Ethnicity, social networks, poverty and inclusion

TSRC Below the Radar conference 5th July 2013

Jenny Phillimore & Alison Gilchrist

Local-Level.org.uk

Overview of presentation

• Some working definitions and concepts• Description of two research projects - scope

and methods– Refugees integration - Jenny– Social networks, poverty and ethnicity – Alison

• Q and As• Key findings and implications• Discussion

Definitions• Poverty: when your income doesn’t allow you to obtain

the things you need• Ethnicity: broadly defined – race, culture, faith,

origin/nationality, heritage and homeland• Refugee – the Home Office defined• Integration – Ager & Strang’s integration indicators• Social networks: connections with others, based on trust

and participation/exchanges • Social capital: web of associations comprising inter-

personal networks, norms and trust• Networking – establishing, maintaining and using these

links and relationships

4

Research Questions

• What are refugees’ integration priorities?• What types of social network and social

capital do refugees possess?• What is the relationship between different

types of network and capital and other indicators of integration?

• What types of social network and social capital are most beneficial for refugee integration?

Methods and profile

• Re-analysis of SNR – 5600 refugees 2005-2008• E-survey of integration priorities to support index

development• Refugees from >100 countries • 49% Muslim, 40% Christian• The majority of refugees were under the age of 35

(70%).• 31% in UK less than 6 months, 22% over 5 years• 21% living with spouse

6

Integration PrioritiesMeans and

MarkersEmployment

8.61Housing

9.29Health

Emotional 8.85 Physical 8.42

Social Networks

Friends 8.42 Family 8.16Co-national or ethnic groups 7.49

Religious groups 7.74Other organisational out-groups 7.61

Facilitators English SkillsSpeaking 9.11 Reading/writing

8.69

Safety and stabilityAbsence of verbal or

physical attack 9.5

Foundation Rights to family reunion 8.75 Citizenship 8.21 Volunteering 7.092

Purpose of JRF research projectTo investigate the links between social networks,

ethnicity and poverty• How are networks established and maintained?• How do they help people cope with poverty? • How do people use networks to move out of

poverty ?• What other factors come into play? – education, affordable credit, housing, cultures and racial

discrimination?

Research methods• Birmingham, Liverpool and Cumbria• Recruitment and training of 8

community researchers• 91 interviews with community

members• 30 counties of origin: ‘established

communities’ • 28 agency interviews• 4 scoping meetings with communities• 3 social media workshops• Observation sessions and visits• 3 community feedback workshops and

1 policy seminar

How people benefit from networks

GETTING BY• Emergency help• Finding work• Getting accommodation• Sharing children’s clothes,

toys• Access to affordable food • Short-term informal lending• Skills exchange – brokering

and bartering • Emotional support/comfort• Help with interpretation of

official documents

GETTING ON• Recruiting staff• Business promotion• Supply chains and potential

markets• Access to expert advice and

trades people (cheap or free)• Savings and loans systems

for investment• Role models and mentoring• Training and learning

opportunities

Barriers and limitations• Language – vitality of English – and legal status• Racism – prejudices and discrimination• Xenophobia – feeling rebuffed or uncomfortable• Cost of networking (travel, presents, socialising)• Lack of time and energy – shifts, childcare, etc.• Lack of confidence, self esteem• Tendency to stay within own community –> lack of

access to well-paid jobs and good opportunities • Peer and family pressures, duties and businesses• Family ties cost money – dowries, remittances, visits

Networking motivation and methods

• Strategies for finding the ‘right’ (useful) people• Maintain cultural identity and conventions• Being pro-active in keeping networks open and

growing• Maintaining profile and credibility• Getting and checking reliable information • Providing a comfort zone, a ‘safe place’• Enjoyment and affection

Individual characteristics• Ambition• Hope and positive attitudes• Character/ethos/orientation – joy of giving and helping others– Commitment to family/community

• Spirit of independence• Confidence and friendliness• Stepping ‘outside immediate comfort zones’• Personal resources (time, money, skills)

Any questions ?

• About what we did rather than what we found out• Findings and implications come

next

Shared Findings 1• Importance of family and friends• Importance of voluntary, community and faith groups• Agencies are not networking as effectively as they could be to

reach/serve minority ethnic communities• The complexity of negotiating systems and the culture of

those systems• Links between networks and informal employment processes

– Equalities issues

• Inclusive and exclusive aspects of networks• Levels of trust and reciprocity shape how networks operate

and how accessible they are for different individuals and communities

Shared Findings 2• Importance of ESOL: language and ‘space to

network’• Lack of social networks associated with poor

health• Bonding capital for emotional support and

survival• Bridging and linking capital/’weak ties’ for

‘getting ahead’• Level of education in country of origin: linked to

nature and range of networks

Shared Findings 3• Stereotypes of communities were misleading – many

exceptions, but shared values and traditions were important

• Impact of ‘network disruption’: divorce, loss of long term employment/workplace; moving home

• Cultural characteristics of networks: reflect social identities - ethnic, class or gender differences, personal interests and family histories

• Networks are not the only (or most important?) factor in moving out of poverty or enabling integration

• Other factors – access to funds and assets, education, language skills, discrimination, fiscal policy, impact of welfare reform

Key Differences 1

• Refugees do not prioritise networks although evidence suggests they are essential

• Few gender differences in networks but differences in outcomes

• Safety and security and impact of harassment “negative networks” greatest impact on integration

• Clear negative impact of dispersal on integration and types of network

• Living with children associated with poorer health

Key Differences 2

• Social Media Focus: ethnic difference in social media (QQ/ Nasra Klasa):E-bay and online trading – Made in Cumbria, R&J store – Filipino goods

• Age, class and network awareness• Digital disadvantage (rather than a clear ‘digital divide’) • Rural focus: Scattered BME populations: isolation, stress:

lack of ‘critical mass’ for organising ethnic specific community activities

• Agency focus: macro-policy issues more important than networks in addressing poverty (impact of cuts, welfare reform etc)

Recommendations • Improve access to quality language training• Encourage development of all kinds of networks• Support NGOs to work with refugees• Protect from anti-integrative attacks• Look at mechanisms to place asylum seekers near

friends and family• Prioritise support for women and Muslims• Support family reunion

Recommendations • Access to face to face advice• ESOL: addressing language barriers and ensuring

space for inter-cultural networking• Promote digital fluency and access to internet• Volunteer opportunities as a way into employment• Mentoring and peer support• Role of community based organisations:

commissioning for ‘social value’• Access to ‘vertical’ connections via agencies’

networks

Discussion

• Do these findings and recommendations seem right?

• What are the implications for policy and practice?

• What more do we need to know?• What is happening already to implement

some of these ideas?• How can the issues raised be addressed?

Acknowledgement

• Research by: Sin Yi Cheung and Jenny Phillimore• Supported by Nuffield Foundation• Further information: j.a.phillimore@bham.ac.uk • Advisory Group:– Chris Atwood, Home Office– Helen Connolly, CLG – Lisa Doyle, The Refugee Council – Ludi Simpson, University of Manchester

THANK YOU!For further information or

discussion please contact Angus McCabe

• a.j.mccabe@bham.ac.uk • 0121 415 8561

Research Team• Angus McCabe

Third Sector Research Centre

• Alison GilchristIndependent Consultant

• Asif AfridiBRAP

• Paul KyprianouPraxis CIC

• Kevin HarrisLocal Level