1. Optimising Refugee Resettlement in the UK: Well-being, intra- and inter-group contact Sussex Centre for Migration Research Dr Linda Morrice (Education) Dr Linda K. Tip (Psychology) Dr Michael Collyer (Geography) Prof Rupert Brown (Psychology)

2. Outline of presentation  UK context and Gateway Protection Programme (GPP)  Aims of our project and methodology  Key findings from first phase of data collection  Well-being and effects of intra- and inter-group contact on well-being

3. Resettled refugees in the UK  Not asylum seekers  Selected for resettlement by potential host states in their country of 1 st asylum  Arrive in groups of between 60 – 100 individuals/family groups  Arrangements are made for their settlement and they receive on-going support  Social rights equivalent to citizens on arrival  Sudden and dramatic transition (chosen on the basis of vulnerability)  Managed under the Gateway Protection Programme (GPP):  started in 2004 (500) to 750 in 2011.

4. Focus of the project  Integration of resettled refugees in:  Brighton & Hove  Greater Manchester and Sheffield  Norwich  Those who have arrived in the UK in 2010 or earlier.

5. Brighton and Hove Norwich Sheffield Manchester

6. Aim of the project  Investigate the integration of resettled refugees along several different life domains, for example:  Employment  Housing  Education  Health  Well-being  Social relationships  Self-efficacy  Cultural understanding/competence

7. Theory  The relationships formed by resettled refugees are of significance in promoting well-being (Collyer, 2010; Morrice, 2011).  Social Capital:  Intra-group ‘bonding’ vs inter-group ‘bridging’  Ethnically diverse areas associated with lower inter-group trust and reduced intra-group solidarity  ‘turtling effect’ (Putnam, 2000)  Contact Theory  Inter-group contact  better inter-group relations  well-being

8. Research questions 1.How do Greater Manchester, Norwich and Brighton and Hove compare in terms of perceived discrimination and well-being for resettled refugees? 2.Which types of contact predict well-being of resettled refugees, and what is the role of perceived discrimination in this relationship?

9. Methodology  Data types:  Focus groups  Questionnaires  Interviews  Longitudinal design - 3 stages:  Jan-May 2014  Dec 2014-Jan 2015  Nov-Dec 2015

10.  New members on the research team:  2 PhD students  11 research assistants who are former resettled refugees living in the UK  Research skills training  Brain storming  Information exchange  1 st data collection (January – May 2014):  8 focus groups  280 questionnaires  31 interviews  1 st data analysis

11. Participants

12. Satisfaction with life in the UK  Generally happy to be here  Particularly satisfied about:  Safety (but…)  Education (for both children and themselves)  Healthcare  Generally very positive about the support they received upon arrival, although many indicate it stopped too early/too abruptly  Most people have developed a strong sense of belonging to their city and have no wish to live elsewhere.

13. Challenges to integration  Language:  Language barriers linked to many other problems  Not enough English classes: currently only twice 2hrs p/w  Classes not tailored to prior level  Lack of conversation practice  Unemployment:  Language barriers  Qualifications/experience not valid here  Trapped: being on benefits while wanting to get an education  Discrimination:  The vast majority have experienced racist harassment  Often seems to be linked to specific geographical areas

14. Employment  Levels of employment by location

15. Effect of past employment/education  Literacy before arrival:  Literate: 33.5% employed  Illiterate: 9.3% employed  Education before arrival:  University: 41.2% employed  A-levels/college: 38.5% employed  Secondary/GCSEs: 31.2% employed  Elementary: 17.2% employed  No education: 2.7% employed  Job back home:  Yes: 35.8% employed  No: 18.5% employed

16. Main difficulties in finding work (self-reported)

17. Well-being  Well-being of refugees in comparison to UK and EU average  Sources:  UK: Annual Population Survey, Office for National Statistics (2013/14)  EU: Third European Quality of Life Survey (2011) RefugeesUKEU average Satisfaction with life (7 out of 10 or higher) 44.3%77.0%69.3% What I do is worthwhile (7 out of 10 or higher) 51.9%80.7%78.5% Happiness (7 out of 10 or higher) 50.3%71.6%74.1% Anxiousness (3 or lower) 40.7%61.5%NA

18. Method  Materials: 1.Well-being (PANAS; Thompson, 2007): Thinking about yourself and how you normally feel, to what extent do you generally feel: …alert;...inspired;...determined;...attentive;...active (positive affect: α =.81); …upset; …hostile; …ashamed; …nervous; …afraid (negative affect; α =.72). 2.Perceived discrimination: The next questions are about how you are treated by British people, based on how they see you. When they see me in that way... E.g., “I feel that British people treat me unfairly or negatively”; “I feel that I did not get a job because of the way they see me” (α =.77). 3.Positive/negative contact: When talking to people of the same cultural background/people in your home country/British people, how often is the experience:... positive; negative; helpful; unhelpful; friendly; unfriendly (α ranging.69 -.86).

19. Effects of contact on well-being

20. Contact, discrimination, and well-being

21. Negative contact with people of the same cultural background Negative contact with people back home Negative contact with British people Perceived discrimination Negative feelings.16*.22**.23***.42***.30***

22. Conclusions  Importance of relationships (contact) for well-being:  Not just negative contact with majority UK population which influences perceived discrimination and therefore more negative well-being  Also negative contact with others from same cultural/ethnic background in UK, including those family/friends in refugees’ country of origin  Suggests that more positive contact with those from same cultural/ethnic background in UK and overseas has potential to reduce discrimination and improve well-being.  Cannot assume that same ethnic/cultural group will have positive intragroup relations (supported by our qualitative data)  Suggests mixed neighbourhoods with positive intragroup (including those ‘back home’) and positive intergroup contact would lead to best well being.  Both bonding and bridging capital are important.

23. Policy implications  Support for international contact for resettled refugees  Greater emphasis on support for community activities, community building and conflict resolution in resettled refugee communities  ?...perhaps better to resettle refugees in same city where opportunities for bonding and support, but not necessarily in same small neighbourhood thereby encouraging bridging/relations with majority.