Integration of Asylum Seekers and Refugees:

Do Time & Place Make a Difference?

Ade Kearns & Elise Whitley

University of Glasgow

Asylum Seekers & Refugees in Glasgow

• Why & How?

• How Many & Who?

• Where?

Why & How?• UK Policy:

– Asylum & Immigration Act 1999: NASS– Review of ‘legacy’ cases 2007– New Asylum Model, 2007– Political thrust to reduce immigration

• Scottish Policy:– Positive about immigration– Responsible for asylum services and refugee

integration.

• Local (Glasgow) Response:– Glasgow City Council contracts with NASS

How Many & Who?

• Numbers of asylum seekers in the city were stable under the first contract.

• Numbers have been falling under the second contract.

• There has been a shift to single people• There are no reliable figures on the

numbers of refugees in the UK or Glasgow.• A small number of dominant countries of

origin.

Where?

• Unpopular housing stock.

• Most deprived areas.

• Concentration in high-rise estates.

Transformational Regeneration Areas (TRAs)

Red Road

Sighthill

Shawbridge

Local Regeneration Areas (LRAs)

Gorbals Riverside

Scotstoun Flats

St. Andrews Drive

Migrant Workers, Students Etc

• The Scottish Government has encouraged migrant workers and overseas students to come to the country for economic and demographic reasons.

• There were around 14,000 migrant workers registered in Scotland (mostly from A8 countries) in 2008/9.

• Most of these are living in different locations to ASR, in private rented hsg.

Model of Integration (Ager & Strang, 2008)

Support for Integration of ASR • Public funding from all levels of govt.• Projects are supported in four main areas:

– Language & Orientation– Access to Services– Employment, Training & Skills– Communities

• The funding and projects cover most of the domains in the model of integration.

• It is hard to tell where the balance of funding lies between these.

Research Questions

• To what extent are new migrants socially integrated in such deprived areas?

• Are there differences between migrant groups?

• Does location or place matter for this?

• Do levels of social integration change with time spent in the UK?

Survey and Samples

• Survey of a random sample of residents living in 15 deprived communities in Glasgow in summer 2008.

• Total Sample comprises:– 3,911 British citizens.– 126 Asylum seekers.– 251 Refugees.– 360 Other migrants: migrant workers,

overseas students, those of unclear status.

Identifying Migrant Respondents

• We asked the following in 2008:– Ethnicity (6 white; 4 mixed; 10 non-white

classes): 0.7% refusal– Citizenship (2 British; 2 Refugee; 3 Asylum

Seeker; 1 Other classes): 5.0% refusal– We didn’t ask for country of birth/citizenship

but many non-British citizens gave it.– Non-British citizens were asked the month

and year of entry to the UK– Refugees were asked month and year

granted leave to remain.

Samples Used in Analysis• For most analyses we use samples from two regeneration

areas in the north of city to compare groups living in identical circumstances.– 429 British citizens.– 62 Asylum seekers.– 111 Refugees.– 162 Other migrants.– Analyses adjusted for age, sex and household type.

• For time analyses we use migrant samples from across the city:– 251 Refugees.– 126 Asylum seekers.– 132 Other migrants.– Also adjusted for regeneration area and length of time lived in area.

Measures of Social Integration

• Community Cohesion: social harmony between groups; belonging to community; enjoy living in neighbourhood.

• Safety: feel safe walking at night; local problems of intimidation & racial harassment.

• Neighbourliness: know neighbours; talk to neighbours; visit; exchange things; look out for each other.

• Social Support: practical; financial; emotional.

• We examine Adjusted RR of negative outcomes, using British citizens in non-regeneration areas as a reference group.

Community Cohesion

• High perceptions of social harmony for all migrant groups (>80%); very similar to levels for local British citizens.

• Much lower levels of feelings of belonging to the community among migrants(39-48%); lower than for local British citizens (62%), even after adjustment.

• Community cohesion did not differ significantly between migrant groups (after adjustment).

Safety

• Migrants (particularly ASR) were less likely to feel safe walking after dark (AS=40%; R=30%) than local British citizens (52%).

• Generally, migrants were no more likely (after adjustment) than local British citizens to identify problems of racial harassment and intimidation on the street as a problem. Except…

• Refugees were more likely than anyone else to feel unsafe and to identify racial harassment as a problem.

• Asylum seekers were less likely than anyone else to identify street intimidation as a problem.

