accommodation and financial
supportoncetheyhavebeengrantedleavetoremain.
We identifieda totalof142UKbasedRTSOs thatworkonalleviatingpovertyand
destitution in England and Wales, though of course this excludes faith based
organisations, very small organisations, and organisations which focus on other
issues such as homelessness and food poverty but also have destitute asylum
seekersandrefugeeswithin their clientgroup.A largenumberofRTSOsclosed in
2011, which may be related to 2010 changes to government funding rules, the
closure of theMigration Impact Fund, and the broader impact of austerity on the
thirdsector.Andyet,currentlyaround7neworganisationswithanincomeofover
£5,000 are created each year.This rate of increasewithin the sectormay indicate
thatthecharitablesectorisrespondingtoasignificantsocialproblem.Inrelationto
policy,theincreaseinthenumberoforganisationscorrelatesnotwiththenumbers
of asylum applications received by the UK government, but with an ever more
restrictiveapproach to theeconomic rightsandentitlementsof forcedmigrants in
the UK. This includes decreasing levels of financial support provided to asylum
seekersandrefusedasylumseekers, increasingrestrictionsonworking, increasing
limitationsonwelfaresupportforallgroupsofmainstreamclaimants,includingthe
use of sanctions, and the petering out of anything resembling a national refugee
integrationstrategyinEngland,WalesandNorthernIreland.
There are potentially much wider socio-economic costs created by this policy
approach,whicharemitigatedbytheworkofthethirdsector.ThecharityCrisisand
academicsfromtheUniversityofYorkhavebeenworkingtodevelopanestimateof
thefinancialcosttothepublicsectorofhomelessness70.Suchacostiscontingenton
many factors. For the NHS and criminal justice system, the additional costs of
65
homelessness are incurred because of the greater likelihood of contactwith some
homelesspeoplecomparedtoothercitizens.Usingqualitativeandservicecostdata,
thestudyestimates that forasingleman inhis30swhobecomesaroughsleeper,
allowinghomelessnesstopersistfor12monthscoststhepublicsector£20,128.The
researchers did not specifically explore the cost to the public sectorwhen asylum
seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees become homeless. A sector specific
calculationwouldbeextremelyvaluabletoRTSOs,grantmakingorganisationsand
policy makers. Should the figure be close to £20,128, the costs quickly become
significant.Forexample,NACCOMmembers–whoaccommodateanaverageof789
peoplepernightcouldbesaidtobesavingthepublicsector£15.9millioneachyear
by preventing homelessness for asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and
refugees.
Inlightoftheincreasingnumberoforganisationsforming,thepressuresonfunding,
and the precariousness of available funding sources, it seems likely that current
ratesofexpansionwithinthesectorarenotsustainableunlesspublicdonationscan
keeppacewithcharitableneed.Thisinitselfisunlikely,particularlysincedispersal
areas,where there is greater demand for charitable support for these groups, are
oftenlocatedinareasofhigherdeprivation.Whatisneeded,wesuggestareaseries
ofpolicychanges,whichwedetailbelow.
66
4PolicyRecommendations AsylumseekersinreceiptofSection95support
1. Grantasylumseekerstheright toworkoncetheyhavebeenwaiting6monthsforadecisionontheirasylumapplication,andremovethelimitation
thatasylumseekersareonlyabletoworkinjobsontheshortageoccupation
list.Thiswouldbring theUKmore in linewith theEuropeanstandard, and
enableasylumseekerstobeself-supporting.
2. Increase levels of Section 95 support to at least 70% of Job SeekersAllowance, and increase annually in line with inflation. Lifting asylum
seekers out of poverty would remove a significant burden on third sector
organisations,whomightthenconcentrateonthoseinmostneed.
3. Address administrative delays and mistakes which leave asylumapplicants destitute when they should be in receipt of Section 95
support.
RefusedasylumseekersinreceiptofSection4support
1. IncreaselevelsofSection4support(soontobechangedtoSection95Asupport)inlinewithSection95levels.Liftingsuchrefusedasylumseekers,
whoarecooperatingwithremoval,outofpovertywouldremoveasignificant
burdenonthirdsectororganisations,whomightthenconcentrateonthosein
mostneed.
