Connecting policy and practice in the refugee integration agenda
Anne Bellis, University of Sussex, UK
Lindsey Fraser, University of Leeds, UK
Anne-Marie Houghton, University of Lancaster, UK
Jill Ward, Wedgwood Memorial College, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Paper presented at the 35th Annual SCUTREA Conference July 5-July 7 2005, University of Sussex, England, UK
Summary
This paper will present work in progress on the national ESF-funded Refugee Employment and Progression research project which is exploring the barriers faced by refugees in relation to education, training and employment, and the effectiveness of current policy measures to promote refugee integration. In the paper we will first of all explore the theoretical and policy context of ‘refugee integration’. We will then present some of the findings emerging from four regionally based case studies and consider their implications in terms of the role of education and employment within the refugee integration agenda.
Theoretical background
The theme of refugee integration occupies an increasingly prominent position within both the UK and European contexts. In 1999, the European Council expressed its commitment to establishing a strategy for the integration of refugees and other ‘third country nationals’ at its meeting in Tampere. More recently, the European Commission has published a communication on immigration, integration and employment, which highlights the key elements of this strategy and the need for ‘a holistic approach which takes into account not only the social and economic aspects of integration but also issues related to cultural and religious diversity, citizenship, participation and political rights’ (Commission of the European Communities 2003).
Despite the emphasis on developing a common European policy framework, integration remains a contested concept with inherent tensions and contradictions (Zetter et al 2002; Boswell 2003). On the one hand, for example, many argue that refugees with professional skills and qualifications should be welcomed into a European labour market threatened by the consequences of a rapidly ageing population. On the other hand, public fears about growing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers are reinforced by a constant stream of anti-asylum and anti-immigration rhetoric from the media and right wing political parties. In addition, recent research indicates that, although European member states tend to adopt similar language and terminology in relation to integration, there is a marked divergence of approach linked to different conceptions of nationality and citizenship (Zetter et al 2002). Two distinct models of integration predominate. The first (as typified by Germany) is an assimilationist approach, based on an assumption that the minority group will adopt the values and culture of the majority and eventually become fully incorporated into the host society. A more liberal, or multiculturalist model (traditionally associated with the UK) views integration as more of a two-way process and is characterised by a greater tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity.
However, within the UK context, there is by no means a consensus about the virtues of the multiculturalist model or of its effectiveness, over a number of decades, in promoting integration for more settled black and minority ethnic communities. For some commentators, multiculturalism represents a difference of degree, but not of kind from assimilation, with the primary focus of concern remaining on presumed deficiencies within minority communities themselves, rather than on structural inequalities or the impact of racism (Rattansi 1992).
Another criticism of the multicultural model is its tendency to take the ‘majority’ white culture for granted and to define cultural difference in terms of ‘otherness’ or deviance from the cultural norm. According to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, this has happened to such an extent over recent years that ‘to most people multiculturalism is something that black folk do’ (2001: 49). The Parekh report on ‘The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain’ caused controversy on its publication in 2000 by posing a challenge to unquestioned assumptions about a single common British culture, within which diversity is tolerated, but only within the confines of people’s private lives or their separate ‘communities.’ The report argues that Britain, as a modern multi-ethnic, multicultural state, should ‘rethink the national story’ and adopt a more dynamic cultural pluralist approach which ‘does not place the political culture beyond negotiation’ (2000: 43) and which recognises communities as ‘essentially open-ended and developing’ (2001:44) rather than static and homogeneous. The Parekh report makes an important contribution to the debate about integration, since it poses fundamental questions about the kind of society into which refugee families and individuals are expected to ‘integrate’. Whether this is a society which tolerates difference, but only at its margins, or celebrates diversity as an integral part of its identity, will have implications for the day-to-day experiences of the members of refugee communities who become a part of it.
