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:l.mayblin@warwick.ac.ukWrite:SociologyDepartment,UniversityofWarwick,Coventry,CV47AL