2. Address administrative delays and mistakes which leave refusedasylumapplicantswhoareentitledtoSection4supportdestitute
3. MakeSection4acash-based,ratherthanvoucher-basedsystem.ThereisnoclearreasonfordenyingrecipientsofSection4accesstocash.
4. Removethe21daydeadlineforapplyingforSection95AsupportwhenintroducedtoreplaceSection4support.This21daydeadlinewillleadto
peoplewhoshouldbeentitledtosupportbecomingdestitute.
67
5. AllowappealsonSection95Aapplicationdecisionswhenintroducedtoreplace Section 4 support. Evidence from the current Section 4 system
suggests that the lack of right to appealwill lead to peoplewho should be
entitledtosupportbecomingdestitute.
Thosegrantedleavetoremain(refugees)
1. IntroduceanationalrefugeeintegrationstrategywhichstartsfromDay1thatleavetoremainisgranted,tobeoverseenbyaspeciallyappointed
cross-departmental Government Minister for Refugees (as argued by the
APPGRefugees).This should include:providingnewrefugeeswith thevital
information that they need to access the mainstream benefits system and
labourmarket,fasteraccesstoNationalInsuranceNumbers(integratedinto
the initial interview process), information on training and educational
opportunities, interim housing beyond the 28 day period, access to advice
andassistancebeyondthe28dayperiodonallaspectsoflifeintheUK,access
toemergencyloans,andtrainingforJobCentrestaffonrefugeeneeds.
2. Extendthe28day‘movingon’period.ThenewUniversalCreditsystemhasan inbuilt 6week delay before payments aremade. Themoving on period
shouldthereforebeaminimumof6weeks.
3. Acknowldege the link to asylumpolicy. Many of the challenges faced byrefugees are linked to having lived in povertywhile in the asylum system,
makinginstitutingtherecommendationsmadeinrelationtoasylumseekers
vitalforrefugeeintegration.
Refusedasylumseekerswhoarenotknowntohavedeparted
1. Introduce a humane, realistic, and evidence informed strategy forsupporting such individuals, which looks beyond detention and
removal. Many refused asylum do not leave the UK because they believe
theirliveswillbeatriskiftheyreturntotheircountryoforigin.Insuchcases,
refusaltoleavemightbestbeaddressedbyenablingfurtherlegaladviceand
legalavenuestoreconsidertheircases.
68
2. Increaseaccesstolegaladvice,andlegalaid,forrefusedasylumseekers.Good quality immigration advice and information about rights and
entitlements is essential to ensure that refused asylum seekers are able to
makeinformeddecisionsabouttheirsituationfollowingrefusal.Inpart,this
involvesensuringaccessto legalaidandrepresentationthroughoutaclaim,
andmorebroadlyprovidingend-to-endsupportuntilanapplicantisgranted
leavetoremainorreturns/isremoved.
3. Section95supportshouldnotend21daysafteranegativedecision isadministered,butshouldcontinueonaninterimbasisuntiltheHomeOffice
has delivered its decision in respect to an individual’s Section4/Section95A
application.
4. KeeppregnantwomenandfamilieswithchildrenonSection95support,regardless of their status, to prevent destitution and safeguard the best
interestsofthechildreninvolved
5. Openupaccess toSection95 support for refusedasylumseekerswhocannot return homedue to a lack of documentation. At the same time,
Provideclear,realisticandpracticalguidelinesforsingleadultsapplyingfor
Section 95A on what is considered as appropriate evidence to prove they
havetakenreasonablestepstoobtainatraveldocument,and/or…
6. Grantdiscretionary leavetoremaintopeoplewhocannotbereturnedthroughnofaultoftheirown,afteraperiodof12months
7. Introduce an enhanced package of funding for third sector
organisations who are responding to the growing population of refused
asylum seekers. This is essential in order to mitigate the wider social
problems created by a growing population of destitute individualswith no
recoursetopublicfunds,labourmarketaccess,orhealthcareaccess.
8. Conduct a review of procedures within the asylum system which canleadtowrongfuldecisionstopreventpeoplefromwrongfullybeingrefused
andsubsequentlybeingmadedestitute.