‘Integration Matters’: the current UK policy context
The Home Office of the UK Government published its consultation paper on refugee integration in July 2004. The proposals outlined in the document appear to be modelled on the ‘holistic’ approach encouraged by the European Commission, with an emphasis on social and cultural participation and citizenship rights, as well as more instrumental measures relating to access to services, education and employment. The proposed strategy has received a cautious welcome from a number of organisations offering services to refugees. However, some of the concerns expressed highlight the contradictory nature of the government’s approach and the potential for conflict with other policy areas, particularly in relation to asylum and immigration.
Firstly, there is widespread disappointment about the exclusion of asylum seekers from the strategy and the assumption that integration only begins on the day refugee status is granted, rather than on the day of arrival in the country (eg NIACE 2004; Refugee Council 2004). This omission reinforces a misleading and unhelpful distinction between ‘genuine’ refugees on the one hand and ‘bogus’ asylum seekers on the other. Such a dissonance between asylum and integration policies has been identified as a growing trend in a recent survey of European integration policies:
…our evidence suggests that attempts to mainstream refugee integration into the wider framework of policies for the integration of immigrants are breaking down against the backcloth of deterrence and restrictionism adopted by EUMSs [European Union Member States] towards asylum seekers.
[Zetter et al 2002:2-3]
This predominant climate of ‘deterrence and restrictionism’ is further reinforced by the negative and hostile attitudes towards asylum seekers generated by sections of the media, and encouraged by politicians increasingly eager to exploit ‘moral panics’ about asylum and immigration. It comes as a welcome surprise, therefore, that the consultation paper acknowledges the responsibility of both politicians and the media in ‘encouraging alternative approaches to stereotyped and over-simplified portrayals of refugees and a better understanding of the issues they face,’ (Home Office 2004: 15) and in supporting the rights of refugees to live in safety from the racial harassment and abuse which such negative stereotyping engenders. However, as some commentators point out, the absence of concrete proposals for the implementation of this aspect of the strategy, means that such an expression of good intentions remain little more than pious and empty rhetoric. One response argues that lack of cross-governmental ownership of the strategy is one of its main weaknesses and that the complexities of racism in our society can only be addressed through a more joined up and pro-active approach:
…racism against asylum seekers from local communities is not simply a matter of lack of information…There are, in fact, deeper issues of prejudice which cannot be addressed within a refugee integration strategy, and is a further reason why the links between this strategy and the wider racial equality and community cohesion agendas need to be made more explicit and given greater concrete substance.’
(South of England Refugee and Asylum Seeker Consortium Response to ‘Integration Matters’ 2004:5)
A third cause of concern for respondents to the consultation paper is the negative impact of the policy of forced dispersal of asylum seekers to different parts of the country and of proposed measures to discourage those granted refugee status from moving away from their area of dispersal. As critics of the policy have pointed out, dispersal has been influenced more by availability of housing provision than the cultural, language or community needs of asylum seekers themselves (Refugee Council 2002; Zetter et al 2002). The proposed legislation will pose another barrier to integration by restricting the choices of those refugees wishing to move to a different area because of family or community connections or better access to services and support structures (Refugee Action 2004).
The proposed national refugee integration strategy places a strong emphasis on access to appropriate education, training and employment as key elements within the integration process. Findings from previous research have demonstrated that race and ethnicity are significant factors in discrimination in the labour market, with unemployment rates for members of black and minority ethnic communities two to three times higher than for white population (2001 census). The refugee population is disproportionately affected by high levels of unemployment, which has been estimated at around six times higher than the national average (Department for Work and Pensions 2003). A substantial body of research has also been built up over the last few years, highlighting the significantly high levels of skills and qualifications which refugees bring with them from their countries of origin, as well as the multiple barriers they encounter when trying to make use of them on their arrival in the UK (Carey-Wood et al 1995; Aldridge and Waddington 2001).
The next section will focus more specifically on issues relating to education and employment opportunities for refugees and will consider these within the context of initial findings from the Refugee Employment and Progression Project.