Neighbourliness

• All migrant groups were less likely (34-41%) to know (at least some) people in the neighbourhood than local British citizens (66%).

• Of the migrant groups, only Asylum Seekers were less likely (53%) to say they spoke to neighbours at least once a week than local British citizens (76%).

• Asylum seekers are also more likely (66%) than other migrant groups to say they don’t stop and talk to people in the neighbourhood.

• Around ¾ of all migrants groups say they don’t visit neighbours much (or at all), and around 4/5 say they don’t exchange things with neighbours.

Social Support

• Asylum seekers and Other migrants were far less likely than local British citizens to have external sources of all three forms of social support available to them.

• Half of both these migrant groups lacked practical support and 60% lacked financial and emotional support.

• Refugees had the same degree of social support available as local British citizens, the highest of any migrant group.

The Effect of Regeneration Areas

• We compared the responses of each group in the regeneration areas with those of British citizens living in other areas*.

• We calculated Adjusted RR for negative outcomes on all measures.

* All GoWell study areas are in the most deprived 15% of neighbourhoods in Scotland. Social renting varies from 45% to 95% across the types of study area.

Regeneration Areas

• Levels of perceived social inclusion (feeling part of the community) were lower for all groups in regeneration areas than for those elsewhere.

• There were no significant area differences in perceived social harmony.

• Feeling unsafe and the identification of harassment and intimidation were more likely for all groups in regeneration areas than for those people living elsewhere.

• One exception to this was that asylum seekers were less likely than people elsewhere to identify problems of street intimidation.

Regeneration Areas continued…

• All respondent groups in regeneration areas were less likely to know any neighbours in the area than people living elsewhere.

• There was no significant difference between British citizens and Refugees on the one hand, and people living elsewhere in terms of speaking to neighbours weekly.

• Social support of all kinds was less likely to be available to all groups living in regeneration areas than to people living elsewhere.

Time Spent by Migrants

• Asylum seekers and Other migrants have similar time distributions: around 40% have been in the UK up to 2 years; 30% have been in the UK 5 or more years.

• Two-thirds of Refugees have been in the UK for 5 or more years.

• Less than 5% of migrants have been in the UK for over 10 years.

• 16% of Refugees have spent 5 or more years since getting their leave to remain.

The Effect of Time

• We examine the Adjusted RR of a negative outcome in relation to:

• Time in the UK, measured in 3 ways:– As a continuous variable.– In 3 periods: up to 2yrs; 3-5 yrs; 6+ yrs.– Below or above median duration [<3 yrs or 3+

yrs for AS & OM; ,6yrs or 6+ yrs for R]

• Time since given leave to remain in the UK for Refugees, again in 3 measures.

Time & Asylum Seekers

• Feelings of belonging and inclusion improve over time for AS, esp. after 3 yrs.

• No effects of time on safety issues.

• Some weak (not significant) positive effects of time on direct interactions with neighbours (exchanging and visiting).

• But no effect of time on knowing or talking to neighbours (more generally).

• No effect of time on social support.

Time & Refugees

• Refugees feel more a part of the community as time since given leave to remain increases.

• No effect of time on safety issues.• Refugees are more likely to talk to

neighbours and exchange things with neighbours as time in the UK increases.

• Refugees are more likely to have all 3 forms of social support as time since given leave to remain increases.

Time & Other Migrants

• No effects of time on community cohesion or belonging.

• Safety issues appear to get worse for Other Migrants over time (but n.s.).

• Some weak (not significant) positive effects of time on direct interactions with neighbours (exchanging and visiting).

• But no effect of time on knowing or talking to neighbours (more generally).

• No consistent or significant effects of time on social support measures.

Summary & Discussion

Social Integration

• A degree of social harmony, but less so familiarity & acquaintance.– Efforts into safety.– Self-help and volunteering projects support

bonding.– Bridging activities vulnerable to cuts over

time.

Migrant Group Differences:

• Asylum seekers more isolated.

• Refugees more exposed.– Self-containment by AS may mask problems.– Labour market participation by R exposes

vulnerability.

Location:

• Task for migrants harder due to location in challenging places.– Weak community into which to integrate.– Local concerns exacerbated.– Negative effect on area reputation and stigma.– Root of the difficulty lies in the dispersal policy.

Time:

• Progress over time more for Refugees.

• Weak social effects for AS and OM.

• Feelings of inclusion improve for ASR.

• No effects of time spent on safety.– Inclusion is more passive than active.– Benefits of time may be restricted by area

instability and self-containment.