NACCOM is committed to seeing an end to homelessness and destitution in the asylum and immigration system and part of the way we do this is to share our ideas, support one another and develop good practice in our Regional Member Hubs. Our summer programme of hubs started in Glasgow on 5 June before heading to Huddersfield for our Northern Hub, Birmingham for our Midlands Hub, London for our London, South East and East of England Hub, and finally Newport for our Wales and South West England Hub.
These member meetings are a great opportunity to find out more about the diverse range of members’ accommodation projects, as well as other exciting initiatives. They offer a chance for members to come together in solidarity to network, share challenges and solutions, and coordinate around our collective goals.
Legal Advice and Support Models
We had presentations from NACCOM members showcasing different models of legal advice and support that they are providing. In sessions, members told us that their clients/residents needing legal support are diverse, and include people seeking asylum; refugees; survivors of modern slavery and people with related convictions; family reunion cases; people with disputes about nationality or age; people from the European Economic Area (EEA); and people seeking the long residence route for settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain).
We heard that the barriers to regularising clients’ statuses were multifaceted. First, members told us that it takes longer to find legal representation than it used to, and clients might struggle to obtain good quality legal advice, especially at the beginning. They might have difficulties understanding the legal system and knowing their rights. Gathering the evidence needed to support their claim may be difficult because of associated costs. If a client is in insecure housing or is homeless, they can be challenging to get hold of.
Second, problems with Legal Aid were widely shared amongst our members. There are often delays with Legal Aid approvals and payments, leaving our members supporting clients at direct cost to them. For people seeking the long residence route for settlement, no Legal Aid is available, and clients may also lose their legal representation at the appeal stage following a negative decision. Finally, when a client has No Recourse to Public Funds, “no one wants to know,” one member told us. “It shuts down the conversation.”
Third, members understandably reported a wide range of emotional wellbeing issues amongst their clients, who can become dispirited after multiple rejections or may struggle to trust people enough to tell their stories, especially if it involves disclosing sensitive information such as sexual assault.
Fourth, members told us that language barriers mean clients are not enabled to receive information and interpreters are not always requested when they should be. In addition, sometimes too much is expected of interpreters.
Finally, we heard that members have a chronic lack of capacity.
Something positive:
We are seeing a gradual rise in refugee community organisations taking on Legal Aid contracts, including both small and medium-sized NACCOM members. One of those is Devon and Cornwall Refugee Support (DCRS), who presented their Legal Aid model at our Wales and South West England hub.
Relying solely on funding available via the Legal Aid contract can come at significant financial risk, but funding from the Legal Aid Agency can be supplemented by other funding sources to ensure a sustainable service. For example, DCRS are building a well-resourced Legal Aid service by bringing in extra funding through grants, local authority contracts, and crowdfunding.
These include a grant and crowdfunder to support unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), and county council funding for domestic abuse victims and for training a DCRS staff member.
How NACCOM can help:
- Continue helping funding to reach organisations in the NACCOM network
- Facilitating the sharing of experience, different operating models and funding opportunities amongst members so that people can learn from each other
- Empowering members to network and share good practice
- Advocating to funders on behalf of members
- Building the political will to improve policy on Legal Aid and the legal landscape
- Helping members to start working in partnership together
- Providing training or signposting relevant training to members, for example around advocacy
Refugee Move-on, Housing and supported housing
In the sessions on refugee move-on, housing and supported housing, the difficulty in finding appropriate housing and landlords was clearly the main challenge for many members. In particular, we heard about the concerning shortage of shared accommodation for under 35-year-olds. For people in the asylum and immigration system who are trying to rent privately, the upfront costs such as a deposit, the need for a guarantor, and landlords’ hostility towards those on social security payments all create obstacles.
Members told us that there are many issues faced by people trying to access supported housing. Local Authorities will often gatekeep, with a lack of clear information and rapid changes in policy and procedures that are not communicated. The Local Authority housing allowance has not kept up with rising costs and is not enough to cover private sector rents. We heard that it is often difficult to get through on the phone to secure a homeless assessment. Having to wait until the last day of the move-on period adds to the likelihood that a client will be forced into homelessness.
In addition, there are a variety of problems with Universal Credit, including the constant threat of sanctions and a lack of clarity on how Universal Credit works.