The Refugee Employment and Progression Project
The Refugee Progression and Employment (REP) Project is conducting research into the discrimination faced by refugees and other minority ethnic groups in the labour market and the effectiveness of strategies at local and regional levels to promote refugee integration. The Project is led by the Centre for Continuing Education at University of Sussex and other partner organisations are University of Lancaster, University of Leeds and the Wedgwood Memorial College, Stoke-on-Trent. All partners have a history of working with local black, minority ethnic and refugee communities to develop community education programmes and address the barriers faced by this particular target group. The aims of the research project are to:
· Build on previous research into the discrimination and barriers experienced by refugees and other black and minority ethnic groups in education, training and employment, particularly those with higher levels of skills and qualifications
· Evaluate the effectiveness of a range of ‘refugee integration’ strategies through regionally based case studies in the west midlands, north west, north east and south of England
· Explore the perceptions and experiences of members of the target groups themselves through life history interviews
· Inform future debates about policy and practice in this area through dissemination of the research findings.
Initial findings from the research indicate that the experiences of informants in our case studies are similar to those from previous studies, particularly in relation to barriers and difficulties encountered in gaining access to education and employment opportunities appropriate to their levels of skills and qualifications. Such barriers include: lack of recognition of overseas qualifications; limited availability of specialised vocational and academic language provision; unfamiliarity with the culture of education and employment in the UK; financial constraints and lack of access to childcare and transport.
A brief consideration of data from some in-depth interviews with informants from the West Midlands case study will provide a flavour of the lived experience of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK and will highlight the complex interaction of factors which can impact on their education and employment opportunities. All those included in the interview sample were enrolled at the local FE college, mainly on ESOL and IT courses, indicating their awareness of the importance of improving their English language skills and employability. Although impressions of the College were generally favourable, there was some frustration expressed at the ‘lack of differentiated learning opportunities’ within the ESOL curriculum.
During the interviews they spoke about their future aspirations. Despite high levels of educational attainment and professional experience among the sample (which included a radio producer, customs officer, marine biologist, general practitioner and electrician), there was an awareness that they would face difficulties in gaining recognition for their qualifications and that they may have to ‘lower their aspirations and perhaps take lower paid and status employment’. For example, the marine biologist ‘was doubtful whether he would be able to resume his career…as his qualifications are not recognised in the UK.’ A young man with an engineering degree from Sudan had been offered a place at a local university for a BSc in electronic engineering but, still awaiting a decision on his application, he was unable to secure a student loan. This informant believed he could offer a lot to society but he was ‘stuck’ and the future was ‘out of my hands.’
For others, the removal of the work concession from asylum seekers in 2002 was the key issue, resulting in ‘recognised problems related to unemployment such as frustration, low self esteem and anxiety’. One woman and her husband had been waiting six years for a decision on their application and this delay ‘…had impacted on her to the point where she took regular prescribed medication for anxiety and depression.’ Another informant described the state of uncertainty while awaiting a decision as:
…like being at the neck of a bottle and the Home Office can push you out or send you to the bottom… a letter could change your whole life…stay or go.
Difficulties could also result from the type of accommodation to which individuals or families were allocated:
For some asylum seekers, YMCA accommodation proved to be particularly detrimental to the process of integration, as their experience of racism was rife, whereas when they moved out to a settled community, they were made welcome by their neighbours…where people remained in the hostel, they displayed signs of withdrawal and isolation.
(Report from W Midlands case study)
These early findings from just one of the case studies indicate how access to appropriate education and employment opportunities can be influenced by a multiplicity of factors, such as finance, citizenship status, recognition of previous experience, low morale and self-esteem, mental health issues, racism and isolation. As these real life experiences illustrate, a particular cause for concern is the potentially negative impact of a prolonged wait for a Home Office decision, leading in many cases to de-skilling, demoralisation and depression.