69
NotesandReferences
1AllPartyParliamentaryGroupforRefugees(2017)RefugeesWelcome?TheExperienceofNewRefugeesintheUK,London:BarrowCadburyTrustandTheRefugeeCouncil2Fitzpatricketal(2015)DestitutionintheUK:Aninterimreport,York:JosephRowntreeFoundation;Pettitt,J.(2013)TheRighttoRehabilitationforSurvivorsofTortureintheUK.London:FreedomfromTorture;RefugeeCouncil,.(2004)Hungryandhomeless:Theimpactofthewithdrawalofstatesupportonasylumseekers,refugeecommunitiesandthevoluntarysector,London:RefugeeCouncil;3Forexamplessee:BeverleyHughes,HCDeb,23July2002,c1041W;GovernmentresponsetoJointCommitteeonHumanRights,2007,HLPaper134HC790,p.14;LordAttlee,HLDeb,17March2014,c324Mayblin,L.(2016)Complexityreductionandpolicyconsensus:asylumseekers,therighttowork,andthe‘pullfactor’thesisintheUKcontext,TheBritishJournalofPoliticsandInternationalRelations,18(4):812–8285Mayblin,L.James,P.(2016)Factorsinfluencingasylumdestinationchoice:Areviewoftheevidence,UniversityofSheffield,Availableat:https://asylumwelfarework.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/asylum-seeker-pull-factors-working-paper.pdf6NationalAuditOffice(undated)Whatarethirdsectororganisationsandtheirbenefitsforcommissioners?https://www.nao.org.uk/successful-commissioning/introduction/what-are-civil-society-organisations-and-their-benefits-for-commissioners/7McCabe,A.Phillimore,J.andMayblin,L.(2010)‘Belowtheradar’activitiesandorganisationsinthethirdsector:asummaryreviewoftheliterature,UniversityofBirminghamThirdSectorResearchCentre,WorkingPaper298Mayblin,L.(2017)AsylumafterEmpire,RowmanandLittlefieldInternational;Squire,V.(2009)TheExclusionaryPoliticsofAsylum,Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan9RefugeeAction,.(2017)SlippingThroughtheCracks:HowBritain’sAsylumSupportSystemFailstheMostVulnerable,London:RefugeeAction10SeeforexampleMorris,L.(2003)ManagingContradiction:CivicStratificationandMigrants'Rights,InternationalMigrationReview,37(1):74–100 11AsylumSupportAppealsProject(2014).Thenextreasonablestep:RecommendedchangestoHomeOfficepolicyandpracticeforSection4supportgrantedunderreg3(2)(a).http://www.asaproject.org/uploads/The-Next-Reasonable-Step-September-2014.pdf(Accessed30/12/2016);Blanchard,C.andJoy,S.(2017)Can’tStayCan’tGo:RefusedAsylumSeekersWhoCannotbeReturned,London:BritishRedCross.12EstimateproducedbytheNewPolicyInstituteforJosephRoundtreeFoundation,2015,citedin:Bramley,G.etal.,(2016)CountingthecostofUKpoverty.York:JosephRowntreeFoundation.13HomeOffice(2016)ControlofImmigration:StatisticsUnitedKingdom,HomeOfficeStatisticalBulletin,London:HomeOffice14HomeOffice(2016,asabove)15HomeOffice(2016,asabove)16Thesefiguresassumethataccommodationcostswouldremainthesame17BlanchardandJoy(2017,asabove)18Fitzpatricketal(2016)DestitutionintheUK,York:JosephRowntreeFoundation;Lewis,H.(2007)DestitutioninLeeds:TheExperiencesofPeopleSeekingAsylumandSupportingAgencies.York:JosephRowntreeCharitableTrust;Basedow,J.andDoyle,L.(2016)England’sforgottenrefugees:Outofthereandintothefryingpan,London:RefugeeCouncil;Doyle,L.(2014)28dayslater:experiencesofnewrefugeesintheUK,London:RefugeeCouncil;Carnet,P.Blanchard,C.Apollonio,F.(2014)Themove-onperiod:anordealfornewrefugees,London:BritishRedCross
70