The asylum and immigration systems are confusing to navigate, especially with limited move-on time (even taking into account the 56-day extension) and we heard that there is a lack of integrated move-on support. Local authorities not using interpreters adequately can add to the confusion. On top of this, our members are forced to be reactive to last-minute developments. Our members told us that it can be tricky to manage clients’ expectations regarding the location of accommodation.
Members who manage supported housing also face many challenges. Funding is often an issue. AThe approval process can take a long time with a lot of LAs reluctant to approve new schemes, which can create a serious cash flow issue and could prove critical if approval is not eventually granted.
Nevertheless, supported housing does represent a useful option for refugees in places where the Local Authority recognises that many refugees have additional support needs in the transitionary phase between the asylum system and living independently. We are seeing a small number of new supported housing schemes being established for refugees, including where a refugee support organisation provides integration support while working in partnership with an established housing provider.
Members using the PRS to provide temporary accommodation are concerned that the Bill would make evictions more difficult and limit members’ ability to switch the use of properties in their portfolios to meet changing demands.
What would help NACCOM members?
- Building more affordable homes
- Developing good relationships with Local Authority housing and homeless teams
- The government increasing LHA rates
- Building positive relationships with private landlords to help them have the confidence to house more newly-granted refugees
- Establishing more community-led housing solutions and having time and space to explore alternative models of accommodation
- Fostering more peer-to-peer support
- Policy ideas such as rent caps, and local government acquiring more direct stock including forced purchase of empty substandard homes
- Better resources including language to support people long term to navigate benefits and other services
- Lifting the ban on people seeking asylum being able to work
- Encouraging the growth of networks
- Properly funding refugee move-on support
Lived Experience
In the hub sessions on how to authentically engage people with lived experience in members’ work, some members conveyed how meaningful it is to inform organisational practice with lived experience. Conversations mostly centred on how we involve people with lived experience in a way that does not appear exploitative, patronising or tokenistic.
One challenge is that funders can sometimes have unrealistic expectations that people with lived experience will enter senior roles after a short time working for an organisation. It can take time for anyone to feel ready to take on more responsibility and some members felt it was important to recognise people’s different journeys, talents, skills and what they wanted to do in their career. In any small organisation it’s about striking the right balance between paid staff and well-supported and meaningful volunteer roles, including for people with lived experience.
One member pointed out that it would be important to manage expectations if a volunteer was facing challenges with their own immigration case. Another shared that the myth that people from the same community will automatically trust each other should be debunked – people are people, and have complexities and preferences and preconceptions no matter where they come from. A variety of other points raised included the fact that obtaining DBS checks for people born outside the UK can be a challenge; and there should be appropriate procedures and support for staff with lived experience who are facing prejudice or harassment.
What can help?
- Learning from staff that people with lived experience appear to trust. What is working and why (e.g. how they communicate with people; how they address people’s cases etc.)?
- Providing proper support, supervision, approachable management and well-being activities for those with lived experience either working or volunteering for their organisation
- Sharing resources and good practice to help prepare volunteers and staff with lived experience for the role, including on their rights at work and UK workplace customs
Data
During our data sessions, we heard that using data can pose challenges. Grassroots organisations who rely on private donations don’t want to collect data which they do not need and for which they don’t have staff capacity to manage. There is a ‘data skills gap’, with some members not knowing how to analyse data.In addition, some feel that the act of collecting data can be off-putting and undermines trust. Navigating language difficulties and cultural norms can provide additional challenges in effectively surveying users.
We heard that members often use data for supporting funding applications, for example to make a strong case for the level of demand in their local area or to demonstrate impact using qualitive and quantitative methods. For instance, one member uses service data plus national and regional data from their Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) to write funding applications.
Several organisations relayed that the evaluation and internal monitoring of data helps with future service planning. For example, one housing project is being designed for men because a need was identified based on data from the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and other referrals.
However, the data doesn’t always exist when it comes to measuring long-term outcomes, such as what happens to people after move-on. Data sharing between organisations could also be improved.
