Refugee families are facing new upheaval and uncertainty when granted asylum

The transition from no recourse to public funds to asylum is often handled so badly it's creating profound and lasting social and health problems for some refugee famiiles, warns Dr Steve Iafrati

It should mark a new phase of certainty. But new reearch suggests asylum status triggers a whole new set of problems due to local authorities being focused on merely meeting their legal requirements and ignoring social inclusion needs.

Asylum-seeking families who have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) are supported under Section 17 (s17) of the Children Act 1989 which places a “general duty” on authorities to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in their area.

Gaining asylum status means entitlement to benefits, a legal right to work and an end to s17 support. However, new research by the University of Wolverhampton in partnership with a voluntary sector organisation in the West Midlands suggests this transition is often managed in such a way that it creates unsettling upheavals that are deeply damaging to families.

Until now, most studies around s17 and asylum-seeking families have focused on practical elements of implementation and legal requirements, with a particular focus on Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC). There has been little examination of how shifting from s17 support impacts on personal and family wellbeing. Because of this, service providers have been able to concentrate on implementing the policy rather than considering any destructive outcomes to health and education and social networks. 

The research interviewed six parents moved from s17 support. Their experiences show inconsistencies in approaches and practice among local authority staff, compounded by ignorance of the actual s17 policy. Furthermore, there appeared to be limited evidence of the  ‘reasonable flexibility’ in policy implementation suggested by the NRPF Network to local government.

We heard of families given very short-notice of changes in accommodation and having had no input in decision-making. Parents described been offered limited support and treated unsympathetically, which exacerbated feelings of vulnerability and frustration. One parent spoke of waiting with their very young child for six hours in a council office to discuss transition with a member of staff. They were eventually seen at 5pm as the office was about to close. 

Another parent of two young children was given a final payment of £130 of s17 support. This was to last until their benefits were processed, which can take up to eight weeks. One family were told to leave the hotel where they lived and informed that a bank account was necessary to claim benefits and get a house. However, the account could not be opened without an established address and the bank was unwilling to accept the hotel address. Another family with a young child was given 24 hours’ notice to move to temporary accommodation in another area and incurred a £30 taxi fare doing so.

The parents interviewed placed a great deal of importance on support and inclusion gained by social networks. Unfortunately, these networks fragmented as people were moved to other areas. They spoke of patterns of progressively worsening mental health, with examples of depression, withdrawal, and disengagement becoming more frequent. For families that have already gone through traumatic experiences, including domestic violence, the loss of social networks is not just unfortunate, but represents a significant blow to their mental health and wellbeing.  

Upset and distress was also caused by the loss of access to services. One parent spoke in tears of the disruption that moving caused to their child with learning disabilities. Another parent with a physically disabled child had missed the child’s hospital appointments because they had been forced to move at short notice and did not get the hospital’s letter. Some parents said their children had lost nursery or school places and one now faced long bus journeys to school, while also caring for parents with health problems.

This is important as evidence suggests that the disruption of children and young people’s home lives, education and health can create more expensive and intractable problems.

Overall, the research points to an implementation of policy driven by legal and resource imperatives. Though the number of parents interviewed is modest and the research is ongoing, anecdotal evidence suggests such experiences are becoming typical. Significantly, there are growing numbers of people who face profound and lasting isolation and disruption during what could be a simple period of transition.

How this transition is managed has lasting effects on children, parents and communities. Managed badly, they are proving harmful on a personal level as well as increasing the risk of social harm and promoting social exclusion. The challenge for voluntary sector organisations, social workers and others remains to continue supporting people, listening to their needs and pushing for the development of person-centred policies. 

Dr Steve Iafrati is Senior Lecturer and Course Leader in Social Policy at the University of Wolverhampton