19Dwyer,P.andBrown,D.(2005)‘MeetingBasicNeeds?ForcedMigrantsandWelfare’.SocialPolicyandSociety,4,pp369-38020Allsopp,J.,N.Sigona,andJ.Phillimore.(2014).PovertyamongrefugeesandasylumseekersintheUK:Anevidenceandpolicyreview.IRISworkingpaperseries,No.1/2014.21HouseofLords&HouseofCommonsJointCommitteeonHumanRights,TenthReportofSession2006–07:TheTreatmentofAsylumSeekers,HLPaper81-I,HC60-I,London:TheStationeryOfficeLimited;Children’sSociety,.(2013).ReportoftheParliamentaryInquiryintoAsylumSupportforChildrenandYoungPeople2013.London:TheChildren’sSociety;HouseofCommonsandHomeAffairsCommittee,(2013)Asylum:SeventhReportofSession2013–14HC71:TheStationaryOffice;SeealsoRefugeeAction(2017,asabove)22Children’sSociety(2013:2asabove)23HouseofCommonsandHomeAffairsCommittee(2013asabove)24 Pettitt(2013,asabove) 25Fitzpatricketal(2016asabove);Dumper,H.Malfait,R.Scott-Flynn,N.(2006)MentalHealth,Destitution&Asylum-Seekers,Astudyofdestituteasylum-seekersinthedispersalareasoftheSouthEastofEngland,NIMHE,CSIP,andSouthofEnglandRefugeeandAsylumSeekerConsortium.26SeealsoPhillimore,J.Ergun,E.Goodson,L.Hennessy,D.(2007)'TheydonotunderstandtheproblemIhave':Refugeewellbeingandmentalhealth,JosephRowntreeFoundation,Birmingham,UniversityofBirmingham.27Fitzpatricketal(2016asabove)28CrawleyH,Hemmings,J.Price,N.(2011)CopingwithDestitution:SurvivalandLivelihoodStrategiesofRefusedAsylumSeekersLivingintheUK.Oxford:Oxfam;Lewis,H.,Dwyer,P.,Hodkinson,S.andWaite,L.(2014)Hyper-precariouslives:migrants,workandforcedlabourintheGlobalNorth.ProgressinHumanGeography.39(5):580-600;Price,J.andSpencer,S.(2015)Safeguardingchildrenfromdestitution:Localauthorityresponsestofamilieswith‘norecoursetopublicfunds’,Oxford:COMPAS29Lewisetal(2014asabove)30Price,J.(2016)MeetingtheChallenge:Voluntarysectorservicesfordestitutemigrantchildrenandfamilies,Compas:OxfordUniversity,availableat:https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2016/meeting-the-challenge-voluntary-sector-services-for-destitute-migrant-children-and-families/,accessed03.03.1731SeeCrawleyetal(2011asabove)32ImmigrationandAsylumAct1999,1999c.33,PartVIProvisionofsupport,Section95,availableat:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/95 33Gillespie,M.(2012)Trapped:DestitutionandasyluminScotland,Glasgow:ScottishPovertyInformationUnit,InstituteforSocietyandSocialJusticeResearch,&GlasgowCaledonianUniversity34Fitzpatricketal,(2015asabove)35seep.236Gillespie(2012asabove)37Gillespie(2012asabove)madesimilarfindings:inresearchfortherefugeesurvivaltrustandtheBritishRedCross,whichfocusedondestitutioninScotlandtheyfoundthatpeopleweredestituteatallstagesoftheasylumprocess-44%wereentitledtobenefits,mostoftenasylumsupport38DwyerandBrown(2005,asabove);Zetter,R.andPearl,M.(2000)Theminoritywithintheminority:refugeecommunity-basedorganisationsintheUKandtheimpactofrestrictionismonasylum-seekers,JournalofEthnicandMigrationStudies,26(4):675–697.39Price(2016,asabove)40DwyerandBrown(2005,asabove);Fell,B.andFell,P.(2014)WelfareAcrossBorders:ASocialWorkProcesswithAdultAsylumSeekers’,BritishJournalofSocialWork,44,1322-1339;McCabeetal(2010asabove);MacKenzie,R.Forde,C.andCiupijus,Z.(2012)‘NetworksofSupportforNewMigrantCommunities:InstitutionalGoalsversusSubstantiveGoals?UrbanStudies49(3)631-647; Petch,H.Perry,J.andLukes,S.(2015)Howtoimprovesupportandservicesfordestitutemigrants,York:JosephRowntreeFoundation;Phillimore,J.andGoodson,L.(2010)‘FailingtoAdapt:
71