How NACCOM can help:
- Assisting our members in finding suitable external data to support their work
- Because big data is so hard to navigate, providing more reviews and summaries would be helpful, especially providing summaries which show intersections
- Providing an overview of broader themes in the sector and identifying gaps
- Sharing our Annual Data Survey and other reports
- Helping members who would like to submit a Freedom of Information request but are unsure how
- Assisting organisations who want to carry out cost benefit analysis with a case study model
- Sharing insights into how members attempt to track longer term outcomes after move-on
- Facilitating more data sharing between organisations
NRPF Housing and Emergency Accommodation
Our sessions on No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) housing and emergency accommodation were very illuminating. We heard from members that due to the Government’s decision to address the backlog in claims, there is an anticipated increase in refusals that will lead to increased demand for people who have NRPF. A few members were uncertain how best to support people who need to explore the long residence routes for settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain) also known as the 10 or 20-year routes. This group are likely to need accommodation for a long time, and there were discussions over whether there should be an accommodation time limit and move-on plan for this group in the interest of helping others.
There were specific concerns over the sustainability of NRPF housing and how it could be funded long term, especially as few funders are interested in providing money for this type of support. There is an acute need for housing stock that is either rent-free or offered at peppercorn rent.
What would help NACCOM members?
- Funding that is more sustainable
- Partnership working is key – for example housing providers working with referral agencies and those doing dedicated legal support to regularise immigration status
- Considering cross subsidy accommodation models that typically involve renting rooms to refugees and other migrants but could also include Care Act and hospital discharge commissioned accommodation (this could bring in a higher return)
- Strategic/business planning to build a portfolio
- Approaching former student landlords
- Being able to model how much funding NRPF housing saves local healthcare, homeless and other statutory services to make the argument for support
- Developing a policy to keep clients files that may be useful in 20 years’ time
Asylum NRPF
As expected with such a diverse group where different people have different entitlements, there were a wide variety of concerns shared by members in the session on people who have been refused asylum and have NRPF status. A lack of money, no right to work, and a lack of access to healthcare weighed heavily on the minds of our members.
First, some organisations were unable to accommodate people with NRPF. Having longer-term guests in NRPF accommodation requires a clear plan for moving on, as it often isn’t affordable to host people indefinitely.
Second, casework was a common area of concern, from the importance of doing adequate legwork on a case so that the solicitor or IAA adviser can push the case forward, to the high demand on Legal Aid solicitors and IAA advisors and confusion over what support is regulated. There was also a lack of clarity over who is best to advise clients on providing fresh evidence for an appeal. A general lack of asylum and immigration advice has led to a higher number of refusals which have set some claims back years. There was confusion over whether it was wise to advise people to appeal immediately.
Third, a member reflected it felt like a postcode lottery in terms of the support that might be offered. This has been magnified by the dispersal of people in the immigration system to new areas, which has led to a lack of support available and new organisations entering the sector with a lack of expertise in some areas.
The postcode lottery is worsened by the fact that some Local Authorities consider people with NRPF as ineligible for any support, while others are more supportive. There can also be a lack of effective signposting to determine eligibility for statutory support. In addition, some regions lack a developed voluntary sector to support people with NRPF. There is a chronic lack of capacity. And even when the support is there, one member shared that some clients are fearful and suspicious of services offered, even by the voluntary sector.
Fourth, there is often no coordinated oversight of clients, with organisations often thinking a partner organisation is responsible for moving a case forward, while that partner organisation may think the other organisation is moving things forward.
What would help NACCOM members?
- Clearer definitions and frameworks needed to understand NRPF conditions, implications and what they can access
- Better guidance on how to support people to collect fresh evidence.
- Improved system for casework, including partnerships with organisations that can undertake casework; a clearer understanding of what casework is needed
- A change in the political rhetoric around people with NRPF and ideally the abolition of NRPF status
- Making key connections within Local Authorities and nurturing them
- Using good data to make a pitch for Local Authority funding, as voluntary sector interventions can save Local Authorities money down the line
- Decriminalising “illegal” working practices that people with NRPF are forced into
- A humane, sensitive discussion of voluntary returns, especially in relation to people from low grant countries
- Coordination and partnership working between organisations. For example, providing legal support to enable another partner organisation to focus on the more technical legal advice
- Establishing robust occupancy agreement with a strict move on clause when S4 is granted
Next steps
We will be reviewing everything we have learned at our Regional Member Hubs. We are grateful for our members for giving us such trusted insight into the work they do – we don’t take it for granted, and will endeavour to take on as many of the learnings as possible to make sure we are serving your needs.
Any members who are interested in attending the Regional Hubs in the future should contact [email protected].