InstitutionalBarrierstoRCOsEngagementinTransformationofSocialWelfare’,SocialPolicyandSociety9(2):181-192.41Mayblin,L.(2017)IsthereablackandminorityethnicthirdsectorintheUK?InCommunitygroupsincontext:Localactivitiesandactions,byMcCabe,A.andPhillimore,J.Bristol:ThePolicyPress42Price(2016asabove)43Daley,C.(2009)Exploringcommunityconnections:communitycohesionandrefugeeintegrationatalocallevel,CommunityDevelopmentJournal,44(2):158–171;Zetter,R.,Griffiths,D.andSigona,N.(2005)Socialcapitalorsocialexclusion?Theimpactofasylum-seekerdispersalonUKrefugeecommunityorganisations,CommunityDevelopmentJournal,40(2):69–18144Fitzpatricketal(2015asabove);Price(2016asabove);RefugeeCouncil,.(2004asabove)45Price(2016asabove)46Price(2016);RefugeeCouncil(2004asabove)47NACCOM,.(2013)TacklingHomelessnessandDestitutionamongstMigrantswithNoRecoursetoPublicFunds:AReportontheExtentandNatureofAccommodationprovidedbyNACCOMMemberOrganisations,NACCOM;Price(2016asabove)48PhillimoreandGoodson(2010asabove);Price(2016asabove)49PriceandSpencer(2015,asabove);Price(2016asabove)50Petch,H.PerryJ.andLukesS.(2015)JosephRountreeFoundationSolutionssummary:HowtoImproveSupportandServicesforDestituteMigrantsYork:JosephRountreeFoundation51(Price,2016asabove)52(Price,2016asabove)53ZetterandPearl(2000asabove)54RefugeeCouncil,.(2010)Theimpactofthespendingcutsonrefugeecommunityorganisations:Briefing,availableathttps://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5813/Briefing_-_impact_of_spending_cuts_on_RCOs_22_1010.pdf,accessed23.05.1755Snyder,S.(2014)‘Un/settlingangels:faith-basedorganizationsandasylum-seekingintheUK’,JournalofRefugeeStudies,24(3):548-65;seealsoresearchfromUSandAustralia:Eby,J.Iverson,E.Smyers,J.andKekic,E.(2011)‘Thefaithcommunity’sroleinrefugeeresettlementintheUnitedStates’,JournalofRefugeeStudies,24(3):586-605;Wilson,E.(2011)Muchtobeproudof,muchtobedone:faith-basedorganizationsandthepoliticsofasyluminAustralia,JournalofRefugeeStudies,24(3):565-85.56NationalCouncilforVoluntaryOrganisations(2016)UKCivilSocietyAlmanac2016.London:NCVO57Phillimore,J.McCabe,A.(2010),TSRCBriefingPaper33:Understandingthedistinctivenessofsmallscalethirdsectoractivity,availableat:http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/documents/tsrc/working-papers/briefing-paper-33.pdf,accessed16.10.1658AsylumWelcomehasbeenprovidedadailyvisitorserviceandadditionaladviceandassistancetoimmigrationdetaineesatCampsfieldHouseandtheirfamilies.Thataspectoftheirworkisoutsidethescopeofthisstudy59NCVO(2012)CivilSocietyAlmanac,London:NCVO.60NCVO(2016)NavigatingChangeanAnalysisofFinancialTrendsforSmallandMedium-SizedCharities,London:NCVO.61Gordon,I.,K.Scanlon,T.Travers,C.Whitehead.(2009)EconomicImpactontheLondonandUKEconomyofanEarnedRegularisationofIrregularMigrantstotheUK,London:LondonSchoolofEconomics.62NCVO(2015)CivilSocietyAlmanac,London:NCVO.63NACCOM(2016)AnnualReport2015-1664thisexcludesAsylumWelcome’sDetaineeSupportandSyrianResettlement65NCVO(2012)CivilSocietyAlmanac,London:NCVO.66(NCVO,2012asabove)
72
67NCVO(2017)CivilSocietyAlmanac,London:NCVO.68(NCVO,2017asabove)69James,P.Mayblin,L.(2016)Restrictingtheeconomicrightsofasylumseekers:costimplications,ASYLUM.WELFARE.WORKWorkingpaper11/16.1,UniversityofWarwick,availableat:https://asylumwelfarework.files.wordpress.com70Pleace,N.(2015)Atwhatcost?AnestimationofthefinancialcostsofsinglehomelessnessintheUK.London:Crisis.
AbouttheAuthorsDr.LucyMayblinisAssistantProfessorofSociologyattheUniversityofWarwick.PoppyJameswas,atthetimeofthisresearch,ResearchAssociateinSociologyattheUniversityofWarwick.FromOctober2017sheisaPhDcandidateattheUniversityofSheffield.
ContactEmail:[email protected]:SociologyDepartment,UniversityofWarwick,Coventry,CV47AL